Background
The
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority (ACARA) is an
independent body responsible for development of the national curriculum. Most
recently it released the draft Health and Physical Education curriculum which
made headlines around the nation due to the inclusion of a framework that
introduces puberty in years 5-6.
ACARA
initially tabled puberty for inclusion in years 3-4, but pushed it back to
years 5-6 after respondents representing Catholic education expressed concern
that this was too early.
In
conjunction with the draft release, the media ran stories of “research” that
found a majority of high school students wanted sex education to begin during
the primary years. One particular study surveyed 100 high school students from
Ballarat in Victoria, with just over half responding in favour of sex education
during primary school.
“Students
want sex education earlier”, headlines proclaimed.[1] But 100 students is hardly
a cross-section.
In Randy
Engel’s well-researched book, Sex
Education - The Final Plague, the author challenges the concept of
classroom-based sex education completely, whether in all its gory public school
detail, or in its “values-rich” imitation of the Catholic system.
Engel’s
challenge is that of the Church. And as ever, our Mother the Church has taken
great care in providing careful instruction on the matter of education in human
sexuality.
Church Teaching
“The family is, in fact, the best environment
to accomplish the obligation of securing a gradual education in sexual life.”[2]
"Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualized formation. Since parents know, understand and love each of their children in their uniqueness, they are in the best position to decide what the appropriate time is for providing a variety of information, according to their children's physical and spiritual growth." [3]
"Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualized formation. Since parents know, understand and love each of their children in their uniqueness, they are in the best position to decide what the appropriate time is for providing a variety of information, according to their children's physical and spiritual growth." [3]
“Parents
should take an interest in the moral catechesis which is given to their own
children outside the home and use it as a support for their own educational
work. Such catechesis must not include the more intimate aspects of sexual
information, whether biological or affective, which belong to individual
formation within the family.”[4]
“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.”[5]
“Fathers and
mothers have a natural competence to instruct their children with regard to
sex. False modesty should not deter them from doing their duty in this regard.
Sex is one of God's endowments. It should not be ignored or treated as
something bad. If sex education is properly carried on in the home, a deep
reverence will be developed in the child and he will be spared the shameful
inferences which he often makes when he is left to himself to find out about
sex. We protest in the strongest
possible terms against the introduction of sex instruction into the schools.”[6] (emphasis added)
History
More than just a simple presentation of the biological
facts of reproduction, sexuality education is commonly defined as “the process
of acquiring information and forming
attitudes and beliefs about sex, sexual identity, relationships and intimacy.”[7] (emphasis added)
Catching On Early, Victoria’s sexuality education
resource for primary schools, affirms this: “Sexuality education is ‘bigger’
than biology, bearing social dimensions that can impact on
students’ need and right to know how their
bodies function.”[8]
The Sex
Information and Education Council for the United States (SIECUS) was founded in
1964 to “advocate for the right of all people to accurate
information, comprehensive education about sexuality, and sexual health
services.”[9]
Prior to
SIECUS though, there were literally decades of campaigning and positioning by
population control advocates, abortion law reformers, social elites, medical
professionals, educators and even religious leaders that made it easy to
transition from family-based moral formation to comprehensive sex education – and
to transform the latter into what is now widely accepted as a vital component
of a child's academic formation.
All of these
early campaigners understood the impact that sex education has on individuals
and societies, and they worked to ensure its implementation and success.
One such campaigner was Alan
Guttmacher, M.D., the president of Planned Parenthood and a signatory to the Humanist Manifesto II, which, among
other things, affirmed the ‘right’ to birth control, abortion, divorce and
euthanasia.[10] When Guttmacher was interviewed following the
Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade case of
1973, he was asked how Planned Parenthood (America’s largest abortion provider)
would uphold the Supreme Court’s decision.
“The only avenue Planned Parenthood
has "to win the battle,” is sex education,” he said.[11]
“Catholic” Sex Ed
Generally speaking, there are
two types of sex education that are considered acceptable (by differing groups)
to teach in schools. The first is referred to as comprehensive sex education;
the second as abstinence education.
Perhaps the most significant difference between the two is that the aim of abstinence education is to prevent pre-marital sexual activity while the aim of comprehensive sex education is to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Abstinence education is often faith-based, with a focus on marriage as the only proper context for sex. Comprehensive sex education teaches that casual sex and sexual experimentation is normal activity for teens and focuses on STI awareness and prevention and contraceptive familiarity and know-how.
Because comprehensive sex education is glaringly evil, Christians have been led to believe that abstinence education is not just the lesser of two evils, but a good and healthy alternative.
Perhaps the most significant difference between the two is that the aim of abstinence education is to prevent pre-marital sexual activity while the aim of comprehensive sex education is to avoid pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
Abstinence education is often faith-based, with a focus on marriage as the only proper context for sex. Comprehensive sex education teaches that casual sex and sexual experimentation is normal activity for teens and focuses on STI awareness and prevention and contraceptive familiarity and know-how.
Because comprehensive sex education is glaringly evil, Christians have been led to believe that abstinence education is not just the lesser of two evils, but a good and healthy alternative.
All of this
assumes that it is acceptable that sex be turned into a subject for academic
study.
From a Catholic perspective, neither programme is acceptable. Both reject the premise that sex education is the sole domain of parents. There are even “Catholic” sex education programmes which take sex education away from parents and place it in the hands of curriculum writers and teachers whose moral views are often less than truly Catholic.
These so-called Catholic ‘chastity programmes’ are humanistic at best, scandalous and indecent at worst. In her 1986 Love and Life abstinence curriculum for Catholic schools in the US, Coleen Mast included an explicit description of the sex act, a guide for “values clarification” and displayed a distinct lack of reverence for sexuality.[12]
From a Catholic perspective, neither programme is acceptable. Both reject the premise that sex education is the sole domain of parents. There are even “Catholic” sex education programmes which take sex education away from parents and place it in the hands of curriculum writers and teachers whose moral views are often less than truly Catholic.
These so-called Catholic ‘chastity programmes’ are humanistic at best, scandalous and indecent at worst. In her 1986 Love and Life abstinence curriculum for Catholic schools in the US, Coleen Mast included an explicit description of the sex act, a guide for “values clarification” and displayed a distinct lack of reverence for sexuality.[12]
Today, the Tasmanian Catholic
Education Office, in its version of a sex education programme, Growing Towards Wholeness, states: “It
is the duty and the privilege of Catholic school communities to form students
towards mature, healthy and loving sexuality.”[13] (Refer
to Church teaching above: The parent’s rights in matters of sexuality education
are never forfeited or transferred to another person, and certainly not to a
school.)
The framework policy goes on to state that, “Teachers make prudent, informed
judgments about the content of programmes in relation to the individual needs
and capacities of their students.”[14]
Even if classroom based sex education didn’t usurp the
rights and responsibilities of parents, it is highly unlikely that teachers in
a large classroom setting would have the necessary insight to make an informed
judgment about the developmental stage of each child in relation to such a
sensitive and morally important issue.
The Year 7
framework of Growing Towards Wholeness
covers puberty, with a glossary of terms including conception, contraception,
erection, ejaculation, nocturnal emissions and menstruation. Year 8 students
look at the definition of consent, fertility and contraception. Year 9s look at
STIs, sexting and teen pregnancy, while it is suggested that a school may call
in experts to speak about natural family planning to senior students.[15]
One might
have assumed NFP education should be reserved for engaged or married couples.
Remember,
this is the “Catholic” version.
It is true that abstinence education is also a motivational programme, which focuses on the family as the central unit of society, encourages chastity and teaches students to “attain self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity”.[16]
It is true that abstinence education is also a motivational programme, which focuses on the family as the central unit of society, encourages chastity and teaches students to “attain self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity”.[16]
But chastity
education is a matter of grace and formation, not just information. It is an
entire way of life that should be modeled by parents first and foremost and
included as part of a “whole life” approach to a child’s upbringing.
Engel points
out, “If Catholic schools were teaching traditional doctrinal catechetics…
there would be no need for a separate course on chastity. Generally speaking,
references to sexual morality, covered by the 6th and 9th
Commandments, should, in a regular course of religious study, neither be
emphasized nor under-played, but rather treated within the total context of
traditional Church teaching, which includes the Commandments, the theological
and moral virtues, the fruits of the Holy Spirit, the Beatitudes and Sacred
Scripture.”[17]
Where We’re At
ACARA’s attempt to lower the age
at which the topic of puberty is introduced is indicative of the relentless
assault against children that seeks to break down traditional values,
desensitize children and turn innocence into a myth.
In 2010, a Monash University
researcher spent 5 days in a Victorian childcare centre trying to gauge the
sexual knowledge and views of the 3-4 year olds at the centre. Dr Mindy Blaise
asked the children questions like, “Are you a flirt?” and “Have you ever kissed
a boy?”
Blaise believes childhood innocence is a myth and says she intentionally brought a topic into the preschool that adults usually ignore.[18] Never mind that parents might “ignore” this topic because they don’t think it a necessary part of their preschooler’s education.
Blaise believes childhood innocence is a myth and says she intentionally brought a topic into the preschool that adults usually ignore.[18] Never mind that parents might “ignore” this topic because they don’t think it a necessary part of their preschooler’s education.
This kind of research and
educational theory is informing the development of curriculums and changing
attitudes.
Future Developments
Tasmania is
one state that is taking sex education to a whole new level of heinous.
The current
Tasmanian Minister for Education and Skills, Nick McKim, became Leader of the
Tasmanian Greens in 2008. Launching the Relationships and Sexuality Education
Strategy (RSES) in October of this year, McKim stated his intention “that all
government schools from K-12 have relationships and sexuality education programmes
that include all students.”[19]
In contrast
to Catholic Church teaching, the Tasmanian Department of Education states in
its RSES that “Relationships and
sexuality education is a shared responsibility between schools, government and
non-government health agencies, parents and the wider community.”[20] It is unclear exactly
what role the wider community should have in educating children about sex.
Further into
the Strategy, it states: “A commitment to support young people; including those
who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI), is
integral to an inclusive approach and should be reflected in a school’s
policies and practices.”
Throughout
the document, the writers refer to ‘development-appropriate’ support,
resources, frameworks, content. How does a curriculum provide
‘development-appropriate’ content? How does a teacher provide
‘development-appropriate’ information tailored to each student in a class? How
can a teacher ever hope to know a child so well that they can tailor a
curriculum to each student’s needs?
There is something you can do
There is more
at stake here than avoiding teen pregnancy.
When
tragedies occur, one of our first thoughts is of how the survivors will fare;
how they will be doing in 2, 5, 10 years. We know too well the long-term
effects that tragedies can have on the psychological, emotional and spiritual
well-being of those involved.
Similarly, we
cannot afford to neglect the long-term effects of sex education on our
children. We cannot afford to think that a sex ed class is just one or two
short periods, that it is just a simple presentation of biological facts. It is
not. Sex education is now about helping young people to discover and utilize
the “safest” expression for their individual sexual “choices”.
The sex
education movement is based on a dangerous and powerful ideology, and has the
potential to affect children for life. It has the ability to create an
attitudinal shift towards human sexuality that will cause spiritual,
psychological and often physical scarring.[21]
There are two
things we can all do right now:
- ACARA has made the draft Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education Foundation to Year 10 available for review and feedback until 12 April 2013. Please visit http://consultation.australiancurriculum.edu.au/ to complete the survey and provide written comments.
- Contact your local bishop and discuss what is being taught in the Catholic school your children attend. An Australian bishop has verbally admitted that part of the second collection taken at Mass each weekend likely goes to fund sex ed in the Catholic schools of his diocese. It’s important to know where our tithe goes.
It is vital
that we are aware of what our children are being taught. The concepts discussed
and materials used in classrooms are all accessible via the Internet or from our
child’s school.
We must
defend our children in this battleground. It is our God-given right and
responsibility.
© Eva Whiteley 2013
[2] The Pontifical Council for the Family The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality –
Guidelines for Education within the Family, 8 December 1995 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html Accessed 11-12-12
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Pope Pius XI
Encyclical Divini Illius Magistri on
Christian Education, 31 December 1929
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html Accessed 10-12-12
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121929_divini-illius-magistri_en.html Accessed 10-12-12
[6] Catholic Bishops of
the United States Statement The Child:
Citizens of Two Worlds, 17 November 1950 http://www.shc.edu/theolibrary/resources/child.htm Accessed 10-12-12
[7] http://www.avert.org/sex-education.htm Accessed 17-12-12
NB: this description was used by
Australian researchers in their paper published May 2012: Bernadette Duffy,
Nina Fotinatos, Amanda Smith & Jenene Burke (2012): Puberty, health and
sexual education in Australian regional primary schools: Year 5 and 6 teacher perceptions,
Sex Education: Sexuality, Society and Learning,
DOI:10.1080/14681811.2012.678324
[8] Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development http://www.eduweb.vic.gov.au/edulibrary/public/teachlearn/student/catchingoneyrsv.pdf p. 3, Accessed 16-12-12
[9] SIECUS Mission Statement http://siecus.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=472 Accessed 17-12-12
[10] Kurtz, P. and Wilson, E. 1973, Humanist Manifesto II http://www.americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_II Accessed 16-12-12
[11] The
Evening Star and Daily News, 3 May 1973 http://uscl.info/edoc/doc.php?doc_id=91&action=inline Accessed 16-12-12
[12]
Engel, pp. 115-117
[13] Introduction to Growing Towards Wholeness, Tasmanian Catholic Education Office, p.
7 http://www.catholic.tas.edu.au/Resources/documents/Growing%20Towards%20Wholeness%20Final%20Draft.pdf Accessed 11-10-12
[14] Ibid. p. 13
[15] Ibid. p. 15
[16] Family and Youth Services Bureau Title V State Abstinence Education Grant Programme Fact Sheet, 6
April 2012
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programmes/fysb/resource/aegp-fact-sheet Accessed 16-12-12
[17] Engel, R. Sex Education – The Final Plague, TAN 1993, p. 156-157
[18] Blaise, M. Kiss and tell: Gendered
narratives and childhood sexuality; Australasian Journal of Early Childhood
– Volume 35 No 1 March 2010, pp. 1–9
[20] Department of
Education Tasmania http://www.education.tas.gov.au/documentcentre/Documents/Relationships-and-Sexuality-Education-in-Tasmanian-Government-Schools.pdf Accessed 8-12-12
