Just Say No: Why Abstinence Is the Way to Go

[edwest2]

Yes, because the Sexual revolution started in the 60s. The Pill came out in the late 50s, and the USSC decided that forbidding abc to anyone would be unConstitutional.

Hmmm, some people fall outside the hard and fast rule of robbing banks. Maybe we should bank-robbing ed so that they will not be left at a practical disadvantage of maybe being hurt or killed during the course of robbing a bank.

1960 - The FDA approves The Pill. But keep in mind, most people lived on farms and in rural areas at the time. It did not get a real marketing push until 1967.

1968 - Pope Paul VI knew what was coming and he was advised to loosen the Church’s restrictions on artificial birth control, and he warned Catholics what would happen if his words were not heeded - and guess what? - it happened.

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

But the SEX Without LOVE Revolution had to happen. The howling of the dissidents against his encyclical occurred quickly. And birth control pill manufacturers could not afford to lose money by having any Catholics listening to the Pope.

“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”

"…an event unprecedented in the history of the Church…

Yep, Bank Robber Ed. Saves lives, avoids “mistakes” on your first job, and maybe puts a little ill-gotten cash in your pocket. Instead, we were deprived and bank robbers ended up in jail or even killed someone because they didn’t how to properly use a gun.

Peace,
Ed

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Since I was there in the 1960s, our Catholic schools and the media respected and valued what we valued. There was a great sense of modesty, there was greater respect for authority and greater respect for your parents. The peer pressure then was to abstain. Even the kids in the public schools, because they still had fathers back then, understood this.

And there were fewer sexually transmitted diseases:

“Prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. Both were easily treatable with antibiotics. In the sixties and seventies this relatively stable situation began to change. For example, in 1976, chlamydia first appeared…”

Source: leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html

And yes, there were a few that did not follow this rule. They had three options if the girl got pregnant: 1) They got married. Not as individual units but with their parents involved as well. 2) The baby was put up for adoption. 3) The baby was born and the mother ended up back home with her baby. I know one such lady.

And there was no sex education, but most guys knew what a “rubber” (condom) was.

Peace,
Ed

The '60s were characterized by sex, drugs, and rock n roll. I know that maybe it didn’t extend to your community, but free love was everywhere.

I swear I have never heard anyone but you describe such a tumultuous time in American history as so utopian.

 

[meltzerboy]

I chose neither. The Church is against sex ed, and I agree that having sex ed is injurious to children’s innocence. A lot of programs actually end up *encouraging *sexual activity outside of marriage.

Where are these innocent children? Certainly not in the urban areas, where they don’t need any encouragement for sexual activity since they’re already having it, and in too many cases, unprotected sex.

 

[St_Francis]

Where are these innocent children? Certainly not in the urban areas, where they don’t need any encouragement for sexual activity since they’re already having it, and in too many cases, unprotected sex.

Well, a few points: one is that those responsible for the children are the parents, *not *the schools.

The second is that those who want to stay away from all that have enough pressure without the school’s apparent apparent approval of sexual activity. Additionally, abc takes away a protective element (I don’t think we should do this because I might get pregnant), and teaching about all this in the schools doesn’t help in that area, either, esp if a student gets it wrong (I know there’s a time when I can’t get pregnant; I *guess *it might be now…). Etc.

And finally, schools, in response to sexual activity at younger and younger ages, are teaching more about sexual activity at younger and younger ages. For some students, this will simply awaken something which might have rested despite everything that was going on on the streets.

This is something that should be left up to the parents. If they want to enroll their children in classes about this subject, that is up to them, but overall, mandating sex ed and even some parts of health and science, even when parents have the option of pulling the children out, is usurping that parents’ role *too much. *

 

[Bezant]

Yes, because the Sexual revolution started in the 60s. The Pill came out in the late 50s, and the USSC decided that forbidding abc to anyone would be unConstitutional.

Considering that premarital sex is as old as Adam, it’s likelier that people aren’t having premartial sex more often than they ever did. The major difference between the past and now in the past, people would have much more reason to hide it.

Hmmm, some people fall outside the hard and fast rule of robbing banks. Maybe we should bank-robbing ed so that they will not be left at a practical disadvantage of maybe being hurt or killed during the course of robbing a bank.

I’m afraid you’re comparing two things that are hardly analogous.

 

[Bezant]

Since I was there in the 1960s, our Catholic schools and the media respected and valued what we valued. There was a great sense of modesty, there was greater respect for authority and greater respect for your parents. The peer pressure then was to abstain. Even the kids in the public schools, because they still had fathers back then, understood this.

And there were fewer sexually transmitted diseases:

“Prior to 1960, there were only two significant sexually transmitted diseases: syphilis and gonorrhea. Both were easily treatable with antibiotics. In the sixties and seventies this relatively stable situation began to change. For example, in 1976, chlamydia first appeared…”

Source: leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/epid-std.html

And yes, there were a few that did not follow this rule. They had three options if the girl got pregnant: 1) They got married. Not as individual units but with their parents involved as well. 2) The baby was put up for adoption. 3) The baby was born and the mother ended up back home with her baby. I know one such lady.

And there was no sex education, but most guys knew what a “rubber” (condom) was.

Peace,
Ed

And I believe that you grew up in a community with values that you describe–but you can only account for as much you were able to see, both on a wide society level and within your community. Just as people had premartial sex when they weren’t supposed to, people performed abortions when they weren’t supposed to.

 

[edwest2]

The '60s were characterized by sex, drugs, and rock n roll. I know that maybe it didn’t extend to your community, but free love was everywhere.

I swear I have never heard anyone but you describe such a tumultuous time in American history as so utopian.

I swear, you paint with such a broad brush. We were taught to avoid the sex and drugs, and a few rock bands like the Rolling Stones. On the Ed Sullivan Show, they had to change the words from “let’s spend the night together” to “let’s spend some time together.”

“free love” Yeah, fornication. I know. We were told to avoid that at all costs.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Holly3278]

Personally I am totally for abstinence only sex education. I am completely opposed to so called “comprehensive” sex education. A person who fornicates but uses a condom or the birth control pill or some other form of contraception is committing two grave sins: fornication and contraceptive use.

That said, one of the other posters said that the Church is against sex education. I have never heard this before and would like to know if it was true.

But anyway, to sum up my position I would have to say that if there is going to be sex education in schools then it should be abstinence only education. I would also be fine with leaving sex education out of schools and making it the parents’ obligation. However, I think teaching sex education in schools is better because some parents would neglect to teach their children about sexual things.

 

[St_Francis]

Considering that premarital sex is as old as Adam,** it’s likelier that people aren’t having premartial sex more often than they ever did. **The major difference between the past and now in the past, people would have much more reason to hide it.

Yes, people are now having premarital sex more than they ever did.

And the chart, on the second page, does not take into account abortion…

I’m afraid you’re comparing two things that are hardly analogous.

OK, where did the analogy fail?

 

[vera_dicere]

I find the whole concept perplexing, thousands of years ago there wasn’t “sex ed” and people managed just fine without it. Kids these days have the internet they have friends, they ave all sorts of sources they can find out about sex. Schools should be minding their own business and educate them in matters of math, english and things that are actually educationally slanted towards a career path. Learning how to put on condoms and get abortions without your parents knowing about it are probably only useful in one profession.

Sex is something that should be taught at home. Are parents doing a bad job? Maybe, but I’d say parents these days are getting lazy, expecting the teachers to do the job, perhaps its the parents who should be having the sex education classes.

Given the many various values and opinions, home is the only place where everyone can be happy with the job being done. Encourage parents to have these discussions, don’t leave it to the teachers. Kids are coming out of schools unable to read, write or do basic math, I’d say schools have enough to worry about instead of whether or not little Janey and Steve use “protection” when they have at it behind the bike shed after school on Friday.

 

[St_Francis]

…That said, one of the other posters said that the Church is against sex education. I have never heard this before and would like to know if it was true.

…

From DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI: 65. Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex-education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers.

And an article from EWTN: When the Council Fathers asserted, at Vatican II, that children should be given prudent sex education and that this education ought to be given in the heart of the family, they said nothing new, but reaffirmed the consistent teaching of the Church. Pope Pius XI has said the same thing in the encyclical, The Education of the Redeemed Man, in December, 1921; and a decree of the Holy Office on March 21, 1931, said that “no approbation whatever can be given” to group sex education, and that precautions must be taken to see that young people avoid all occasions of sin.

Pope Pius XII, in an address on September 23, 1951, insisted that only parents should give sex education, and on April 13, 1953, he reaffirmed the decree of 1931. In an encyclical, Sacra Virginitas, he condemned immodest sex education, and again in an address to families he urged them to fight the writings which were even then flooding the world concerning “sex initiation,” and exaggerating the importance of sex.

Pope Paul VI, in an address on September 13, 1972, classed sex education along with erotic literature and pornography as one of the evils of the day

There’s more out there–I couldn’t find the one I originally read.

 

[spiral]

What would abstinence-only education actually teach? “Don’t have sex, the end.”?

 

[Mumbles140]

What would abstinence-only education actually teach? “Don’t have sex, the end.”?

Abstinence-only education is all about anatomy, consequences, health risks/diseases, etc. There were three topics not allowed to be discussed: birth control, masturbation, and homosexuality. We were told we could go to parents/guardians, doctors, counselors, etc if we had questions about those topics, but they would not be covered.

It does NOT try and force abstinence on people. In fact, the only time it was brought up was to say that abstinence is the only sure-fire way to avoid STD’s and unintended pregnancies. Other than that, no mention, no moral-support for it, just plain and simple avoidance of the topic.

I think some people see “abstinence-only” and assume that it means they are trying to force all kids to stay abstinent, when that just clearly isn’t the case.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I find the whole concept perplexing, thousands of years ago there wasn’t “sex ed” and people managed just fine without it. Kids these days have the internet they have friends, they ave all sorts of sources they can find out about sex. Schools should be minding their own business and educate them in matters of math, english and things that are actually educationally slanted towards a career path. Learning how to put on condoms and get abortions without your parents knowing about it are probably only useful in one profession.

Are you really saying that it’s better for kids to learn about sex from their friends and the internet than responsible adults trained to teach such things?

I learned a lot about sex from my friends in middle school. I learned that sleeping in a bra causes breast cancer, you can’t get pregnant the first time you have sex, seman can make you violently ill, and that if you douche with something acidic, like soda, you won’t get pregnant. And none of those things are true.

As it stands parents are not doing their jobs. And the ones that suffer for it are the kids. Yes, in an ideal world parents would handle it. But they aren’t so let’s teach these kids how to be safe and responsible.

When I was in high school there was a gonorrhea outbreak with the sixth graders in the same district because they thought that oral was safe. Something like 25 kids were diagnosed. And this was a small, quiet, midwestern town! Somehow I don’t think that finding out about sex and STDs like that preserved anyone’s innocence. And now there’s an antibiotic resistant strain out there. I’m just grateful that these kids didn’t end up with a lifelong disease out of their ignorance and impulsivness.

 

[edwest2]

What would abstinence-only education actually teach? “Don’t have sex, the end.”?

It would teach exactly what I was taught in the 1960s.

1. Dating is fine but NO sexual intercourse until marriage. Period.
2. Courtship, if both are agreeable, and complete respect for the opposite sex. Modesty in dress and speech for both. Politeness and courtesy for both.
3. Engagement for the purpose of getting married where you discuss what you expect for your marriage BEFORE the ceremony. This would include finances, jobs, transportation and where you’re going to live, and kids.
4. Both families getting to know each other. Because loving someone with the possibility of getting married INCLUDES both families
   .
5. The young man and young woman sit down with each other’s parents and discuss the practical matters of married life before the ceremony. Their parents were young adults themselves and know everything about hormones and the strong emotions.

As opposed to this:

sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/I-Just-Want-To-Make-Love-To-You-lyrics-The-Foghat/84730A283E6A3E0A48256D090023B6D0

By the way, the correct meaning of the fake words “make love” is “have sex.” That song dates from 1972 when the sexual perverts decided songs about true love, respect and devotion (from just a few years past) needed a little changin’. And the lie that no one, especially teenagers, could control themselves regarding sex began to be promoted. Who decides when you’re going to have sex? You do.

Peace,
Ed

 

[andrewstx]

I picked both as well.

In my state of Texas abstinence only was taught for years, and the rate of teenage pregnancy kept rising.

Interestingly enough the rate of teenage pregnancy has risen faster among Latino Catholics.

Obviously those kids are being inadequtely (sp) catechised. We need more than just first comminion and confirmation training for them.

 

[Bezant]

Yes, people are now having premarital sex more than they ever did.

And the chart, on the second page, does not take into account abortion…

While this is interesting, the study samples only amongst women who had premarital sex and conceived or gave birth outside of marriage. What of those who didn’t conceive?

OK, where did the analogy fail?

Characteristically. Robbery is harmful to society; if anything, using contraception is beneficial to society. You’re saying that using contraception is as bad as robbing a bank, in spite of the characteristic difference between them.

 

[Mumbles140]

if anything, using contraception is beneficial to society.

I’m sorry, but this line seems to be a little absurd. People are concerned about over-crowding? Look at the nations in the economic gutter and see how much lower their birth rates are than their neighbors - that is no coincidence.

 

[St_Francis]

While this is interesting, the study samples only amongst women who had premarital sex and conceived or gave birth outside of marriage. What of those who didn’t conceive?

As a general rule, one can assume that conception would occur at approximately the same rates or lower given the time period involved. Would you not imagine that women having premarital sex would get pregnant at a higher rate in 1930 than in 1990?

Characteristically. Robbery is harmful to society; if anything, using contraception is beneficial to society. You’re saying that using contraception is as bad as robbing a bank, in spite of the characteristic difference between them.

**Catholic!!! **

We view contraception as a mortal sin, just like bank robbery.

We also see what should be right in front of any materialist’s eyes: contraception is *bad *for society. It’s bad for women, it’s bad for children, and it’s bad for men.

Overall, abc is probably worse than bank robbery *because *so many believe the lies about it, whereas all understand that bank robbery is bad.

 

[Bezant]

**Catholic!!! **

If you are suggesting that I am “less” of a Catholic, I actually find that very rude. Please keep in mind the forum rules (forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=78447 ) about being respectful of members’ religious views.