Sex-Ed: A Catholic mother’s conviction

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JimG

Guest
"Imagine for a moment that an innocent inquiry throws you into what amounts to a political firestorm. Your only purpose was to defend your Catholic faith. You meant no malice towards anyone. There was no personal agenda. The intent behind your inquiry and concern was merely to ensure that the teachings of the Church were being respected and upheld, not only for your child but for future children, as well.

Then imagine that the very entity that you approach in this matter identifies themselves as Catholic and persecuted you for daring to question their authority."

Continued here
 
Very sad to read this about a Catholic School. However, very inspired by this faithful Mom.

God Bless You.
 
I came across a commentary on this case by Kevin Aldritch. (See: Catholic Teen Sexologists?)
With respect to sex education, he makes this comment:

“It seems to me that the fundamental interest of a Catholic school when it comes to “sex education” is not that its students become experts in sex. Rather, it is that its students practice the virtue of chastity.”

Without knowing the content of the course in question I am not in a position to judge, but I do agree that too frequently now, sex education in schools can amount simply to one more method of destroying the innocence of children. Some of the material they are given in school might instigate outrage if the same material came from a teen peer in a plain brown wrapper, produced by a known ‘adult’ industry publisher.
 
The below are bullet points about the course which are considered problematic–I’ve copied/pasted them from here, to which the article you linked leads. My comments below in bold. To be honest, this seems more a clickbait article than anything else–in general, that is. I do think this is material that is best taught by the parents rather than the school, but most of the content mentioned below doesn’t seem age-inappropriate for the older kids referenced–we’re talking 14-16 year olds, for context.

•Students are taught that the male and female “mature genitalia will react to sexual stimulus in a similar way.” Well, this is true, to a point. Surely it’s a good idea to be honest about this?

•They are shown a picture of a spread-eagle vagina with names for every part. The picture is shown again in a test question where children have to label all the parts. **Basic anatomy and physiology–again, I’m not really seeing a problem here. I’ll be teaching my kids something similarly factual once they’re of age. **

•At one point the sex-ed states: “Like the scrotum, the outer lips swell slightly with stimulation; in their stimulated state they pull back and expose the Inner Lips.” True, albeit with inaccurate capitalization. Why is this morally inappropriate?

•Students are taught the pleasure points of both the male and female reproductive organs, learning about “erotic nerve endings” that react to “sexual stimulus.” Hmmm, I’m divided on this one. Again, factually accurate, but perhaps deeper than a teenager needs to go into the sexuality aspect.

•They learn about an “aroused” clitoris and average penis lengths during erection. Again–these are basic physiological facts. Not really seeing an issue.

•At one point, the sex-ed states that the word “testes” is derived from the practice of two men swearing an oath while holding each other’s testicles. **Historically true, if having little to do with the subject at hand–seems a silly diversion, but perhaps it makes sense in context. **

•Students learn 10 different forms of contraception, including withdrawal, the condom, the diaphragm, spermicides, the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, birth control implant, depo-provera, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. A test question asks children to name and compare all the different methods as to how they function. **This seems a bit in-depth for kids who you’d hope wouldn’t be using these methods, but I wouldn’t have a problem with my kid knowing how these things work per se. Knowledge itself isn’t the problem. I’m reminded of the priest who married DH and me. Very traditionalist. Told DH in front of me that it would be “normal” for me to lock myself in the bathroom on our wedding night to keep him from having sex with me. ** :eek: :rolleyes:

•At no point in the entire sex-ed supplement does the word “sin” appear, nor are there condemnations of the grave sexual sins of masturbation, fornication, and other sins against the virtues of chastity and modesty. Abstinence is given a passing glance and children are directed to external resources for more information on the practice. Serious problems, these.

•Students are not taught how willed sexual sins cut off the life of God’s grace in the soul and jeopardizes one’s eternal salvation. Likewise a serious problem.

Now, I think this sort of thing should generally be left to the parents anyhow, and in any case, there’s a big difference, developmentally, between a 14 year old and a 16 year old. That having been said, this seems a bit like a mountain out of–well, not a molehill, but perhaps a rather small incline. 😛
 
Ubicaritas,

Good points.

I have to say, having done a home sex ed course with our teen (13 at the time), that 1) all materials have some shortcomings and 2) it’s really easy to say that parents should do something, but a lot of parents are going to chicken out/not get around to it (I wound up doing the last round probably a year later than planned).

I did a first round when my oldest was 10, using the American Girl puberty book (very cute and very helpful!). I did a second round when she was 13. This last time, when I was doing anatomy and physiology with our teen we used some pretty straightforward scientific stuff from an Usborne science book. For morals, we used a chapter from C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity and some selections from a Catholic workbook for teens we had ordered. I wasn’t entirely happy with the Catholic book we got–but it was OK. It turned out that there was a large area (personal safety, sexual assault, listening to your intuition about situations that make you uncomfortable, and personal boundaries) that wasn’t covered at all in any of my materials. I took some stuff from the Wikipedia entry from the Gift of Fear but also made a lot of notes of my own ideas on the subject (which have been developing the last few years). I had the good luck of having her home for a week (she was sitting out an overnight fieldtrip), which meant that we had lots of opportunities to talk without being disturbed. I expect that around 15/16, we’ll need to do another round, probably with a bigger emphasis on dating and marriage. Our middle child is a boy, so he’s going to be my husband’s responsibility, but I’ll get Baby Girl.

That’s all to say that this is pretty involved and time-consuming, and it’s not surprising that a lot of busy parents choke. My own dear mother (bless her heart) just handed me a book by James Dobson and told me that they were against masturbation. I was 12 at the time and didn’t know what masturbation was…The book by James Dobson described sex as producing a “pleasant tingling” sensation. :eek: But, fortunately, there was a basic public school sex ed course to cover anatomy, physiology and STDs.

Many people, as adults, wind up feeling that their sex education was pretty incomplete. One issue that is now especially acute is that many young people are getting their sex ed primarily from porn and they wind up with bizarre ideas about how sex works. (To give an analogy, it’s as if instead of boot camp, Army recruits just sat through hundreds of hours of action movies and then went straight into combat.) I have (without even meaning to) seen so many examples from young men online of weird beliefs about female anatomy and physiology. So, there is some point to the more graphic material mentioned in the OP as there is a lot of misinformation floating about.
 
I’d actually be thrilled if school would handle some of this stuff for us, but our private school leaves sex ed 100% up to parents.
 
Since this is a Catholic school, shouldn’t lessons on sexual morality be covered in Catechism classes? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-birth control by any means, but morality and physiology are entirely different topics that deserve lengthy, thoughtful explanations independent of one another, rather than a quick “sex exists and it feels great but IF YOU DO IT YOU GONNA GO TO HELL!”

Also, isn’t it better that kids learn about different methods (and their drawbacks) in a Catholic, educational environment than from PP reps or their dorm mates when they get to college?

Sharing information about something isn’t the same as condoning it. Kids need to know how their bodies work, and that they shouldn’t be ashamed of them. This is especially true for kids in the 14-16 bracket.
 
I’m old enough to have gotten my sex education from Aristotle, but it just seems odd to me that humanity has managed to survive since the dawn of history with no “comprehensive sex education,” an invention of Planned Parenthood. Are the last several generations the only ones in history who required formal classes and graphic materials to figure this all out?

The only sex ed that I can recall having is my dad trying to explain the facts of life to me one night as I was lying in bed ready to get some sleep. After about 10 minutes I remember thinking “this is boring and I’m sleepy.” It occurred to me on several occasions that sex would be something to worry about if and when I got married. Later, if I wanted to know something I looked it up in the medical dictionary or the Merck Manual. The best part about it was I could go through my childhood without being assaulted by graphic images. Do we show kids images of the digestive tract so they will know how to eat?

In my nephew’s 8th grade class at Catholic school they showed a movie of a childbirth. I suppose it was educational but it grossed him out. He came home saying, “I never want to see anything like that ever again!!”

Of course, as has been noted, pornography is already out there. Does graphic sex ed just add to the graphic overload?
 
TheAmazingGrace said:
Since this is a Catholic school, shouldn’t lessons on sexual morality be covered in Catechism classes? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not pro-birth control by any means, but morality and physiology are entirely different topics that deserve lengthy, thoughtful explanations independent of one another, rather than a quick “sex exists and it feels great but IF YOU DO IT YOU GONNA GO TO HELL!”

Also, isn’t it better that kids learn about different methods (and their drawbacks) in a Catholic, educational environment than from PP reps or their dorm mates when they get to college?

Sharing information about something isn’t the same as condoning it. Kids need to know how their bodies work, and that they shouldn’t be ashamed of them. This is especially true for kids in the 14-16 bracket.
Click to expand...
What needs to be remembered in this specific instance is the following:
  1. The Church says that parents are primarily responsible for their child’s education, period.
  2. The information provided in this particular course is under the umbrella of “Theology” and the school made it a mandatory course for ALL freshman students, without ANY type of opt-out for parents who find some of the content objectionable (Even the local public schools in this diocese offer an opt-out for sex-ed but the Bishop plainly told the parents that if they chose to send their kids to a Catholic school in this diocese that the parents were abdicating their parental rights to the school and he would not tolerate any criticism of the school’s no opt-out policy.)
  3. The material presented to the students is presented in a CO-ED environment. So imagine Johnny sitting in a seat beside Suzie while they look at the diagrams about how long a penis gets when aroused or which parts of the clitoris are the most sensitive (and yes, this is actual information provided in the class) :eek: Yes, it might be basic anatomy and physiology but how is that appropriate for a Theology course? 🤷
So, not only is the school and the Diocese taking away the rights of parents in educating their children regarding sex (that the Church plainly and clearly says violates Church teaching) but both also bullied any dissenters and forced them to leave the school, forfeiting their tuition for the year. The parents have every right to be concerned about their children’s spiritual well-being and the school and Diocese are clearly in the wrong in this case.

Sadly, this is my diocese and this is my bishop 😦
 
JimG said:
Here are some brief thoughts on sex education by Leila Marie Lawler:

A family friendly guide to sex education.
Click to expand...
Well, according to Mrs. Lawler’s blog, my family doesn’t qualify as one of those good, Catholic, like-minded families because

a) I have our kids via cesarean section rather than naturally,
b) I can’t breastfeed,
c) DH and I use NFP,
d) We vaccinate the kids,
e) We don’t spank the kids,
f) I’m–gasp!–going to school so that I can start working part-time
and
g) while we plan on homeschooIing, we don’t intend to keep the kids from spending time with their non-homeschooled peers simply because they aren’t homeschooled.

So I suppose we’ll have to find our own way, since neither we nor our kids would be welcome in that circle! 😛 😉

To be honest, her blog in particular very nearly made me leave the Catholic Church. After all, if I’d already failed as a parent two weeks into motherhood, what was the point of continuing down a rather difficult path?

I don’t disagree with a lot of what she has to say in the article you posted, but I also think there’s a vast difference between looking at a clinical anatomical diagram and “graphic sex ed.” Furthermore, cutting off contact entirely from homosexual family members for the sole reason that they identify as such is hardly the act of a loving Christian.
 
JimG said:
I’m old enough to have gotten my sex education from Aristotle, but it just seems odd to me that humanity has managed to survive since the dawn of history with no “comprehensive sex education,” an invention of Planned Parenthood. Are the last several generations the only ones in history who required formal classes and graphic materials to figure this all out?

The only sex ed that I can recall having is my dad trying to explain the facts of life to me one night as I was lying in bed ready to get some sleep. After about 10 minutes I remember thinking “this is boring and I’m sleepy.” It occurred to me on several occasions that sex would be something to worry about if and when I got married. Later, if I wanted to know something I looked it up in the medical dictionary or the Merck Manual. The best part about it was I could go through my childhood without being assaulted by graphic images. Do we show kids images of the digestive tract so they will know how to eat?

In my nephew’s 8th grade class at Catholic school they showed a movie of a childbirth. I suppose it was educational but it grossed him out. He came home saying, “I never want to see anything like that ever again!!”

Of course, as has been noted, pornography is already out there. Does graphic sex ed just add to the graphic overload?
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I know of a case in my own family where not having sex ed led to a very bad outcome. Granted, this predates widespread access to the internet by forty years, but it shows the wild things that can get into a young person’s head. It was my Great Aunt. She was engaged to get married and the wedding was set for a couple of days away from the day her mother went to see here to have “the talk.” The bride to be was 16. Her mother just thought she was going to talk about birth control (my family is protestant except for me and then I won Grandma over to Mother Church). Much to the mom’s shock, my great aunt thought that when you got married it was just like brother and sister living together. :confused: She wasn’t “attracted” in a sexual way to the hubby to be and the marriage ended up lasting about a year. Now granted, these were people living in extremely rural Virginia where there was no TV signal or cable.
 
BillTheSlink said:
Sorry, but I know of a case in my own family where not having sex ed led to a very bad outcome. Granted, this predates widespread access to the internet by forty years, but it shows the wild things that can get into a young person’s head. It was my Great Aunt. She was engaged to get married and the wedding was set for a couple of days away from the day her mother went to see here to have “the talk.” The bride to be was 16. Her mother just thought she was going to talk about birth control (my family is protestant except for me and then I won Grandma over to Mother Church). Much to the mom’s shock, my great aunt thought that when you got married it was just like brother and sister living together. :confused: She wasn’t “attracted” in a sexual way to the hubby to be and the marriage ended up lasting about a year. Now granted, these were people living in extremely rural Virginia where there was no TV signal or cable.
Click to expand...
My husband’s grandmother told him about a couple in her mother’s village that took the cabbage patch story literally…A relative found them poking through the bushes and they said they were looking for their baby. They got “the talk” that night.
 
JimG said:
humanity has managed to survive since the dawn of history with no “comprehensive sex education,”
Click to expand...
This isn’t much of an argument. “Humanity has managed to survive since the dawn of history without __________” Just b/c we survived without ______________, does not logically follow that we are better off without _________.
Do we show kids images of the digestive tract so they will know how to eat?
Click to expand...
So do you suggest that we should not show kids images of the digestive tract, b/c learning how the digestive system works is unnecessary?
graphic sex ed
Click to expand...
I tried to figure out what the “graphic” nature of the offending course was…and the only info from the mother I saw was that there was an image of a vagina with the parts labled. If that is her biggest complaint about the graphic nature of the images, I’m not sure I get her objection at all. Is it really a problem to see a body part while understanding its parts and function? I would say it is a good thing for people to have a working knowledge of the male and female anatomy for a variety of reasons. If there is something more graphic and inappropriate, I didn’t see it referenced…only a general opinion that it is graphic.

I do agree that included in the discussion should have been Catholic teachings on sexuality. If this info was omitted, I agree it is a big mistake.

It appears that perhaps the mother is over reacting a bit on the “graphic sex” side…but even so, and she should have every right to pull her kid out of the class if she so chooses. It certainly sounds like the school handled this poorly and it seems so odd that a mother objecting to this and asking to have her kid removed from that class would result in expulsion. There has to me more to the story…
 
my sex ed classes were sooo different.

They taught us about puberty and yes, illustrations of a vagina was shown.

Taught us how to put on a condom (kind of weird because we were all girls) while stressing on abstinence, it was hilarious.

Taught us about STDs, signs of it, how to get help.

Taught about arousal (how certain actions you do might cause arousal)

But they focused a LOT on love.

We were taught the difference between love and a crush.

We were taught how to say no if our boyfriends were pressuring us.

We listened to our teachers talking about their marriage

We had to draw a timeline of our lifes (up until we die) and decide where to put marriage and children–to show us that dating isn’t a huge priority when we were 16/17

We had to write down what we wanted in a man
The whole sex part (what goes on during sex) and birth control usually gets covered in biology classes so our school never really cared about going through that during sex ed classes. Liberal students were mad that the sex ed classes never told us that “sex is normal, here is 32434348 ways you can prevent pregnancies, go have fun!!” as there is an emphasis on abstinence/having as few sex partners as possible, but IMO I feel like it was adequate enough. Most of us learn about sex outside of the home and school though, I don’t feel like sex ed classes have any impact.
 
PS I don’t see how illustrations of a vagina are bad…it’s quite troubling if someone gets aroused at that…IMO
 
UbiCaritas said:
Well, according to Mrs. Lawler’s blog, my family doesn’t qualify as one of those good, Catholic, like-minded families because

a) I have our kids via cesarean section rather than naturally,
b) I can’t breastfeed,
c) DH and I use NFP,
d) We vaccinate the kids,
e) We don’t spank the kids,
f) I’m–gasp!–going to school so that I can start working part-time
and
g) while we plan on homeschooIing, we don’t intend to keep the kids from spending time with their non-homeschooled peers simply because they aren’t homeschooled.

So I suppose we’ll have to find our own way, since neither we nor our kids would be welcome in that circle! 😛 😉

To be honest, her blog in particular very nearly made me leave the Catholic Church. After all, if I’d already failed as a parent two weeks into motherhood, what was the point of continuing down a rather difficult path?

I don’t disagree with a lot of what she has to say in the article you posted, but I also think there’s a vast difference between looking at a clinical anatomical diagram and “graphic sex ed.” Furthermore, cutting off contact entirely from homosexual family members for the sole reason that they identify as such is hardly the act of a loving Christian.
Click to expand...
I have no knowledge of Mrs. Lawler’s blog; I was referencing only this one article, and thought that it had some worthwhile thoughts on sex education.
 
JimG said:
I’m old enough to have gotten my sex education from Aristotle, but it just seems odd to me that humanity has managed to survive since the dawn of history with no “comprehensive sex education,” an invention of Planned Parenthood. Are the last several generations the only ones in history who required formal classes and graphic materials to figure this all out?

The only sex ed that I can recall having is my dad trying to explain the facts of life to me one night as I was lying in bed ready to get some sleep. After about 10 minutes I remember thinking “this is boring and I’m sleepy.” It occurred to me on several occasions that sex would be something to worry about if and when I got married. Later, if I wanted to know something I looked it up in the medical dictionary or the Merck Manual. The best part about it was I could go through my childhood without being assaulted by graphic images. Do we show kids images of the digestive tract so they will know how to eat?

In my nephew’s 8th grade class at Catholic school they showed a movie of a childbirth. I suppose it was educational but it grossed him out. He came home saying, “I never want to see anything like that ever again!!”

Of course, as has been noted, pornography is already out there. Does graphic sex ed just add to the graphic overload?
Click to expand...
I think you’re not giving enough weight to the misinformation or misunderstandings or irrational fears that ordinary young people tend to be carrying around.

To give you an example, I was a school kid during the AIDS epidemic and I was once totally panicked after having been in the same motel swimming pool with some tattooed biker dudes. I was sure that I was going to get AIDS and DIE. I never mentioned my concern to my parents, either.

More recently, porn and internet locker room chatter has fueled a lot of ignorance among men about women’s bodies and sex, where people accept all sorts of gross and stupid ideas because they have heard them so many times or seen them in fakey porn movies. It’s not infrequent, for example, to run into single guys on CAF or elsewhere who think that the hymen is like the no tamper seal on Tylenol bottles. (Note to guys: it’s totally not.)

There are also very stupid ideas in common circulation about how female arousal works and the effect of sex on women. (Another note: no, sex does not wreck women’s bodies.)

And it’s not just men being ignorant of women’s bodies–because of anatomical differences, young women may have very little idea what their own genitals look like if they aren’t specifically educated. And yes, there are a lot of things that women ought to know about their own bodies and health. A lot of girls and women suffer abnormalities for years without getting appropriate treatment because they don’t know that what they are experiencing isn’t normal. And no, gynecological problems don’t wait until you get married.
 
Xantippe said:
I think you’re not giving enough weight to the misinformation or misunderstandings or irrational fears that ordinary young people tend to be carrying around.

To give you an example, I was a school kid during the AIDS epidemic and I was once totally panicked after having been in the same motel swimming pool with some tattooed biker dudes. I was sure that I was going to get AIDS and DIE. I never mentioned my concern to my parents, either.

More recently, porn and internet locker room chatter has fueled a lot of ignorance among men about women’s bodies and sex, where people accept all sorts of gross and stupid ideas because they have heard them so many times or seen them in fakey porn movies. It’s not infrequent, for example, to run into single guys on CAF or elsewhere who think that the hymen is like the no tamper seal on Tylenol bottles. (Note to guys: it’s totally not.)

There are also very stupid ideas in common circulation about how female arousal works and the effect of sex on women. (Another note: no, sex does not wreck women’s bodies.)

And it’s not just men being ignorant of women’s bodies–because of anatomical differences, young women may have very little idea what their own genitals look like if they aren’t specifically educated. And yes, there are a lot of things that women ought to know about their own bodies and health. A lot of girls and women suffer abnormalities for years without getting appropriate treatment because they don’t know that what they are experiencing isn’t normal. And no, gynecological problems don’t wait until you get married.
Click to expand...
Yep. I’m in a Facebook group that deals with women’s health, and you would be amazed by the sheer number of women who think that normal cervical mucus discharge means that they have some sort of infection, or possibly cancer. Others have conditions that could render them sub-fertile or infertile if they don’t receive appropriate treatment in a timely fashion, but again, don’t necessarily realize it for quite a while.

My parents were extremely traditionalist, and never really had the talk with us. I remember Mother getting sloshed one night and mumbling something about using pads if we ever noticed bleeding, but that was it. Back then, my go-to resource was the encyclopedia, which was at least accurate as to the basics of sex and anatomy but was certainly lacking in other areas.

I do remember spending about three years when I first started cycling being intermittently terrified that I was somehow accidentally pregnant via various impossible means–lying down on my parents’ bed, using the same bathroom as some male friend of the family, etc. And look at the various threads that crop up here from time to time by people worried they’re sinning by having sexual dreams, which are perfectly normal during adolescence and not at all sinful as such.

Lastly, in the case of men and women and anatomy–well, at the risk of being blunt, guys can generally see their sex organs just by glancing down, and there are fewer areas and fewer normal-but-widely-varying differences in appearance. A potentially health-problem-signifying change is fairly easy to notice. For women, it’s not as simple.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top