A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality

by sex-ed authors Barbara and Richard McBride and
Rev. Chuck Gallagher, S.J.

Alice Grayson’s Review of the Sex Education Programs

A parent program

Sadlier also produces a stand-alone product called Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality (Love and Creation, Parent Participant Book for ages 5-7), written by Barbara and Richard McBride, and Rev. Chuck Gallagher, S.J. This book, according to Sadlier, is meant for parents. It is not related to CCD programs or school programs. Except for the reference on the cover, it makes no reference to the age group of 5-7, not even a caution about the latency period. Love and Creation does not victimize children by holding them captive in a classroom while a stranger desensitizes and restructures.

Love and Creation falls into the category of “caveat emptor -let the buyer beware.” I object to this book because it is an example of how a parent sex-ed approach can go wrong. Love and Creation blurs issues and ignores the sacred. It makes the parents the victims of desensitizing exercises, falling into the familiar Planned Parenthood traps.

The sad part about this book is that it does offer insight into “what goes wrong in a marriage,” and the many questions posed; if only they were used for personal reflection between husband and wife, would be truly helpful.

Love and Creation’s greatest strength is in its focus on forgiveness and healing. Although much of the forgiveness takes place between lay people and the fact that only God can forgive sin is never mentioned in Love and Creation, it is indeed positive to say that Love and Creation in one paragraph urges parents, who have hurt each other in marriage, to go to confession, to go to Mass, and to visit the Blessed Sacrament. It must be commended for that, even though sacramental confession is under-emphasized.

The first chapter correctly emphasizes that parents are the prime educators of the child, not only by what they formally teach, but by what they do and how they live in family relationships. Mary’s parents are elicited as models, and parents are instructed to pray to Sts. Anne and Joachim for self-acceptance and openness to change. (These are the familiar buzz words of Planned Parenthood.) Why not pray for humility and purity, the virtues these saints formed so lovingly in their holy daughter?

Conditioning techniques

On page 7, parents are asked to play two word association games defining sex (in an effort to get parents thinking of themselves as “sexual persons”) and on page 8, the focus is to value sex information (back to biology). The underpinnings are that knowledge produces virtue and no limits should be placed on the process of openly talking about sex and sexual feelings, actions or attitudes (e.g., morality) (desensitizing technique).

Word Definitions

Bishop Lawrence Welsh’s Pastoral Education for Human Sexuality (March 18, 1983) is quoted:

Sexuality is the capacity of one human being to relate as male or female to another person with sensitivity, affection, generosity, and physical touch. In a unique way, then, sexuality is the vehicle for a whole variety of loving relationships with self, others, and God. It cannot be narrowly defined as the act of reproduction
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 9

Bishop Welsh, and Love and Creation, make all our human relationships “sexual relationships” and desacralize marital intercourse by reducing it to biological reproduction rather than respecting it as deeply personal and deeply connected with the Trinitarian mystery and procreation.

Sadlier says:
Sexuality is not simply a large part of our humanness, it is a dominant part of our whole personhood.
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 9

Sadlier then plays a word twist game of double meaning for those parents who want to play.

We are striving to educate our children, and ourselves, for sex, not away from it.
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 9)

Sadlier is not honest in using sex to mean different things. If it (sex) means “living our lives as male and female,” then one would be hard put to find parents who don’t buy pants for boys and dresses for girls! If Sadlier means sexual intercourse, then children, who by definition are not married should not be “educated for sex.”

For the consecrated celibate, it is a tenable disservice to condition him to think that all his relationships are fundamentally sexual. By blurring the meaning of male and female with sexual, the consecrated celibate will eventually become impure, because for him or her especially, relationships based on dating or sexual attraction are forbidden. Mentally, the distinction must be repeatedly made, in order to foster this angelic virtue.

Values clarification exercise

Next Sadlier introduces the parents who have already participated in group discussions on “general sexuality experiences” to a values clarification exercise. The sample below contains some Church teaching about marriage and faith (which should not be the subject of agree/disagree reactions), and some fuzzy attention-getters which could be resolved with specific definition and circumstances.

Now place a check mark in front of the following statements you agree with, even a little bit:

_ Marriage is a partnership, a 50/50 proposition.

_ Romance is only for the young and unmarried.

_ Privacy in marriage is important.

_ Only a woman can truly understand another woman.

_ Women should not work unless it is absolutely necessary from a financial point of view.

_ A marriage is healthier if spouses have separate recreational outlets.

_ A man’s job is the most important factor in his self-esteem.

_ Regular time for communication is vital for a relationship.

_ Most men are irresponsible when it comes to parenting.

_ Women should develop job skills and a solid educational background before they ever think of settling down to have children.

_ A man’s self-image is most enhanced by his wife’s desire for him sexually.

_ A husband has as much responsibility for raising children as a wife.

McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 13

Sharing

With really no explanation, Love and Creation then begins a series of deeply personal questions, which are meant to be the subject of group discussion. The writer’s’ theory is correct in that the spousal sexual relationship, and thus what we as parents communicate to our children about the meaning of human sexuality, is affected by the interpersonal marriage relationship.

However, Love and Creation totally misses the privacy demands of both the sexual and personal relationship of the married couple, or for that matter, the family. Methodically, by measured degrees, the parents are asked to share more and more. The group becomes the confessor, as well as the confessee. The dimension of human sexuality as that private sacred relationship between God and each individual person, and the exclusiveness of the relationship of the couple to each other under God’s rules is ignored, because the authors are ignorant. Moreover, the questions are skewed toward naturalism. Let us review some of the questions in the order of progression:

1. What is one of your earliest positive memories of your sexuality? (e.g. a remark about how handsome or pretty you were becoming; or about your developing breasts or muscles; or about how your voice was changing and how you were “developing curves in all the right places.”) Recall how positive you felt about yourself and about the kinds of changes which were happening in and to your body. Jot down your memory of some of your thoughts and feelings. How has this memory or memories contributed to your view of your sex/sexuality today?

2. What are some of your earliest painful memories of your developing sexuality? What was the incident or incidents? How did you respond interiorly? How did you respond outwardly? What did you say or do? Did the incident or incidents linger in you for a long time? How?

NOTE: Being a victim of rape, incest, indecent exposure, witnessing the sexual activity of someone else, graphic sexual fantasy, pornography, etc., are not as unlikely a part of a person’s history as we would wish. If incidents of this type are a part of your experiences, facing that reality now is a step toward healing. Of course this does not preclude professional help if there is need.

Some less dramatic, but nonetheless painful examples might be: references to flat-chestedness or small penis size; being teased about wearing braces or glasses; having acne; beginning menstruation very early or very late; having an undescended testicle and having it noticed or fearing that it will be noticed by others; having very little pubic hair or having too much too soon; not understanding a dirty joke or being visibly embarrassed by such a joke; looking too young and being labeled naive; looking older and being labeled “loose and fast”; not seeming to be attractive to anyone of the opposite sex; seeming to be very attractive and not knowing how to handle it; asking a question about sex and being laughed at and made fun of.

3. Is one or more of these experiences still a barrier for you now in how you see yourself sexually or in how you respond sexually to your spouse? Or how did they affect your relationship with your ex-spouse? In what ways do these experiences and memories still manifest themselves in your behavior and attitudes today?

4. Now reverse your thinking for a moment. Can you recall being the cause of hurt for someone else’s developing sexual self-image? How did you see yourself afterward? Did you ever seek forgiveness?
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, pp. 19 & 20

Note the preoccupation with sexually graphic topics — its over-emphasized importance of breast size, penis size, pubic hair, etc.

Presumption of psychological oppression

Next, Love and Creation presents another list concerning “relational topics.” This time no group discussion is called for. Instead, the authors instruct the parents to select one or two topics for interpersonal discussion. The underlying assumption is that all married couples are suffering in at least one of these categories. Moreover, the agenda includes problems concerning: “sexual equality” (feminism), inadequate sex information (Pelagianism), and “suffering” from Church teachings on injustices (dissent).

Love and Creation then goes on to define intimacy:

Think about this definition of intimacy: Intimacy is close, personal involvement with another person or persons which results in self-revelation, self-appreciation, tenderness, sensitivity, compassion, and freedom to be oneself and which gives a sense of belonging. Some further considerations:

1. Intimacy always involves the qualities of a person’s personality and sexuality, masculinity or femininity.

2. Intimacy includes listening, patience, presence, tenderness, and forgiveness.

3. Intimacy for a married couple is expressed and deepened by sexual intercourse.
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 26

(Note the emphasis on freedom to be oneself. Note the sexual component in all human relationships. Note the value placed on “self-appreciation and self-revelation.”)

Love and Creation then states:

4. Lack of intimacy in any relationship results in: distance, distrust; measuring; pettiness; selfishness and self-centeredness; taking the other for granted; hurt; anger; lack of tenderness; fear; harshness; rigidity; defensiveness.
(McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 26)

One can only conclude that the authors believe that all relationships should become intimate. This simply is not true. People have numerous friends, who they enjoy and treat with respect and trust, but, for any number of reasons they do not form deep, interpersonal commitments with them (or include close, personal familiarity), which, by the way, is the correct definition of intimacy.

After carefully reviewing a host of deeply personal questions, and defining intimacy as sharing all with all, Love and Creation turns the totality of the parents’ perceptions and experiences of sexuality and problems of marital relationships over to group discussion.

Moreover, Love and Creation’s loose grouping of “all” parents eventually leads to an undermining of Church teaching. Throughout the series, Love and Creation addresses, as a group, sacramentally married spouses who are parents and single parents who are divorced, or whose marriage has been annulled, or who have never been married. With regard to the grouping of all parent types together, in relationship to sex and dating, the teaching Church does not group. Different rules apply to the truly single person (annulled or never been married) and to the divorced (still sacramentally married). Love and Creation writes:

For Singles

In what ways do these symptoms and my behavior affect my appreciation of my own sexuality? my behavior with and attitudes about persons of the opposite sex? my relationship with my former spouse? my dating?
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 28

Love and Creation does not make clear that dating is reserved only for the non-married. Those with former spouses may not date, and whenever possible, reconciliation should be the goal. Sadlier continues the confusion, and seems to give sanction to those couples living as married, when in actuality they are not, by calling them married.

For couples not presently married in the Church: What interior conflicts have I experienced as a result of this session? What positive steps can I take to resolve these conflicts in a disposition of intimacy and love with my spouse, my God, and my Church?
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 30

Desensitization Communication Techniques

In the concluding chapters of Love and Creation, “sharing” is reintroduced and refined. “Looking into another person’s eyes” and physically expressing affection (hand holding, hugging, arm around shoulder) are discussed as techniques of communication.
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 34

Next Sadlier Includes Touching in the Definition of Trust.

Trust is the key to both sharing and listening. A very important sign of trust is touch. Touch communicates trust, caring, welcome, and belonging.
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 35

Common sense simply dictates that trust must be kept independent of physical affection, and physical affection must be carefully monitored to be expressed at the proper time, with the proper people, in the proper way.

Criticism

Love and Creation also “misses the boat” on criticism. Love and Creation condemns all criticism, and with it, wipes out the positive values of fear, rules, punishment, and fulfillment of duties.

… Criticism is perhaps the greatest single “killer” in a love relationship. It kills self-esteem, hope, and love. Self-criticism is as dangerous an enemy. It reduced us to mere functionaries and encourages us to think and act as caretakers and proprietors rather than lovers in any and all relationships. We then tend to control our own life and the lives of those who share life with us through fear, rules, punishment, and a focus on fulfilling duties. The more Christian alternative is to be unconditional lovers who strive to grow in self-discipline, sensitivity, prayer, and joyful hope.
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 43

Sadlier does not comprehend that unconditional love never implies unconditional acceptance of any behavior. Loving the sin becomes mixed up with loving the sinner in Love and Creation.

Conclusion

I object to Sadlier’s parent book Love and Creation because it is influenced by a permissive, humanistic philosophy in terms of its misunderstanding of human sexuality, and in terms of its desensitizing approach.

All of Love and Creation cannot be condemned, however. Love and Creation contains some good questions, good prayers, and good quotes. Interestingly enough, there is a definition of matrimonial spirituality in this book that is quoted from Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s Pastoral Letter on The Sacrament of Matrimony (1982). Archbishop Hunthausen magnificently captures the ultimate value of human sexuality — that human sexuality is ultimately very important, and it contains within its physical expression the expression of Trinitarian love and spousal love of Christ and His bride, the Church. This statement is a solid foundation for an authentic parent guide, and my suggestion, with regard to Love and Creation, would be for you to keep this quotation, send the personal questions to specialists (priests and lay persons who work with hurting marriages), and delete the rest:

Hunthausen Letter

Critical to our understanding of matrimonial spirituality is to admit that it is sexual. In Christian understanding, what distinguishes married love from every other human relationship is that husband and wife relate to each other with a degree of sexual intimacy that is unique in human relationships…sexual love is therefore a constitutive part of matrimonial spirituality, not something secondary or accidental.

In this context, however, sexual love does not refer to sexual activity as an isolated reality. It is one facet of a larger whole. In the light of divine revelation, sex is rooted in, and expressive of, that total commitment to each other as persons which prompts them to enter into a permanent union of self-sacrificing love. While truly passionate, this love is also truly other-centered rather than self-centered … sexual union is a kind of sacrament, at once signing forth and giving expression to the sacred quality of the couple’s love, a love so rich and all-encompassing that it melts the two persons into one.

In this understanding, making love challenges the couple to translate what is signified into living reality—to pursue a oneness of life and a perfection of love which brooks no obstacles. It summons the couple to rise above egoism and the quest for self-gratification. It encourages a couple to become completely devoted and responsive to each other. It also entails toward one’s beloved a vulnerability which evokes tenderness, and an absorption in the other which frees one to experience an ecstasy of union not unlike a contemplative’s union with God in the heights of prayer.

By their sexual desire for each other, then, every aspect of a couple’s relationship is heightened and perfected. This desire is fundamental to their spirituality, energizing them to pursue a love which knows no bounds, but reaches beyond the confines of their personal lives to embrace the entire Body of Christ, the Church. In a profoundly Christian sense, sexuality calls forth greatness from husband and wife, fashioning them for their role in the church. At the same time, the sexuality of committed couples equips the church for its mission to the world, calling forth greatness from us all. Thus, the sexual aspect of married love contributes to the growth of the church, which proclaims a Gospel of self-sacrificing love.

From Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen’s Pastoral Letter on the Sacrament of Matrimony, 1982
McBride & Gallagher, Love and Creation — A Family Program in Sexuality and Spirituality, 1985, p. 29