"Catholic" coeducation‽

[Geremia]

How can there possibly be “Catholic” co-ed schools when Pope Pius XI says in Divini Illius Magistri:

1. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of “coeducation.” This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

 

[Rico_S]

It seems that the church is in shambles. What do you suggest we do?

 

[shannyk]

Geremia perhaps you could be more specific… that is a very loooooooooooooog encyclical and it says a lot about many things. Me being a non home schooled person I can’t quite decipher which passage you’re referencing. Could you help me out here?

 

[Cluny]

Not everything a pope says is infallible. Popes are people, too, and in a merely prudential judgement, they can err.

Pope Pius XI was many good and noble and even exemplary things. But he was NOT an educational theorist.

All popes are men of their time. In his day, boys and girls were generally taught in separate classes. That was simply the manners of the time in Europe and Italy.

It was also generally thought that males and females had different intellectual abilities, which notion is reflected in this statement. We now know this simply is not true, that in intellectual abilities boys and girls are equal.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Not everything a pope says is infallible. Popes are people, too, and in a merely prudential judgement, they can err.

Pope Pius XI was many good and noble and even exemplary things. But he was NOT an educational theorist.

All popes are men of their time. In his day, boys and girls were generally taught in separate classes. That was simply the manners of the time in Europe and Italy.

It was also generally thought that males and females had different intellectual abilities, which notion is reflected in this statement. We now know this simply is not true, that in intellectual abilities boys and girls are equal.

Good point… Encyclicals are letters, not infallible statements on faith and doctrine…

Some of the section you quoted:

Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes.

I don’t understand the statement. What, exactly, in nature, suggests that training the two sexes should or shouldn’t be equal? I don’t know… I just don’t understand the basis of the statement.

These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances.

While I completely agree that men and women complement each other in society and in the family - that doesn’t mean that they always perform differently, nor does it mean that training should be different. If both a man and woman can perform the same tasks (ranging from accounting family finances to *any *job in society) then in what way should education and training be tailored to the different sexes in unique ways? Accounting is accounting. Medicine is medicine. Sales is sales… see my point?
Again, yes - men and women compliment each other in how we approach problems and work through situations, but in all reality, 5+5 will always and forever =10. How can that point be differentiated between the sexes as students.

 

[StJoan_ismygal]

The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society.

And for school kids, school IS society.

Is Pius using the term “promiscuity” here in a different sense than we use it? Because I am having a really hard time with figuring out how sitting next to each other in desks leads, de rigeur, to promiscuity.

Geremia, it seems educational issues are a particular burr in your bonnet. However, I think you are yearning for a time that no longer exists, and in many ways, never did. Rigid defining lines between the lives of the sexes have been erased in our culture. That is a GOOD thing. I agree that men and women are complementary and should respect and honor the things that make them different, especially taking them into account during marriage prep. But that doesn’t mean they need to live strictly regimented lives of total separation.

In this paradigm, how could there be anything that could be called a truly Catholic family, unless separate dwelling quarters were built for the boys and the girls. Because, in families, boys and girls live and learn together. And are we to build screens and segregate the women at Mass too, like super orthodox Jews and Muslims do? I mean, where does this end? It sounds a lot like the rules that get women prosecuted for having coffee with a man in public in some places…

 

[Geremia]

It seems that the church is in shambles. What do you suggest we do?

Pray!

 

[Geremia]

Geremia perhaps you could be more specific… that is a very loooooooooooooog encyclical and it says a lot about many things. Me being a non home schooled person I can’t quite decipher which passage you’re referencing. Could you help me out here?

It is a standalone section and only section to mention coeducation in the encyclical. Try rereading it.

 

[Geremia]

Not everything a pope says is infallible. Popes are people, too, and in a merely prudential judgement, they can err.

From section 20. of Humani Generis:

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: “He who heareth you, heareth me”;Luke, X, 16] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

Pope Pius XI was many good and noble and even exemplary things. But he was NOT an educational theorist.

So he is wrong that “every form of pedagogic naturalism which in any way excludes or weakens supernatural Christian formation in the teaching of youth, is false?” You seem to imply that an “education theorist” somehow has more authority than the Pope on true education, Catholic education.

All popes are men of their time. In his day, boys and girls were generally taught in separate classes. That was simply the manners of the time in Europe and Italy.

So, “male and female [God] created them” only in the 1930s (Gen. 1:27)? Males and females, although both being human, are not equal.

It was also generally thought that males and females had different intellectual abilities, which notion is reflected in this statement. We now know this simply is not true, that in intellectual abilities boys and girls are equal.

Really? Could you please provide proof? Could it be one sex is simply underperforming?

 

[Geremia]

And for school kids, school IS society.

Albeit an artificially-created one

Is Pius using the term “promiscuity” here in a different sense than we use it? Because I am having a really hard time with figuring out how sitting next to each other in desks leads, de rigeur, to promiscuity.

No he is not. From the OED, “promiscuity” is “Promiscuous sexual behaviour; the frequent, casual changing of sexual partners. Also fig.” It also provides a quote of 1925 usage of the word: “D. H. LAWRENCE Refl. Death Porcupine 182 It’s Don Juanery, sex-in-the-head, no real desire, which leads to profligacy and squalid promiscuity.”

Geremia, it seems educational issues are a particular burr in your bonnet. However, I think you are yearning for a time that no longer exists, and in many ways, never did. Rigid defining lines between the lives of the sexes have been erased in our culture. That is a GOOD thing.

Really? Rampant homosexuality and liberal feminists who want to be men is a good thing? I.e., confusing the differences and roles of the sexes is a good thing? That God created us “to his own image” and “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) should “have been erased?”

I agree that men and women are complementary and should respect and honor the things that make them different, especially taking them into account during marriage prep. But that doesn’t mean they need to live strictly regimented lives of total separation.

During adolescence, when the they should.

In this paradigm, how could there be anything that could be called a truly Catholic family, unless separate dwelling quarters were built for the boys and the girls. Because, in families, boys and girls live and learn together. And are we to build screens and segregate the women at Mass too, like super orthodox Jews and Muslims do? I mean, where does this end? It sounds a lot like the rules that get women prosecuted for having coffee with a man in public in some places…

I quote the encyclical again:

[The two sexes,] in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances.

 

[SMHW]

How can there possibly be “Catholic” co-ed schools when Pope Pius XI says in Divini Illius Magistri:

Actually, until the 1970’s it was usual for the American Catholic schools to separate boys from girls in high school. …at least in order run schools. Coed elementary schools have been around at least since the beginning of the 20th century. But even though boys and girls were in the same class, they were usually segregated for recess and lunch.

Some time in the 1970s the boys schools started admitting girls. (It seemed to take a lot longer for the girls schools to want to admit boys.) I think it started for economic reasons… to increase enrollment.

I know other countries have had a much longer tradition of separating the sexes for Catholic education. I wouldn’t know the current practices.

 

[shannyk]

It is a standalone section and only section to mention coeducation in the encyclical. Try rereading it.

Usually, out of consideration for fellow posters, when an article is reeeeally long, a link to the entire thing along with the excerpt in question is quoted in the thread so that people who’d like to participate in the discussion but also have lives and jobs and children to care for who can’t take 30-45 min to pour over a whole encyclical to get to ONE passage, can participate.

Try rereading it.

That’s Ok thanks, I won’t be reading more of it than I already did this morning. I spent enough time attempting to inform myself so I can see where you’re coming from, more than I should have.

 

[Geremia]

Encyclicals are letters, not infallible statements on faith and doctrine…

Okay, just for the sake of argument, let us assume Pope Pius XI’s encyclical is entirely fallible. Then what is the Church’s dogma on education? Is there any?

 

[kage_ar]

Okay, just for the sake of argument, let us assume Pope Pius XI’s encyclical is entirely fallible. Then what is the Church’s dogma on education? Is there any?

There is no dogma on education that I know of.

The official teaching is that parents are the primary educators of children, that the Church must give religious education to those in the parish and that we have to teach kids the faith.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Okay, just for the sake of argument, let us assume Pope Pius XI’s encyclical is entirely fallible. Then what is the Church’s dogma on education? Is there any?

First off, “Dogma” probably isn’t the best term here… the term applies to *spiritual *truths in the faith, not so much “education”.
From the Catechism:

88
The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.

89
There is an organic connection between our spiritual life and the dogmas. Dogmas are lights along the path of faith; they illuminate it and make it secure. Conversely, if our life is upright, our intellect and heart will be open to welcome the light shed by the dogmas of faith.50

90
The mutual connections between dogmas, and their coherence, can be found in the whole of the Revelation of the mystery of Christ.51 "In Catholic doctrine there exists an order or ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith."52

Anyway… to the point of your question…
The Catechism only addresses “education” in regards to how married couples are supposed to care for their offspring.
Here is the section on that…
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt3art7.shtml#vi

Other areas of the Catechism that may or may not be relevant…
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt2art2.shtml
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect1chpt1art6.shtml

And for the most detail - scroll down to the word “Education” on the Index here:
usccb.org/catechism/text/e.shtml

There is no dogma on education that I know of.

The official teaching is that parents are the primary educators of children, that the Church must give religious education to those in the parish and that we have to teach kids the faith.

Agreed. Concise answer to what I was explaining above.

 

[Consecrated]

Me being a non home schooled person I can’t quite decipher which passage you’re referencing.

shanny you’re so bad.

 

[StJoan_ismygal]

"Really? Rampant homosexuality and liberal feminists who want to be men is a good thing? I.e., confusing the differences and roles of the sexes is a good thing? That God created us “to his own image” and “male and female” (Gen. 1:27) should “have been erased?”

Really? Seriously? Because they sit next to each other in school and work on Math or Literature or Latin or Science in mixed groups, it follows *post hoc ergo propter hoc *that they will become homosexuals and man-hating feminists, and that we deny their creation in God’s image?

I respectfully concede defeat in this debate, based on the total derangement of the originator thereof.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

personally I see the wisdom in seperating the sexes from just before the start of puberty. It makes alot of sense to me.

BTW I am not home schooled either.

 

[StJoan_ismygal]

personally I see the wisdom in seperating the sexes from just before the start of puberty. It makes alot of sense to me.

That’s a fine opinion to hold, and there is actually some evidence that sex-separated classes can be helpful in some subjects, for some kids.

But it’s not necessary. Either for educational success, or for proof of Catholicity.

I can give just as much evidence that the barriers between boys and girls are an artificial construct that parents force upon their kids in order to feel psychologically comfortable, causing their kids to replicate their own experiences and thereby validating them.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

That’s a fine opinion to hold, and there is actually some evidence that sex-separated classes can be helpful in some subjects, for some kids.

But it’s not necessary. Either for educational success, or for proof of Catholicity.

I can give just as much evidence that the barriers between boys and girls are an artificial construct that parents force upon their kids in order to feel psychologically comfortable, causing their kids to replicate their own experiences and thereby validating them.

The wisdom of seperation is to help with hold education. Yes, that is correct… “withhold”.

My kids do not need additional education in the opposite sex from a purely physical or social stand point until they have reached a maturity where marriage is an option. The deciding factor is when marriage is possible/acceptable. Since the US sees 18 as the defining age for adulthood then I think sexually mature children should not be placed in close proximity where hormones can become stimulated. And in this way we can help keep their minds on school. The only part of seperation that fails is when you have a student that is decidedly homosexual. But then there is the home school option still.