Alice Grayson’s Review of the Sex Education Program

Teens and Chastity
By Sex-Ed author, Molly Kelly Video

Introduction

Molly Kelly is the nation’s number one sought-after person to deliver an hour lecture to teens about sex. As mentioned before, the Archdiocese of Boston has sponsored her lecture tour. When in Boston last year Kelly spoke to students once or twice a day for four days or so. From an exposure perspective, Kelly contacts more students than any of the other programs — perhaps even combined. Fortunately this large number of students experience Kelly only once or at least at a maximum, once a year. Therefore, from a time perspective at least, whatever harm she does is more limited in scope.

Molly Kelly’s target population is teens; she frequently talks to twelve year olds up to eighteen year olds, all together in co-ed settings. Evidently Kelly is unaware that neither chastity nor sex can be discussed with the young in the same way they can be discussed with older teens and young adults. At St. Sebastian’s, regrettably hosted by the staff of the Pregnancy Help office, Kelly’s speech was clearly skewed toward older teens. Thus, she was terribly insensitive to the needs of our younger boys, and ignorant of the fact that some were still in the latency period of maturational development.

My first critique of Molly Kelly is that criticism based on her lectures, because her lectures, which all follow the same pattern as her one-hour video presentation that is called Teens and Chastity, are distinct from Kelly’s latest product (published in 1991), which is a “chastity” program guide, fully inclusive of ten full chapters of programmed discussions and activities. Commentary on her course, then, is reserved for later.

It should further be noted that Molly Kelly’s popularity is based on her lectures. Many dioceses (and children) only know Kelly this way. In our Archdiocese, the Religious Education Office does not contain Kelly’s sex-ed program guide.

Parental subsidiarity laws are almost impossible to observe in a guest lecture setting because no one can know for sure what the speaker will say. There is no pre-literature to review, and parents don’t have access to a speaker’s previous speeches. This is a problem with any guest speaker, but when the subject matter is sex education, the consequences are more serious.

With guest speakers, parents just automatically trust the judgment of the school. So often in the case of Molly Kelly, the school does not become aware that it has breached that trust until it’s too late to close the “barn door.” In many instances, the school’s judgment is wrong, and Kelly is invited for a return visit.

With regard to Molly Kelly’s lectures, a question one might wish to ask is, “Is she really that popular?” The answer is unequivocally, “Yes!” Not only her speaking schedule says so, my son says so! Two years ago I allowed Ted to attend the St. Sebastian’s lecture (partly because it was sponsored by the Pro-life office, partly because I knew Ted’s maturity level, partly because I had read a short commentary written by Kelly, which was well done, and partly because I was interested in Ted’s reactions). Of course, I went too! I returned home critical but impressed; Ted came home impressed!

Later (two years later), however, in reviewing the video rerun of the lecture topics, Ted and my younger son Tim, said they were embarrassed to listen to the contraceptive descriptions with me sitting next to them. Ted said that was “embarrassing” in school too. He felt uneasy with parents present. This comment is revealing of the subtlety of Kelly, because Kelly achieves in her presentation a status of becoming “one of the boys” — really “in” — really “groovy.” With parents present, the symbol of authority and propriety, there is present the “squirmy” feeling that things aren’t exactly right.

Also, favorably impressed with Molly Kelly is a dedicated pro-life priest friend, who is aware of the pitfalls of SIECUS type, “contraceptive tools” type, “sex-ed” programs. Kelly has also spoken to 6,000 priests in Rome and been positively received. (Of course, what she told them doesn’t resemble what she actually does. She espouses chastity, but her program is unchaste.)

Why so popular?

The burning question is, “Why is she so popular, even among some conservative Catholics?” This question deserves a full answer.

To begin with, Molly Kelly is articulate and beautiful. She looks and sounds like Carol Brady of the Brady Bunch. (It’s almost like we’ve all known her for years.)

There is no doubt that Molly Kelly believes what she says. She speaks with passion and conviction, from the heart. Her credentials for speaking are that she is a mother of eight children, has one son in-law, and recently had a grandchild. She presents herself as “Every Mom.” Moreover, she simultaneously presents herself as one of the kids — on their level — in their shoes — and very with it — as opposed to many adults who “put down kids” (which really evolves into a parent put down for any adult who doesn’t approve of her lectures).

Molly Kelly’s popularity is due in no small measure to her wit and humor. Even her examples are humorous and frequently brilliant in driving home a message.

Notably missing in her presentation is the teaching of puberty changes and instruction in the details of sexual intercourse. No terms are expected to be memorized, and in one hour, she simply cannot conduct an invasive survey into the private lives of educators who have been exposed to Benziger Family Life or New Creation or In God’s Image.)

Molly Kelly’s message does contain her own personal convictions that sexual intercourse belongs in marriage, and contraceptives are abusive to the consumer and a large profit industry is fed, from the widespread promiscuity of youth. (That too, is welcomed by conservative Catholics.)

Molly Kelly’s personal life contains a tragedy — the death of her husband, in a sudden sledding accident — while Molly’s eight children ranged from age 14 months to 12 years. This event would make any person feel compassion for her — myself included, of course. It also makes her quite credible in discussing statistics of low probability.

Lastly, in no small measure, Molly Kelly’s lectures derive their popularity from the many valuable insights about dating that she communicates to the children. With myself, they ring a familiar bell…”I’ve said that to my kids.” However it is with myself, at the proper time, in the proper way, and in the proper amount.

Thus, for all the reasons stated above, Molly Kelly is exceptionally impressive. Her lectures, more than any other I’ve encountered in sex education, make me remember the famous warning of G. K. Chesterton, “There is nothing so false as that which is mostly true”; [the devil is at his lowest when he mimics God]. I say this because her good messages get short circuited by an invasion of the same alien philosophy which permeates all the sex-ed programs previously discussed. In almost every good message, Kelly’s presentation is coupled with both humor, an error, omission, or dangerous insinuation.

Humor and Rapport

Molly Kelly’s concept of establishing rapport with “the kids” involves humor, often at the expense of the sacredness of sex, and often in an over exaggerated emphasis of the pleasurable aspects of sex. Moreover, part of this humor is such that it is inappropriate to the classroom setting, but not necessarily in a home setting where children’s maturity levels are known and the setting is not that of formal group learning. Humor is a difficult issue to deal with because we all probably take each other too seriously, and much of Kelly’s humor could really be welcomed in the classroom or the home. Let us look at Kelly’s messages, and how she weaves humor and problems together.

Her opening sentence, following her introduction as a chastity educator is, “I am happy to be here today talking to my favorite people, teenagers, about my favorite subject, [PAUSE] sex.” The students laugh, because they didn’t expect that opening line from a teacher. They thought she’d say “chastity” or “human sexuality,” or something more adultish or proper. After all, Teens and Chastity is the name of her lecture. The teen wonders: “Hmm, this could be interesting. Is she going to talk about sex or `good’ behavior?”

“Sex” “conjures up” in the mind of today’s teen the act of sexual intercourse — the pleasure and the fun — something which usually isn’t talked about publicly, in the classroom — let alone in the first sentence!

Molly Kelly then goes on to promise not to be “boring.” “Sex is never boring” declares Kelly, and she thinks sex is good, claiming, “Obviously I thought sex was a good idea; I have eight kids!” (Again, the pleasure aspect of sex is the object of insinuation.)

This opening gets the children’s attention, identifies Kelly as being capable of being “one of the guys” who zeros in on “recreational sex,” and promises an upcoming funny hour. The students are not disappointed with their expectations.

Mind you, at home, where my children and husband “know me” and know my reverence for God’s gift of human sexuality, in all its mystery and dimensions, my children wouldn’t flinch for a moment if I told them I needed to discuss my favorite subject, sex. At home, in balance, I can recognize the pleasurable/recreational aspects of human sexuality as a subject of humor or discussion, because it is contained within the mystery of husband and wife living out a holy sacramental vow. But Molly Kelly is not my kids’ mother, and home is not school.

Modesty Is Openness

Molly Kelly then goes on to tell the students that she’s honest, and that the students’ whole generation is honest because they talk about things openly. Kelly affirms that talking openly is a good thing, and infers that the opposite behavior (present in most adults) is a bad thing and dishonest. In fact she says that too many adults don’t listen to kids and that’s bad too.

Molly Kelly says she believes that the students’ generation is really better that the adult generation (which translates out to mean more caring and socially conscious). Again, the message is that Kelly is one caring, listening adult who is on the kids’ side, and she’s opposed to those adults who don’t listen and don’t talk to kids openly about everything. (In fact, she’s opposed to all adult commissions who talk about kids without kids. That’s a lot of adults!)

She cites an example of an argument she’s had with an old stodgy adult who is shocked that Molly Kelly goes around talking to teens about sex. The adult tells Kelly, “Well, Molly, you be sure to tell those kids that they have sexual feelings.”

Kelly then turns to the kids and quips, “Kids, is it a surprise to you that you have sexual feelings? You didn’t know that?” (Again, the recognition of pleasure associated with sex.) Kelly then continues that the adult warned Molly to tell the kids that it is natural to give in to those feelings. With this warning, Kelly addressed the students and responds, on their behalf, that “No, it’s not natural to give in to `feelings.’” The adult was wrong.

Ignorance of Concupiscence

In this story, Molly Kelly rejects the vulnerability of human nature. She ignores the Fatima warning that more people will sin through sexual sins than any other. In fact, Kelly’s presentation never mentions sin, its consequences, confession, or the need for prayer. Her approach is strictly Pelagian and secular. Even when she discusses the concept of secondary virginity (which actually is an oxymoron), she envisions counseling or help because of psychological injury, but never sacramental confession, repentance, and true sorrow. (Please keep in mind that Kelly speaks almost exclusively to Catholic students.)

Beware of Adults

Molly Kelly deliberately skews the teen’s thought process to be wary of adults. She doesn’t say that a child’s parents are his best advisors and best protectors. Instead, she gives the humorous example of a mother such as herself, who thinks her child is ugly, even as he grows handsomer and handsomer. When the doorbell would ring, Kelly would say “Quick, hide Mark, he’s so ugly!” The kids laugh of course. She then asks the kids if Mark thinks he is ugly, even if he isn’t, and of course, the kids nod “yes!”

The message the children receive is that whatever their parents think, they’re wrong. I’m good; I’m honest; sex is good, good, good; and the fact that I can talk about the private things of sex in a class or to a counselor proves that I’m honest.

The child becomes desensitized in the name of a virtue of honesty. One might ask, what does Molly Kelly know about the integrity of an individual child? Maybe the same as the president knows about a chicken, Mr. Purdue! And what does Molly Kelly know about the need to balance self-respect with humility? I don’t know, she doesn’t mention the word humility.

Values Clarification

Molly Kelly uses several samples of humor and desacralization of sex to emphasize her all important educational agenda of “values clarification.”

First, explaining the need for responsible decision making, she tells the students the story of her own children’s illegal, unchaperoned party that occurred while Kelly was out of town lecturing to other people’s kids. The students love this story because, as all parents of the nineties know, one of their biggest challenges is to stop the vicious cycle of sexual sin, disrespect, disobedience, alcoholic dependency, and death — both spiritual and physical — that these parties spawn.

It is not surprising that Molly Kelly treats this illegal party as a joke, listing the number of voices that came to the phone before her own son’s. She explains that her boys didn’t use good judgment. (Nothing about confession, of course.)

I wonder about Molly Kelly’s judgment, when I recall the number of times that I have had my kids and my house guarded when I have been absent. I recall my failures too, in this regard, and have asked God if I had been too stupid or too negligent or too selfish in seeking some time off without proper “coverage” in place. This story tells the students just how average and normal illegal house parties are, and just how leniently Kelly dealt with the situation. The story renames a tragedy a comedy.

In the beginning, the middle, and the end of Molly Kelly’s one-hour lecture, she says unequivocally that her purpose is not to tell the students what to do, but only to make them think. Right before the party story she says that her children don’t always agree with her, nor did she expect that they would. She says she can’t force her kids to behave, and she knows that they won’t sometimes. She blurs the distinctions between physical freedom, psychological freedom, and moral freedom.

She explains humorously that schools “can’t hold two proms, one for the drinkers who can drink and throw up on each other and one for the rest of the kids,” or that a mother can’t lock her son in a room and say to his friends, “John can’t come out and play because he’s `in heat’,” or that parents can’t run down to the drug store and stage a “rubber raid” on all the condoms. (Condoms date back to the early Greeks says Kelly — “the Trojan Wars!” Molly advertises for the contraceptive producers!) Kelly explains that no student in her “audience” should expect a phone call from Kelly in a few weeks saying “Hi, this is Molly. Did you `do it’ yet?” The students laugh and laugh…while I think… “The constant message Molly is giving to these students is that sex is pleasurable, intriguing, exciting, and it’s okay to feel free to disagree with Kelly, and Mom and Dad, and the Church. Sex is becoming increasingly more inviting. Practically her last sentence in the video is that her only purpose was to come and present the students with an informed choice. Molly says, “So you make the decision.”

I believe it is unconscionable for Molly Kelly to turn the Ten Commandments into an information-gathering exercise. The Commandments are given to man, from God, complete with His authority. Those who disobey are damned. To teach otherwise is an absolute betrayal to Church and parents. It is, of course, the road to liberation from Church and home which all sex education programs and lectures seem to share — the alien philosophy of which I have written.

Knowledge Is Virtue

Molly Kelly shares with Planned Parenthood the ludicrous belief that knowledge is virtue. She, therefore, immerses the children in the seedy corruptions of this world, and never cautions the children to avoid temptations.

Ignorance of Temptation

Molly Kelly names all the filthy popular recordings (again, proving to students that she’s really “with it”). (“Do it to me one more time.” “I want a man with a slow hand.” “Lay across my big brass bed.” “My body’s had enough of you.” “Boom, boom, go to your room.” “I want your sex.” “I want your love.”) She comments to the students that she thinks that these songs “affect them” — even desensitize them. She compares them to the innocent songs of her day — like “Sha-boom” or “Amore.” She quips that unwed pregnancy was rare then, and that “you kids probably think we didn’t know how” (again pleasure and methodology). Kelly says “We did, but we weren’t so tempted as nowadays.”

This comment is debatable; Molly Kelly never mentions Elvis Presley! Temptation has always been the companion of mankind and in all periods of salvation history, mankind has been presented with moral challenges. It is true, though, that our particular culture is permissive and sex saturated. Moreover, in our days, sex education (part of the problem — not the solution) hadn’t run rampant in the schools. Good was good and bad was bad — not a subject of opinion.

Instead of suggesting some studying, sports, or change in music, Molly Kelly goes on to list all the shallow sex-soaked movies in recent years. She asks the kids if “Dirty Dancing” would sell if it were entitled “Waltzing?” By now, the students who haven’t seen those movies, all advertised by name, are beginning to feel left out of the contemporary scene.

Crudity

Molly Kelly’s lecture certainly teaches students that they are the marketing targets of the sex industry, and that’s true. However, Kelly does that at a tremendous cost. Kelly discusses the movie called “An Officer and A Gentleman” and explains to students, ages twelve to eighteen (keep in mind) that this movie depicts love making, complete with sound effects. Kelly then goes on to make rather weird noises “Uh! Ooh! Aahh! Uh!” These noises are meant to imitate supposedly typical sexual intercourse sounds.

The students think this is uproariously funny, although many simultaneously manifest their embarrassment. I think, “…Kelly has totally drawn on their imaginations and placed them as spectators of a couple, not married, `making love.’” The sounds are particularly vulgar, and not even remotely connected to conjugal love. Again, Kelly simply accepts these dirty movies as part of the contemporary scene, never suggesting to boycott dirty movies, never suggesting to stay away from the occasion of sin. In fact, she tells of the story herself, and her son, attending one of these contemporary movies.

Molly Kelly goes on to explain the typical reaction of a boy or a girl watching these movies. Again Kelly acts this scene out. Again it is vulgar. Kelly wiggles a little and says “The girls get squirmy.” Kelly then shakes all over and says that the boys, who are more easily aroused sexually, “socks are going up and down.” Kelly stoops to pull her socks up and down.

This time, the students do not laugh uproariously. They think that Molly Kelly has gone “too far.” Simultaneously, the student body responds with a low pitched, guttural “Ooh!” (It’s the sound one makes when someone takes a verbal swing at you, and you respond in shock and amazement that the verbal swing was “below the belt.”)

Human Life International reports a similar reaction to an almost identical video after the “socks going up and down scenario,” Kelly:

…even points to a young boy in the highly excited audience and asks him whether his socks “are going up and down.” Why did she ask that? Did he seem sexually aroused to her? Did he get that way from her presentation? Did her crudity embarrass, traumatize or tempt him? How many times will his peers ask him the same question? When they do, what will come to his mind?” (H.L.I. critique, Molly Kelly’s Let’s Talk to Teens About Chastity, 1992, p. 24, 1992)

Another time this guttural “Ooh” response issued from the students is when Molly Kelly explained psycho/physical differences between males and females. Kelly explains that men reach their “sexual peak” (defined as a time of easiest physical arousal) at age seventeen. (This seemed to make all the young men in the audience very proud, rather than focusing on the corresponding responsibility connected with this. Moreover, I wonder where does Kelly get this information and why do students need to think about this?)

Then Molly Kelly asks about the age of female sexual peak. Kelly cites two studies, and then comments to the students that once, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, at a military academy, when the boys were asked that question about women, one young man boldly stood up to Kelly and answered, “forty-five.” (Molly Kelly is close to the age, perhaps a little older.) Kelly’s retort to this comment was, “He [sic, i.e., the student] was obviously getting nowhere.” The students responded with the second guttural, “Ooh!”

The underlying message, which absolutely shocked the students, is that Molly Kelly considers herself sexually attractive to her students. Now mature, pure adults just don’t think that way. In fact, I know one parent, extremely immature, who routinely climbs into skimpy bikinis and sexy street clothes. She is the subject of disdain and disgust to the teenagers who associate with her children.

Disrespect

In her lectures, frequently, Molly Kelly will impart some true information, only to make an inappropriate joke or stoop to vulgar language. She states that men and women are different, (I am pleased to see that she doesn’t buy into androgyny). Then she says that men can be fertile even through old age. She quips, “So, beware of ninety-five year old men!” So, sex is back to pleasure again. She explains that women only have “so many” eggs, and aren’t fertile throughout life. Again she quips, “You can’t go out and buy another dozen.” I think comments such as these are more disrespectful to ninety-five year old men and the sacredness of the wombs of women than they are humorous, especially because they are part of a bigger picture of disrespect. However, the comments are humorous, and so, Kelly becomes well received.

Pregnancy Viewed as the Problem

Credit is due to Molly Kelly in that she convincingly teaches students that human sexuality is not animal sexuality. She reflects that the world is not worried about pregnant elephants, and the deer population problem is solved by hunters. Yet, the student must wonder if Kelly sees world overpopulation as a problem, or pregnancy itself, as the underlying problem. Clearly, the secular humanists do. What students need to realize is that disobedience of the Commandments is the problem (mortal sin), together with its dehumanizing, humiliating effects. A resulting pregnancy, even though it involves suffering and hardship, should always be seen as a gift from God; the baby is created by God, and gifted with an offer of eternal life and intimate union with Him. Kelly just doesn’t address this aspect in her lecture, and therefore, pregnancy is simply left as a problem, and problems, of course, can be taken care of by the abortionist — as advertising indicates.

Contraception

With regard to contraception, the students certainly get the message from Molly Kelly that they don’t work, and that contraception is a multimillion dollar business whereby profiteers just use kids and don’t care about them. She explains, rather well, that contraception is a “cop out” on responsibility, and that the kids are just written off by some adults (such as those who put condoms in schools) as unable to do anything right. She compares condoms to dirty needles for drug users, or giving alcohol to the alcoholic. She convincingly teaches students that proper respect of the person means more than giving them the “tools” to be sexually active and not get caught.

Probably Molly Kelly is at her very best when she asks, “If I gave you a free plane ticket to Florida, to be used on one out of ten planes, but that one of those ten planes is going to crash, would you go?” Most every student would not take such a risk. Kelly explains that condoms have a 10 percent “failure rate” with regard to pregnancy (but, at least there, one gains a life), and that there is a 17 percent plus “failure rate” with respect to AIDS, and in that instance, a life is lost.

That this is a good example is unquestionable. That all the twelve to fourteen year olds be taught this in class by a stranger is indeed condemnable. A parent may wish to use this example and these statistics individually with the child, if the subject of contraceptives is brought up. A parent may also choose to give this information to a child in written form. Moreover, if the law of subsidiarity is observed with parental permission, this information can be communicated in a group setting to the older teen and young adult. In the right situation, parts of Kelly’s presentation could prove useful.

It is important to realize that contraceptive information has absolutely nothing to do with Catholic sexual ethics. Whether contraceptives make people rich, do or don’t work, are abusive to the body, or are otherwise harmful to the person and society, might be interesting or useful — but that’s all. The Catholic sexual teaching is that contraception is sinful and forbidden. The married couple, who obeys God’s law, and knows nothing about contraceptive information is not necessarily handicapped. They are living a chaste life and really don’t need to clutter their minds with the filth and sleaze of a contraceptive methodology or mentality.

An argument could be made, however, in the 1990s, in the United States, that it would behoove parents to learn about the evils associated with contraceptives because their children will inevitably be tempted to buy into the contraceptive/abortion industry. At the discretion of parents this information could be selectively taught, at the proper time, at the proper age, and in the proper way.

Molly Kelly, as usual, has some useful material mixed in with bad methodology and insensitivity.

Overlooking, then, for the moment, the setting, Molly Kelly teaches that spermicides cause birth defects and that the pill causes death and other medical side effects (Kelly remembers the low statistic relating to her husband’s death very effectively). Kelly instructs that the pill comes with a set of directions and side effect information that is approximately two feet long and eight inches wide of technical small print, that the pill and the IUD are indeed abortifacients, and that the diaphragm’s highest “failure” rate occurs during fertility! A student would get the idea that contraceptive manufacturers are not to be trusted, nor do they have one’s best interest at heart.

However, in typical Molly Kelly style, she is irreverent to the mystery of sexuality, and oblivious to the fact that her use of detail makes open and public what is by nature private and sacred. (Granted, it is not the detail of a New Creation, but it is unnecessary detail.) She speaks of sperms swimming as “sperm Rambo” (e.g., spermicides), of a diaphragm acting like a “trampoline” (again a visual imagery of sexual intercourse), of condoms as “rubbers,” of going too far as “revving up a motor” (again with its obvious imagery of pulsation), of ovarian eggs as a “dozen eggs,” of pregnancy as a “problem,” and in terms of a “failure.” Sex becomes associated with the gutter, and with problems, disease, and death — a depressing scene.

H.L.I. makes the following observations about Molly Kelly’s response to the teen question, “How far do you go?”:

When discussing “how far do you go,” Kelly tells the teens she wishes she had “the right answer!” Christ’s Church has answers that young people want adults to tell them. Teens are not always able to articulate what they know should be said. Therefore, not to speak to young people in terms of their Faith is to do them a great disservice.

Why can’t Kelly say wrong? Why can’t she say “God tells us it’s wrong” when teaching Catholic children in a Catholic chapel? Would she shock the kids and frighten them out of the room? Are not today’s young people (whom Kelly praises) brave enough to learn the truth? If you truly respect Catholic teens and have their best interests at heart, should you deprive them of the teaching of the Church on such important matters?” (H.L.I. review, Molly Kelly’s Let’s Talk to Teens About Chastity, 1992, p. 25)

At the St. Sebastian’s presentation, a student asked about contraceptive use in marriage, which was a legitimate question, inasmuch as Kelly never addressed the central intrinsic evil of all contraception (anti-loving, anti-life). Kelly answered by saying “The Church pushes Natural Family Planning.” I corrected her on this comment — much to the utter embarrassment of my son. However, I just could not allow Kelly to reduce periodic abstinence to just another method of anti-child birth control.

Modesty

Near the conclusion of her lecture, Molly Kelly speaks of modesty. She correctly says, in the spirit of true morality education on Catholic sexual ethics, that modesty is an important component of the virtue of chastity. She correctly identifies that modesty of the body is really a communication of a message. She accurately and articulately identifies modesty in the way we dress, how we speak, and how we manage our bodies (body language).

I have come to the conclusion that Molly Kelly’s lectures are exceptionally immodest. For, although she dresses impeccably, her body language and her verbal language is sensual, insensitive, and incredibly irreverent.

The name of her presentation, if you will recall, is Teens and Chastity. Her first sentence in her rehearsed speech is that she intends to “talk about sex,” which is very close to the name of a very immodest contemporary song, with a very immodest contemporary beat called, “Let’s Talk About Sex, Yeah, Baby.” The background music of Kelly’s presentation is sensual rock music. Kelly’s immodest, contemporary message to teens is the same as the song’s. Specifically it means: Sex? Yeah! This message comes through loud and clear, despite the articulate language, good and bad use of humor, and appearance of respectability that her dress and her motherhood shield.

Her video stands in stark contrast to Pope John Paul II’s addresses to teens when he exhorts teens to be not ashamed to bring their innocence into the modern world.

Our Holy Father understands what sex educators do not understand. That is, sexual intercourse is the pearl to be sought after – not sexual knowledge. Innocence preserves purity, and is the best preparation for a loving marriage.