Conduct a Keyword Search of this complete site and visit my main index

Responsible Education and Formation in Matters of Human Sexuality -

What Parents and Teachers Need to Know, and Actively Support if they are to be Responsible Educators of our Youth

E-mail me

Excerpts, where indicated, are taken from "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the family" by the Pontifical Council for the Family, St Pauls, Homebush, NSW, February 1996.

Who is in control of our children?

In my experience as a teacher and in my observations of families, I have seen much to be proud of. I wish to make that clear before continuing as my intentions are not to explore the subject in question out of context. However that is not the focus of this paper.

There are many excellent educators in our society – parents and teachers. Yet, I do not believe it is erroneous for me to claim the following; that the prime educator in our society has become the Mass Media and the secular value system which it has succeeded in promulgating, not only to youth but to those responsible for the education of youth; namely some parents (who are the ‘prime educators’ of their children) and some teachers -  including teachers in Catholic Schools. This is especially so with parents and teachers already battling with their faith and who are not able to reconcile certain Church teachings with their own philosophy or way of life. Do these teachers exist in Catholic Schools? In my experience and that of many teachers I know, the answer can only be yes, unfortunate as it is.

Furthermore, this secular value system has penetrated some of the teaching of institutions or governing bodies who do not share the values of the Church, or in many cases any positive values at all. Rather, these 'bodies' seek to undermine family values at all levels, whether purposely or subconsciously.

As a result, whether consciously or sub-consciously, we have some teachers in our Catholic Schools, and some parents who send their children to Catholic Schools, who either do little to counteract the anti-christian and negative values of the secular society manipulated by the Mass Media, OR actually support it, to the detriment of the Faith and the spiritual development of our young.

The Fruits of Irresponsible Sex-Education Dominated by the Mass Media

And what has this resulted in, in my observations?

• Children, from a very young age, whilst still in the 'age of innocence' as it is called have expressed an awareness of the role of sex-for-pleasure in our society. 'Sex' is also the subject of many humourous situations, thereby being trivialised. Children have seen images and heard sexual innuendo in their favourite TV shows (usually targeted at children, such as 'Friends'); all of which, with a frequency that ensures the long term retention of these images and words. It is difficult to find ONE film today which does not contain a sexual situation or which does not continue to desensitise children to the real meaning of mature and responsible sexuality.

The Pontifical Council states, "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 leading to a loss of serenity - while still in the years of innocence - by opening the way to vice......Therefore four general principles will be proposed ...... (1) Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualised formation...(2) The moral dimension must always be a part of their explanations...(3) Formation in chastity and timely information regarding sexuality must be provided in the broadest context for education for love...(4) Parents should provide this information with great delicacy, but clearly and at the appropriate time.." (65-72)

I would say that the Mass Media has been proposing a different set of 4 principles for a while now. (1) Each child is the same - all of us are sexual beings and should be free to engage in sexual activity when we feel it is necessary. We are like animals, only to live by instinct. (2) No morality should be part of this education - The sexual act has no moral implications - It is an act pure and simple. (3) Chastity is outmoded and should be rejected. Education should aim at informing the young about the many ways to avoid pregnancy and disease even if it doesn't always work out. They can't control themselves anyway so why be chaste? (4) Anybody or anything can provide this information - whether it be a TV commercial, a movie, a sitcom, a greeting card, an advertisement in a magazine, feature article, and so forth. In fact these are even more reliable than parents!!

Why are we trusting this kind of philosophy?? Why don't we exercise some restraint and teach chastity when we see quasi-pornographic and other immodest and explicit images widely displayed on student files, at a very young age? Do we address the situation when students place 'lust' on an equal footing with 'love'? Students, when first being taught about sexuality and love in Religious Education, are asked to define love. The response "Love is sex" is not uncommon. So is, "Lust is normal and good". These students are reflecting what the many characters on TV have taught them through producers' and scriptwriters' beliefs and values, often demonstrated through the actions and dialogues of characters. I don't think that anyone would argue that the following lie isn't present in movies and television. It seems to me that for the most part, sex = 'love'. To demonstrate their 'love' (which is really a euphemism for lust) characters must have sex. And of course it is responsible sex as well because they use contraception don't they? And of course, this reflects reality doesn't it? If it did, we would also see characters getting pregnant more often as well as suffering from Venereal Diseases, for it is a well known fact that pregnancies, and diseases have increased because of contraception and the subsequent increase in promiscuity. Youth (as well as the many adults who have been equally desensitised) think all this sexual activity between friends and shared partners, which is often adultery and irresponsible pre-marital sex, is very funny. Make something funny and it becomes accepted and popular! It also makes one blind to the reality.

• The messages relayed by rebellious rock bands and the 'soft-porn' promulgated by certain pop groups, have become entrenched in the psyche of youth. For example, hold a rock band competition at school or put the radio on in a classroom, and most of the students (if not all) will sing all the words (regardless of content) even though they claim they cannot sing. Ask students to sing at a Mass, regardless of how much beat the song has, and students will remain, for the most part, silent. Who, do you think, is their prime educator here - the Church, parents or teachers following Church teaching OR the secular music industry, parents and teachers who think this music is 'cool' and actively support it amongst the student body, without question? It recently broke my heart to hear a ten year old boy enjoying and singing to Ricky Martin's "Shake your Bon-Bon", especially with the understanding that the said boy knew what Ricky Martin is obviously referring to.

• Religion and Faith are seen as outdated. Confusion reigns about what 'Truth' really is. There is a pretty widespread belief in the theory of atheistic evolution, despite its many flaws and despite its status as a 'theory' and nothing more. But can we blame students? Biology and Human Biology teachers teach it, even in Catholic Schools, without question, and the secular media teaches it as fact. Popular advertising is now based on its belief as well. Also, it is very trendy to see 'truth' as relative and not as absolute, which therefore leads to the question, "How do you know that God created the World? How do you know that the Bible's and Church's teachings are true?" Student teachers of Literature know the concept of 'relative truth' well. So do students of the more contemporary theology. In both disciplines, students are being taught to apply a 'hermeneutic of suspicion' to whatever they read. Simply stated, this approach requires the student to study what influences have led to the creation of the particular text. Is there any social conditioning behind the writer's words? Do they demonstrate a particular bias? Are their biases, values and attitudes valid ones? Implicit in this approach is a belief that there is no truth. Since a reader may interpret an author's work in a way different than intended by the author, it is obvious that a reader's 'truth' is therefore different to the writer's 'truth'. There is therefore, my truth and your truth. Hopefully, the application of this technique will lead one closer and closer to the actual truth. (One hopes!!)

This is all fine when it comes to texts written by fallible human beings and texts interpreted by human means alone - fallibly. That is everyday novels, newspaper articles, movies and so forth. (We should all be critical of what is being fed to us in contemporary Mass Media). But is it correct for Catholic theologians and misinformed teachers to therefore apply the same principal to Biblical Texts and official Church teaching, in their classes, thinking they have stumbled onto some wonderful revelation? I would say no, for TWO reasons.

Firstly, hermeneutic of suspicion begins with the premise that the text is fallible and may not be worthy of teaching absolute truth, as if the text is written purely by a human author. In other words, this approach with regards to the Scriptures and Church Documents is negating the influence of Divine Inspiration, properly understood.

Secondly, the belief that there is no truth is self-defeating and poor philosophy. If someone states "There is no truth", are they not in fact stating a 'truth', which by definition is illogical to do, since, according to them, there is NO truth? By saying 'there is no truth' they are saying. "Listen, I am telling you the truth. There is no truth!" What I discovered when doing one of my theology units at University, was that theologians don't seem to realise what Literature specialists have. That is, IT IS ALL A GAME! Applying a hermeneutic of suspicion to texts, although very useful in coming to a better understanding of how a text works, and possibly, to the meaning of a text on a personal or contemporary level, is fruitless in arriving at absolute truth. You see, once you realise this you return to the same question. What IS truth then? Maybe the Church is correct? My lecturer was lost for words once when I challenged him by asking "Who applies a Hermeneutic of Suspicion to those who apply a Hermeneutic of Suspicion?" If you do ask such theologians, parents and teachers this question, some of them become defensive. In other words, those who are quite happy to be critical of the Church do not apply the same principal to themselves or to the Media. Unfortunately our students and children are not aware of the politics surrounding all this and that the discourse is one between those who still have faith that official Church teaching is guided by the Holy Spirit, and those who have lost faith in this and have placed fallible and prejudiced human reasoning and 'intelligence' in place of the Holy Spirit. They will just go along with whichever parent or teacher they think is cooler!! These 'educators' whoever they are, are doing our youth a great disservice. They turn a fundamental human search, the search for truth, into a game!

Why do parents and teachers share their responsibilities with irresponsible organisations?

And there are a number of reasons why teachers and parents have 'shared' their responsibility as teachers with less than capable institutions and decision making bodies. In my experience, the following are just some of those reasons why both parents and teachers (a 'body' which parents often place their blind trust in first), do not always fulfil their role responsibly.

• Hopelessness - I can imagine that many parents and teachers feel they can in no way question the negative influences of the media already so much entrenched in our way of life. It almost takes the courage of a saint or prophet. I know I have been laughed at by some students myself - yet, I know I have their respect nonetheless and this is most important. "In many cases parents have given up their duty in this field or agreed to delegate it to others, because of the difficulty and their own lack of preparation" (page 10). "Frequently parents are not lacking in awareness and effort, but they are quite alone, defenceless and often made to feel they are wrong. They need understanding, but also support and help by groups, associations and institutions" (96). I would recommend aligning oneself with support groups such as the National Viewers and Listeners Association.
• Lack of time - Can you imagine many librarians and teachers reading through every single bit of literature which comes into their library or department to ensure that the material is suitable? More than likely they will rely on someone's critique. Unfortunately, the critique is usually by a person whose criteria is not reflective of concerned and well informed parents. I also 'mourned' when I saw a student of mine reading a book from the library containing information about oral sex. It was a novel.
• A lack of faith in the church - I heard a Principal of a Catholic School once say that he himself didn't believe all church teaching. He also seemed proud of it. I am certain that many parents and staff feel the same - often because of some poor experience or lack of understanding, or just the crisis of faith which is common and widespread throughout the world.
• "They have seen it all before" or "We can't shelter our kids forever. They have to know how to make choices". OR Young people saying to their teachers and parents, "We can do what we want - we are free". Underlying these statements is a presumption that children are ready to make choices responsibly and have already formulated their value system. However, "[The information of the Mass Media] does not take into account the different stages of formation and development of children and young people, and it is influenced by a distorted individualistic concept of freedom....lacking the basic values of life, human love and family."(Page 10)

• I ask the parents and teachers who are reading this, what do you understand by freedom? Does freedom mean being able to do as you please? OR, does it mean freedom from all that is an obstacle to your child becoming what God intended him or her to be? Is allowing them to be exposed to sexual immorality and so forth, conducive to this freedom, or will it, at their age, only make it harder for them to be freed from temptation? Why is it easy for us to acknowledge that one is not free if they cannot control their desire to steal or gamble or lie, but they are free even though they do not control their sexual urges and desires? In the former example few would argue that the person needs to control their urges to steal or lie, and seek help through prayer and other appropriate means. Yet, in our society, if you constantly give in to your desire for sexual gratification, you are in control and just 'expressing' yourself. "Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy".."Every person knows by experience, that chastity requires rejecting certain thoughts, words and sinful actions, as Saint Paul was careful to clarify and point out (cf. Romans 1:18.........) Such self-mastery involves both avoiding occasions which might provoke or encourage sin as well as knowing how to overcome one's own natural instinctive impulses" (pages 26-27).
• There is an attitude that "Chastity is a repressive attitude and outmoded" Well, one could also consider that "Chastity is not to be understood as a repressive attitude. On the contrary, chastity should be understood rather as the purity and temporary stewardship of a precious and rich gift of love, in view of the self-giving realised in each person's specific vocation..[It] is the spiritual energy capable of defending love from the perils of selfishness and aggressiveness, and able to advance it to its full realisation". (12-13)
• Another attitude exists which states "My parents weren't too strict with me and I turned out alright". That may be the case but " In the past...the general culture was permeated by respect for fundamental values and hence served to protect and maintain them." (Page 9) now, it is a different story. "In the greater part of society...the decline of traditional models has left children deprived of consistent and positive guidance, [a situation mad worse by] the eclipse of the truth about man, which, among other things, exerts pressure to reduce sex to something commonplace.. society and the mass media most of the time provide depersonalised, recreational and often pessimistic information." (Page9).

But shouldn't these natural instinctive impulses always be entertained, simply because they exist?

Firstly, " ..When teaching Catholic doctrine and morality about sexuality, the lasting effects of original sin must be taken into account, that is to say, human weakness and the need for the grace of God to overcome temptations and avoid sin"(page 99).

Secondly, the young should be given the means to control these urges in a mature way, through 'help [in the formation of their] spiritual life, so that the biological development and impulses they begin to experience will always be accompanied by a growing love of God, ..and an ever greater awareness of the dignity of each human person and his or her body." (69)

TO BE CONTINUED

COMMENTS WELCOME