My critique of the Ad Hoc Committee was sent to Cardinal Law at the same time as my “Challenge” letter

Alice Ann Grayson
Boston, MA 02110

May 4, 1994

Cardinal Bernard Law
2121 Commonwealth Avenue
Boston, MA 02135

Dear Cardinal Law,

I have studied your March 8, 1994, letter to me regarding sex education. I understand that it was proper for you to seek help in reviewing my letter/book “Catholic Classroom Sex Education is an Oxymoron.” I do request that you read today’s letter by yourself, in its entirety, because it’s not long, and it will show you that you are making a big mistake by allowing the Church to teach – the kind of material the Ad Hoc Committee favors.

Your concluding sentence of your March 8th letter, however, is hopeful. It reads, “ . . . am confident the truth will remain at the core of all our teaching.” I pray, Cardinal Law, that our Lord will attune your ears to His voice.

Love,

Alice Ann

P.S. I have also written an analysis of your response to me concerning the Ad Hoc Committee report. I submitted a copy of the analysis to Msgr. Murphy if you wish to read it.

AN ANALYSIS OF CARDINAL LAW’S RESPONSE

Alice Ann Grayson

On March 8, 1994, Cardinal Law responded to me regarding my book, which I submitted to him a year ago – Lent 1993. It is entitled: “Catholic Classroom Sex Education is an Oxymoron.”

I urged him to conform to the Magisterium and ban sex education classes in the Archdiocese of Boston. His response manifested confidence in an Ad Hoc Committee, whose members are unnamed, which he had formed to review both my book and also the sex education activities of the Archdiocese. He sent me the Ad Hoc Committee report. Cardinal Law’s confidence is regrettable, inasmuch as the committee’s report reveals internal inconsistency, and adherance to a fundamental error.

Namely, the Ad Hoc Committee, with its apparent predeteintined mindset, holds that teaching sex to children in the classroom setting is by nature a morally acceptable activity, and in fact, is required by the mission of the Church, Specifically, the report says:

A. While it is true that sex education can be taught in a way that is harmful to children and youth, it is not true that Sex-Education must necessarily by its nature be bad. Not every approach to sex education need be, in the author’s word, sleazy or filthy or a matter of erotic stimuli or an occasion of sin. (This is a paraphrase of their words.)

B. In the judgment of the people at the meeting, Mrs. Grayson does not prove her case that education and sexuality in the Catholic academic setting is contrary to magisterial teaching. The church in its educational mission has the right and the responsibility to offer responsible education and formation in every dimension of human personhood and therefore in the area of human sexuality, such teaching must always be done in the context of Catholic doctrine.

Taken in totality, the Ad Hoc Committee was not able to make the distinction between clinical sex information, which has been condemned by Roman Pontiffs since the Council of Trent (in particular by the Encyclical of Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius magistri) and holy formation and education in moral catechesis. Pope Pius X takes care to identify in his encydical, elements of natural and Divine Law concerning sexuality education which hold for all time. Specifically, he condemn values datification, relativism, Palagianism, weakness of human nature due to onginal Sin, naturalism, and invasion of privacy in both subject matter (sex instruction); as well as invasion of privacy in pedagogical methods. Later papal teachings all refer and defer to this famous encyclical which cannot be recinded, any more than Humanae Vitae can be recinded. Subsequent papal teachings certainly expand on Pope Pius X teaching, and therefore identify additional elements in sex education courses which are evil.

These elements are creeping theological errors, such as androgyny (inclusive of a neutered God), and God’s commandments transformed to God’s suggestions (self autonomy). Likewise, the holy Ponliffs of this century have rightly condemned the political agendas and the heresies of the feminists, homosexuals, contraceptors, and pro-abortionists. In recent years, these political agendas have slipped into the sex education programs, and when present, by nature, are evil.

In Summary: (1) The committee very noticeably does not offer any recognition of these documents – succinctly presented to Cardinal Law in my book. (2) Nor does it discuss why these teachings should be non-binding; other than to relegate them to a classicistc past. (3) Further, the Ad Hoc Committee offers no authentic source for their claim to have the right to teach formal clinical sex instruction. The Ad Hoc Committee is therefore mistaken in their conclusion and so, catholic classroom sex education is indeed an oxymoron.

When the Ad Hoc Committee advocates “sex education within the context of morality” at best, they mean instruction in the how to’s and what’s of the sexual act, coupled with some Christian ethics. Otherwise, their report would not have said the following:

A. If to classroom instruction there was added education in chastity would that help, or if sex- education was put in the context of chastity would that be acceptable to her?

B. Mrs. Grayson is using the mystery argument not for the reality of sexuality, but rather for the teaching of sexuality. In the teaching, one is not necessarily pushing the neutrality argument. Mystery does not necessarily mean reticence on the part of the teacher. Mystery does not mean an inability or an unwillingness to talk about the reality of sex.

. . . Today is far more frank and open and that might be deplored. On the other hand though there seems to be a black and white world whereas it is also possible to say there can be some type of formal instruction where sexual education is given in the line of Christian living in schools and in a situation that is very supportive of the parents. The boundaries for privacy have fallen away.

The “fallen away boundaries” is the opened Pandora’s box that I have discussed so thoroughly in my book. Even the child, whose parents exclude him from the classroom is not protected because he hears a repeat of “sleazy” conversation in the lunchroom and playground.

The central problem with the Ad Hoc Committee’s report is that its members do not understand the essential nuptial meaning of married love. Holy marriage reflects the relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity; it reflects the spousal relationship of Christ with His bride – His Mystical Body. Therefore, induded in the sacred mystery of married love – as well as a person’s understanding of this mystery and its expression – is the concept of privacy – exclusivit -one to one – hidden – singular and unrepeatable – unique – personal.

Contrary to the Ad Hoc Conunittee’s understanding, and in keeping with the constant teaching of the Magisterium, the act of teaching children about sex is intrinsically related to the subject matter itself – and therefore, the act of teaching, commands a value response that is reverent and respectful of the private, exclusive realm of the person. Teaching cannot violate the rights of the child’s future spouse – nor the rights of God, both of whom have claims on the body’s hidden aspects. (Open teaching also violates the privacy of the teacher and his spouse.)

A teacher simply does not teach sex, he teaches a room full of individual people. Talking about body parts, sexual acts, perverted sexual acts, and elements that yield pleasure has the effect of group sex. A child’s privacy is stripped by everyone’s presence in the room. Moreover, innocence is taken away when children learn about descriptions, technique, and pleasure; it can never be erased.

When the Ad Hoc Committee asserts that the educational mission of the Church concerns “every dimension of personhood and – therefore sexuality,” it cannot mean “license” to violate the sacredness and privacy of the sexual sphere.

The church should be properly concerned with the well-being and salvation of her mystical body; that is, man’s virtue and goodness, a just society, and redemption. It can preach and teach the meaning of married love, but it cannot teach formal clinical sex info in the classroom.

If the opposite were true, and teaching did not have to respect privacy, then there would be no reason for the students or teachers to wear dothes in this academic situation – or for that matter, a live demonstration could instruct most effectively if knowledge of such matters were the goal. (I know of a case in Boys Town, Omaha, Nebraska, where a teacher actually said that she showed her students where their reproductove organs were using her own body.)

Even when the Ad Hoc Committee, on page 5, lists three purposes of teaching human sexuality, which essentially posit formation rather than information, their second description is somewhat backwards and skewed. It reads, “The purpose of education in human sexuality is also to give each learner an appreciation of chastity as a virtue (p. 2 no. 2). The truth is that virtue gives the person an appreciation of sex, and its meaning, not vice versa That is why teaching the meaning of sexuality can only be done in the context of all the virtues and as part of a study of religion.

It is the error of naturalism to say that sex is natural, ergo teaching sexual details engender a healthy appreciation of sex and chastity. It is a denial of our fallen nature, and Pius Xl condnnns it for this reason. (Dr. Gerald Benitz. 1994)

The Ad Hoc Committee refers to Dietnch von Hildebrand’s giant works concerning married love. It is important to clarify that both Dietrich and his wife Alice deplore teaching sex in the classroom. A recent translation of a speech delivered on October 23. 1993, at the CUF Conference reveals that Dr. Alice von Hildebrand said:

“Sex is intimate. It is my secret. This is why we hide it. This is why we veil it. It should not be open to everyone’s view. Even in primitive tribes people cover this part of their body because it is a secret, a mystery, and shouldn’t be exposed to everyone’s look.

This is why I am so opposed to the shameless sex education that is widespread in our schools – where all of the sudden something which is personal, which is intimate, which is my secret, is openly discussed as if it was something either neutral or something purely scientific, or even something a little bit saucy, thus it is fun to discuss together.

It is an abomination. It is a desecration. My secret is to be kept a secret, until God himself gives me permission in the Holy Sacrament of matrimony where I can Lay to my spouse, ‘Here are the keys of the garden that I have kept for you. No one has stepped into it and now I give you these keys’ trusting that you will love me and you will use it in a way that is pleasing to God. This is a great moment.”

In February 1992, Cardinal Law wrote me and asked me to specifically provide samples of objectionable pedagogical material from the programs which were used by the Archdiocese. My book was a willing “yes” to his request, and actually critiqued 14 programs in current use.

It is a glaring oversight that the Ad Hoc Committee report doesn’t confront the objectionable data. The Committee acknowledges in abstract that sometimes abuses creep into sex education prograns – like classroom conditioning or dissent. Yet, when the Committee addresses a small number of the programs which are promoted by the Archdiocese, the report focuses on their history and affirms them – rather than admitting thei deficiencies.

What is at issue here is the salvation of souls – those of innocent children, misinformed professionals, and more personally, the Cardinal’s very own soul.

By his willingness to follow the advice of the Ad Hoc Committee, he continues to teach children, by using the Benziger “Family Life Program,” to re-define the family as a “group of people who live together and love one another.” (Grade 5 Text, p. 6- 7 of my book). Cohabiting couples and practicing homosexuals become “family” in the children’s eyes, by his endorsing this program. So much for Holy Matrimony, it’s gone. I can barely hold back my tears

Examine what the Archdiocese of Boston teaches children in the Franciscan Video Series,
“In God’s Image.”

“Chances are you will not get these diseases if you are not sexually active or have engaged in oral sex, which is genital kissing or climaxing in the mouth
(From your Franciscan Video program,”In God’s Image”)

Is this truly his own idea of formation in virtue? Or, does it belong to the Ad Hoc Committee and its program’s author, Patricia Miller? The U.S. Catholic conference of Bishops are allowing Miller to speak for them at their teacher workshops interpreting their recent document, “Human Stxuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning.” Miller is certified as a sex educator by the American Association of Sex Educators, Connselors, and Therapists (ASSECT) the largest multi-disciplinary sexological organization and the only such certifying for Planned Parenthood teachers.

The Ad Hoc Committee indicated to me, and thereby to the children under the Cardinal pastoral care, that it is “Catholic” for one of their accepted author, Kiernan Sawyer, in “Choices and Decisions,” to teach the following about so called “gender seicuality”:

“Question: What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

Answer: The Bible clearly condemns homosexual activity, however, modern biblical scholarship suggests that the condemnation is often directed toward homosexual acts by heterosexual persons They hold that the contemporary questions concerning loving sexual activity between consenting adults in a committed loving relationship was simply not, addressed in the scriptures…”
(Directors Manual, 1990, p. 83 )

“Choices and Decisions” by Kiernan Sawyer is an excellent sample of values clarification, dissent, and the political agendas of the contraceptors, the abortionists, and the homosexuals. It grieves me that Cardinal Law allows himself and Christ’s beloved bride to be identified with such a syllabus.

The Ad Hoc Committee claims that the St. Margaret Family Life offered many pertinent resources. The resources discussed in class at St. Margaret lectures are detailed descrptions of all methods of contraceptives. The Ad Hoc Committee suggests a need to update according to grade levels. One wonders how one updates contraceptive information – Norplant, perhaps?

Or maybe it’s best to call to mind the first sample of erotic stimuli which I submitted to Cardinal Law – as far back as 1988 – a sample from Nancy Hennessy Cooney’s book, “Understanding Sex and Sexuality.” Nancy, who signed the solidarity ad in the New York Times on March 2, 1986, advocating that abortion could sometimes be a morally valid choice, instructs children that – “The Mound of Venus’ contains nerve endings that all add to Sexual excitement when rubbed or pressed.”

Children are then required to study the obstetrical view to leanrn the female reproductive anatomy. One ponders, why the anus is included under “reproductive anatomy!” I wonder how is it humanly possible for Cardinal law to allow this filth and dissent to go on unchecked?

On what grounds does he allow pro-abortion advocates to teach our Catholic children? How has he explained this to Catholic parents? Or, is the information about the author simply not revealed?

Is it possible that Cardinal Law is so busy that he allowed this committee to do all his reading of my letter to him? Isn’t this last example a perfect example of what Pope John Paul II condemned in Familiaris Consortio (37) when he told parents:

“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 lending to the loss of serenity . . . while still in the years of innocence . . . by opening the way to vice.”

“Sex information without moral principles” deplored by our Pope in no way gives license to a program of sex info with morality. After children learn in class about “rubbing the Mound of Venus,”shouldn’t Cardinal Law agree that no amount of true morals added to this teaching can restore their lost innocence. Shouldn’t this never, never be taught, at any age?

For sure, the Ad Hoc Committee was right on one thing. I call their programs “sleazy, filthy, a matter of erotic stimuli, and an occasion of sin,” how could anyone call those exaples anything else?

By placing their bets on the chastity cartel of sex educators, who claim their programs are “Catholic,” Cardinal Law’s Ad Hoc Committee was either unwilling or unable to grasp the simple difference between heretical, clinical, erotic sex information, and the proper foi in moral catechesis. The clinical sample dlied above simply makes open, public, and profane what is by nature private intimate, and sace& whereas fo in purity “keeps the sexual secret hidden as a dominion whose disposition lies in the hand of God.” (Dietrich von Hildebrafld) Therefore, this fow needs to be part of teaching the entire Faith – and proceeds gradually, delicately. cautiously, and prudently under the principle of parental subsidiarity

It is impossible to pass the above samples off as “`chastity” fosiiiafion or Catholic moral law, and good parents everywhere know that to fry to do so is a charade

More could be said about the Ad Hoc Committee’s excessive wilhin to let parents off the hook, when Familiaris Consou2o says exactly the opposite – in articles #36 and 37. It is to families alone, that God, with his• gift of grace, confides the well being on the child- It is through them, by their request and consent, that others help. In article 40, Pope John Paul II calls for families to join together to speak against ideologies opposed to the Christian Faith. Pope Pius X named sex education as one such ideology on September 18, 1951. and called on parents to stop it. setting the precedent for Famiiaris Consortio (40). Article 36 reads in part:

As the Second Vatican Council recalled:

Since parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be atknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it. For, it devolves on parents to create a family atmosphere so animated with . love and reverence for Cod and others that a well rounded personal and social development will be fostered among the children. Hence, the family is the first school of those social virtues which every society needs. (Declaration on Christian Education, 3)

The right and duty of parents to give education is essential. ince it is connected with the transmission of human life; it is original and primary with regard to the educational role of others, on account of the uniqueness of the loving relationship between parents and children; and it is irreplaceable and inalienable, and therefore incapable of being entirely delegated, to others or unsurped by others, in addition to these characterislics, it cannot be forgotten that the most basic element, so basic that it qualifies the educational role of parents, is parental love, which finds fulfillment in the task of education as it completes and perfects its service of life: as well as being a source, the parents’ love is also the animating pinciple and therefore the norm inspiring and guiding all concrete educational activity, enriching it with the values of kindness, constancy; goodness, service, disinterestedness and self-sacrifice that are the most precious fruit of love.

The Ad Hoc Committee furthermore appears unscholarly or favorable, to dissent when the report speaks on the philosophy of Dietrich von Hildebrand, in its relationship to Herbert Doms. In a. private letter written to me, JamesLikoudis, President of Catholics United for Faith, writes:

“I would only add as another indication of the profoundly uncritical stance exhibited by the members of the AD HOC COMMITTIEE that they appear unaware that the Herbert Dams referred to as an expert on moral theology was the subject of much criticism by other theologians for his view on the primary end of marriage. This view expressed in the book, “Vom Sinn und Z,weckder Ehe” (Breslau, 1935) was the object of a specific censure by Pope Pius Xl in 1951 . . . and again rejected by Vatican II in the debate that took place over the presentation of marriage in “Gaudium et Spes.”

Disturbed by the shallow review rendered by the Ad Hoc Committee, James Likoudis drafted his own aitique of the Ad Hoc Committee report. He writes that clinical sex in.fo± put in the context of chastity doesn’t mix – just like “oil and water” don’t mix. He asks why the Committee’s views should “detennine the policy on sex education for a whole Archdiocese?” Or why should the Committee’s views be “more persuasive than mine?” James Likoudis calls the Benziger claim to family life a “uavesty of uuth,” and he deLdes the Falagianism, the dimunitiort of a healthy sense of original sin, values clarification, and desensitization found in that series. He says Benziger constitutes an “unconscionable violation of the law of subsidiarity by the schools involved in a power grab. for the family!”

James Lilcoudis exclaims Why parents with a “classic” or “Agustinian of sexuality” should surrender their control of the sex education process to “professionals” celebrating their “romantic approach” to life! (also demands explanation by the members of the AD HOC COMMITTEE.)

Mr. Lilcoudis challenges Cardinal Law and the Ad Hoc Committee to fix the problem even using their own arguments:

Expressions of a future hoped-for “significant improvement” in sex education programs already in place does not resolve the actual injustice to parents and children that have been and are being perpetrated.

The AD HOC COMMITTEE lamely admits that “everyone would agree that any (sexual) conditioning process in a classroom situation poses many difficulties.” Indeed! If it be true, incidentally, that “the public school setting is where the real battle (on sex education) has be to fought, one may wonder why the AD HOC COMMITTEE has not urged the Cardinal Archbishop to call upon Catholic parents to boycott the sex education programs in public schools corrupting Catholic children. Are not Catholic children in the public schools?

Thus, it appears that the Committee’s report is illogical and unscholarly. More importantly, I think the report reveals the hiart of the problem with sex education – namely a Cardinal who places his trust in and is willing to follow people who are experiencing a . in Faith. The Ad Hoc Committee writes:

“She pushes biweekly confession But she says confession is opposed to the concept of self- esteem. This statement can be questioned.”

“She has some extreme views on self love being pernicious and what not.”

“Her view may be considered some what Augustinian. Hers is a Inure sin oriented theology with redemption and grace apparently not being the more prominent themes.”

It is not I but the Holy Mother Church who advocates biweekly confession. This practice is a source of inestimable grace, which removes the blindness from man’s eyes. Through this pracfice, sin is forgiven, virtue is increased, and the penitent is allowed to merit plenary indulgences for himself, and for the poor souls in purgatory. I don’t see how we can turn a deaf ear to these souls. Can Cardinal Law?

Confession does combat the sin of pride. I found that these sex-ed courses foster a dangerous pride which leads to self-autonomy at the expense of the wisdom of the Church. It is also my experience that confessing sin is a humbling activity – humbling – but at the same time – a great teacher of just how much God loves me, Interesting that St. Augustine would say that really – God thinks man is worth as much as His own Son’s life!

My view, called by the Ad Hoc Committee “Augustinian” is said to be a sin-oriented theology. I think of an ejaculation I say sometimes during the day, It goes, “Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior,” This is a fundamental statement of the fruth of the Catholic Faith. Jesus Christ cannot redeem man with His grace, unless man stands i need of redemption. Man, because of his fallen nature, is a sinner, and, but for Christ, would destroy himself. If there is no sinner, then, there is no need of a saviour.

In defense to the criticism of the Ad Hoc Committee, I would say, that although I am poignanfly aware of the sins of impurity, especially relating to the sex education pro I am equally and consequentially aware of God’s Grace and Mercy. “Where sin abounds, grace more abounds” (Romans 5:15) says St. Paul, and this glorious thought fills me with hope – for Cardinal Law – and for the children.

The concluding sentence of the Ad Hoc Committee’s report suggests that I believe that a Catholic educational system should have little to say on matters of sexual ethics, and that silence could be read the wrong way. Neither my book, nor my personal conversation with Cardinal Law, ever has suggested that the Church should say nothing. To say nothing is tantamount to pastoral neglect.

Therefore, I am in total agreement with Cardinal Law, especially in these days of promiscuity, that the Catholic Church, in the pulpit, in the confessional, and in the classroom, should have a good deal to say about purity and holy matrimony In fact, even last November I sent to Msgr. Murphy’s office at the Chancery a copy of a letter I wrote to Msgr. Peter Elliott and to Cardinal Trujillo of the Pontifical Council of the Family. This letter outlines the public or classroom teaching of Purity – age appropriate – with parental advocacy, of course. In part, this letter instructs:

Purity Concepts

1. Purity is that virtue which keeps the sexual secret hidden as a dominion whose disposition lies in the hand of Cod.
(Dietrich von Hildebrand)

2. Conjugal relations is ordered to wedded love and thus involves affection and privacy. This distinguishes it from animal sexuality.

3. The gift of masculinity and femininity, of fecundity, is veiled in sacredness and mystery, and, like all of the sacred, must not be entered without permission and purification (i.e. sacramental marriage). It is an intimate realm – a remnant of paradise – where God dwells with man, and shares with him in the procreation of human life.

4. Purity of the body symbolizes man’s persorhood – that mnt does not belong to himself, but to God. He is not free to do as he wishes, but as he is commanded. “The body is not mine, but Thine.”

5. Being mystery, some nuptial intimacies should never be taught. Man cannot, nor should not, completely “know” a mystery. Moreover, it remains for husband and wife exdusively to unveil some of its personal secrets.

6. To be pure, one cannot rely on self-discipline and self-respect alone. We are dependent on grace, and our fallen nature is vulnerable to sin.

7. One must be careful about discussing sexual matters because of its private and sacred character. Conversation must never become detailed or commonplace. Conversation must never invade the privacy of others.

8. Nowadays, human sexuality is associated with rights (even to kill) – always with problem – like the “burdens” of raising children, like S.T.D.s (diseases), and now with AIDS – even death. We need to return to the Catholic view of the complimentary of the sexes and fecundity. Linking maitial relations with its true meaning – a gift- and view babies too – as the most precious wedding gift which God gives to husbands and wives in marriage. Sex belongs to babies and marriage.

9. Consecrated celibacy is like consecrated marriage, in that it is the very culmination of self-donation.

10. The proper human response to instruction on the nuptial meaning of the body is that of reverence. Reverence gives proper value to the mystery, recognizes the divine gifts of virtue and grace, and respects what is veiled.

In addition, I wrote in that letter that a classroom discussion could include:

1. A study of “Humanae Vitae.”

2. Reality of fallen human nature and need of grace and the sacraments as well as emphasis on saintly role models, especally Mary and Joseph. Much more, of course, can be included with regard to marriage and courtship in relationship to holiness. These topics can be adjusted according to the group and age.

3. St. Augustine’s “three goods of marriage.”

4. Sacramental marriage is an expression of Trinitarian Love.

5. The conjugal act is fundamentally a message – an expression – a conveyor of meaning (self-donation).

6. Purity of the body is related to purity of the soul.

7. A clear, delicate, positive, and prudent text – read privately is appropriate when parents request and review such a text for their own child.

8. Private counseling is appropriate when parents ask for assistance.

It is a bothersome and perplexing mystery why the Ad Hoc Committee refuses to acknowledge that I advocate pastoral care and proper formation.

The Ad Hoc Committee, appointed by Cardinal Law, neither refutes my claim that Cardinal Law’s policies are in contridiction to the constant teaching of the Church on this subject;. nor does their report provide any authoritative Catholic teaching to justify the Archdiocese’s persistence in teaching clinical sex intorittation, values clarification, and anti-Catholic political agendas in the classroom. I have submitted to Cardinal Law these documents, dating from the Council of Trent through to current references on formation in Familiaris Consortic. Because he is the servant of God, and shepherd of his people, he is not free to sweep these teachings under a rug. Besides, Cardinal Law has always indicated a desire to want to do the right thirtg His cover letter of March 8th concludes with this sentence:

“I am confident the Lord will guide us all in His truth and that the truth will remain at the core of all our teaching and preaching.”

Thus, before Christ, present in the Eucharist, I pray that Cardinal Law will claim his rightful authority and put an end to sex info programs in Catholic schools, and tell parents to exclude their children in public school when such programs cannot be eradicated. Even the Ad Hoc Committee warns Cardinal Law about public school sex education!

Sex education programs are not formation in morality as my samples so easily illustrate. It is Cardinal Law’s duty before God, to obey the Magisterium. We are talking about the salvation of souls – the children’s, the professionals’, and Cardinal Law’s very own. Please God, that he obeys.

I have written Cardinal Law, begging him on my knees, in 1994, to respond to the regulative norms of natural law and constant doctrine set forth in Pope Pius X “Christian Education of Youth” (copy attached), in the same manner in which Pope Paul V exhorted priests to assent to “Humanae Vitae” in 1968: .

Your first task – especially in the case of those who teach moral theology – is to expound the Church’s teaching on Marriage without ambiguity. Be the first to give, in the exercise of your ministry the e of loyal internal and exter,zal obedience to the Magisterium of the Church. As you know well, that obedience obliges not only because of the reasons adduced, but rather because of the light of the Holy Spirit, which is given in a particular way to the Pastors of the Church in order that they may illustrate that truth.

It is my prayer that Pope Pius XI,the champion of parents on this issue, from his heavenly dwelling place, will intercede before God for Cardinal Law, for the grace to open his eyes to God’s truth.

In the risen Christ,

Respectfully submitted.

Alice Ann Grayson