The Archdiocesan Newspaper Moves Ahead and Promotes Sex Education

March 9, 1993

The month after I sent Oxymoron to Cardinal Law, I read in the Boston Archdioscean newspaper, The Pilot, a glowing review of sex education written by the author of In God’s Image, Patricia Miller. Her article was called Sexuality Education – Forward or Backward? I asked The Pilot to print my critique of this article. The request was denied.

March 9, 1993

Leila Little, Executive Editor
The Pilot
49 Franklin Street
Boston, MA

Dear Leila:

Please print the enclosed short response to Mrs. Miller’s article on sex education, which appeared in The Pilot on January 29th. It’s very important that parents become aware of the teaching of the Pontiffs. This response is part of my larger critique; if you are interested in the longer form, contact me and I will forward it to you.

In advance, I thank you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

Alice A. Grayson

My Critique sent to Leila Little, Executive Director, The Pilot
Sexuality Education , Definitely Backward
A Critique of Patricia Miller,s Article
Sexuality Education, Forward and Backward
by Alice Grayson

March 9, 1993

On January 29, 1993, the Boston Pilot published an article written by Patricia Miller entitled, Sexuality Education — Forward and Backward. The article praises the document affirmed by the United States Catholic Bishops called, Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning.

On what basis is classroom sex education termed “Catholic,” as the American bishops and Mrs. Miller claim? The answer is — there is no basis. Catholic classroom sex education is an oxymoron.

On March 21, 1931, the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) issued a Decree in response to questions about Pope Pius XI’s encyclical, Christian Education of Youth. The question and answer about sex education read:

Question: May the method called “sex education” or even “sex initiation” be approved?

Answer: No. (Holy Office, Rome, March 21, 1931)

The encyclical letter of Pope Pius XI on Christian Education of Youth (Divini Illius Magistri) is the most authoritative ruling on sex education in this century. Excerpts follow:

… every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false.

… Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under and ugly term propagate a so-called sex education, …such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public… (From the encyclical Christian Education of Youth, promulgated by Pope Pius XI, December 31, 1929)

In an allocution to Catholic fathers Pope Pius XII declared in 1951:

… There is one field in which the work of educating public opinion and correcting it imposes itself with tragic urgency [i.e., classroom sex ed] … Even the principles so wisely illustrated by Our Predecessor Pius XI, in the encyclical Divini Illius Magistri, on sex education and questions connected thereto are set aside — a sad sign of the times! With a smile of compassion: Pius XI, they say, wrote twenty years ago, for his times! Great progress has been made since then! … Fathers of families… Unite… to stop and curtail these movements under whatever name or under whatever patronage they conceal themselves or are patronized. (Pius XII, Address to the French Fathers and Families, September 18, 1951)

Upholding the tradition, the Counciliar Fathers stated in Vatican II’s Declaration on Christian Education:

Since parents have conferred life on their children, they have a most solemn obligation to educate their offspring. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. (cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Divini Illius Magistri)

The documents of Vatican II clearly support the authority of Pope Pius XI.

Some appeal to the sentence, As they grow older, they should receive a positive and prudent education in matters related to sex. (Flannery, Documents of Vatican II, Costello, 1981, p. 727), as permission for classroom sex education. But this is a false assumption.

It should be noted that the Council document makes 13 references to Pius XI’s encyclical on Christian Education of Youth. It is obvious to even a casual reader, that Vatican II does not try to revoke, nullify or change the Magisterium’s constant teaching. How could it? Does anyone really expect that the popes or a council would place children in the proximate occasion of sin with sex instruction in the classroom?

Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II teaches:

Article 36

… The right and duty of parents to give education is essential, since 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 usurped by others. (Familiaris Consortio, Art. 36, 1981)

This statement above (Article 36) of the present Pope brings the Church’s position on Christian education full circle by reflecting the sentiments expressed earlier in this century by Pius XI’s encyclical Christian Education of Youth:

… 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… (Christian Education of Youth, December 31, 1929)

That classroom sex-education programs operate in all 50 states of the United States in disobedience or disregard to the Magisterium, is very serious and grave. It has brought much confusion and anxiety. Classroom sex education puts enmity between children and the authority of the Magisterium and parents living in communion with the Church. It puts children in the proximate occasion of sin. With sex-ed, our children, the potential saints of tomorrow, are being victimized and conditioned in sensuality today. Their souls are at risk. Sex-ed destroys innocence in children. Parents need to protect their children by removing them from any sex-ed program, and protesting vehemently. What’s the ‘alternative’? Demand that the schools give the full, sound and continuous instruction in religion, inclusive of modesty and an understanding of original sin.

Sincerely,

Alice A. Grayson