SEXUAL EDUCATION. – As an integral part of the organism’s functions, even the sexual function cannot be excluded from the educational plan that seeks to restore the psychosomatic equilibrium disturbed in man by original sin. “One must never lose sight of the fact that the subject of Christian education is man in his entirety, spirit united to body, in the unity of his nature, in all his faculties, both natural and supernatural, as both right reason and Revelation make known to us...” (Pius XI, encyclical Divini illius Magistri, 31 Dec. 1929 [AAS, 21 (1929), p. 744]).
While no honest and intelligent educator can deny this, in its practical implementation the question of sexual education becomes exceedingly thorny and controversial, particularly when it intertwines with that of sexual instruction, giving rise to the sharpest disagreement between Christian pedagogy and secular pedagogy, which stems from the naturalistic pedagogy of Rousseau.
On the matter of sexual education, opinions are divided into two opposing camps: that of initiation or revelation and that of silence. On one side, it is argued that a certain number of young people fall into sexual vice through ignorance of evil. Upon occasionally discovering the pleasurable aspect associated with the activity in question, they learn to provoke it, convinced that they are doing something, if not proper, at least not sinful or harmful to health. Another group is initiated by companions already experienced in vice, so that impure revelations about sexual organs and functions excite the unguarded imagination and, through an unhealthy curiosity, lead them into sin. A pure revelation, which teaches the admirable harmony of organs and functions, their lofty purpose in relation to procreation, and the harms of premature or excessive use—both for oneself and for one’s descendants—would be the best antidote to venereal sin, whose determinism, according to such theories, is entirely rooted in the fascination of mystery and the allure of the unknown, which grows unchecked in ignorance of guilt and the harm of misuse.
To this, the advocates of silence counter: teaching, particularly to boys, the structure and function of the generative system, its functional deviations and the vices connected to them, the harms and diseases that may result, is gravely dangerous, for it disturbs an imagination already so exuberant in the subject, creates obscene mental representations, stimulates curiosity, and, rather than restraining, drives the individual to seek experience. Moreover, initiation is unnecessary, since experience teaches that many young people, despite complete ignorance of sexual matters, remain chaste through indirect means—such as wise guidance of sensitivity, avoidance of idleness and bad company, general training of the will, religious education, and above all, the use of prayer and the means of grace. To these arguments, they add that the direct method of revelation is new, contrary to the tradition of Christian families and the practice of the Church.
In the difficult task of resolving the doubt—whether to prefer the method of silence or that of revelation—it must be said at once that the question cannot be framed in absolute terms. Excellent educators and moralists (v. quotations cited in Ruiz Amado [op. cit. in bibl.], pp. 118 ff. and Lanza-Palazzini [op. cit. in bibl.], pp. 44 ff) maintain the usefulness, appropriateness, and indeed the obligation of sexual education, but they weigh the circumstances and individual conditions of each case more heavily than the method itself. To resolve the question in an absolute manner, one cannot invoke a classical tradition or the practice of other eras, which, when examined historically, clearly adapted itself variably to circumstances, moral standards, and educational needs of different times and cannot bear absolute generalization. Rather than the opinions of individuals, greater weight must be given to the decisions of the Holy Office and the words of the Supreme Pontiffs, particularly those that, being more recent, seem better suited to our age and, by their tone and circumstances, appear to carry great authority.
The discourse of Pope Pius XII, delivered on 18 Sept. 1951 to a group of French fathers of families, is of this kind. In it, he states that “in moral education, neither initiation nor instruction can of themselves bring any benefit; on the contrary, they are gravely unhealthy and prejudicial if not firmly bound to constant discipline, vigorous self-mastery, and the use, in all things, of the supernatural forces of prayer and the Sacraments” (AAS, [1951], p. 733). In this discourse, Pius XII explicitly links back to what he had already said on 31 Dec. 1929 (cited encyclical, ibid. [1929], p. 747): “Widespread is the error of those who, with dangerous presumption and ill-chosen words, promote a so-called sexual education, falsely believing they can safeguard young people from the dangers of sex through purely natural means, such as a reckless initiation and preventive instruction for all indiscriminately, and even publicly, and, worse still, by exposing them early to occasions, to accustom them, as they say, and almost harden their minds against dangers... It is well known that, especially in the young, offenses against good morals are not so much the result of intellectual ignorance as primarily of a weak will, exposed to occasions and unsupported by the means of grace... If, in view of all circumstances, some individual instruction becomes necessary at an opportune time, it must be given by those to whom God has entrusted the educational mission and the grace of state, and all the well-known precautions of traditional Christian education must be observed...”
From the context of the words of the two Pontiffs, it appears that the condemnation is in fact directed against naturalistic methods based solely on initiation and instruction, divorced—if not indeed opposed—to “constant discipline, vigorous self-mastery, and the use, in all things, of the supernatural forces of prayer and the Sacraments.” Pius XII had already clarified his thought on other occasions, admitting that in particular circumstances of suitability, the convenience or necessity of individual instruction may arise. Indeed, in his discourse to the women of Catholic Action gathered in Rome from Italian dioceses on 26 Oct. 1941, he had spoken words that clearly
They inculcated upon parents the advisability of a sex education, albeit with all those most scrupulous precautions demanded by the subject:
“With the perspicacity of mothers and educators, thanks to the trusting openness of heart which you will have known how to inspire in your children, you will not fail to scrutinize and discern the occasion and moment when certain questions rising to their minds will have presented to their senses particular disturbances. It will fall to you, for your daughters, and to the father, for your sons, insofar as it appears necessary, to lift cautiously, delicately the veil of truth, and to give them a prudent, just, and Christian answer to those questions and anxieties. Received from the lips of Christian parents, at the opportune hour, in the opportune measure, with all due precautions, the revelations on the mysterious and wonderful laws of life will be listened to with reverence mingled with gratitude, and will illumine their souls with far less danger than if they were to learn them haphazardly, from turbid encounters, from clandestine conversations, in the school of wicked and already too knowing companions, through secret readings—all the more perilous and pernicious in that secrecy inflames the imagination and excites the senses. Your words, if prudent and discreet, may become a safeguard and a warning amid the temptations of corruption that surround them...” (AAS, 33 [1941], pp. 455-56).
It thus clearly appears that the Pontiff does not wish unconditionally to exclude every form of sex education under any circumstance and for every type of person; but rather to condemn, by proclaiming it dangerous and fallacious, a form that is absolutely secular and naturalistic, reduced solely to “a rash initiation and preventive instruction for all indiscriminately, and even publicly.”
It seems that one may arrive at the same conclusion regarding a decree and an instruction, both from the Congregation of the Holy Office. The decree, dated 11 March 1931 (AAS, 23 [1931], pp. 118-19), in response to the question whether the so-called method of sex education or even sexual initiation may be approved, answers in the negative, affirming that in the education of the young the method hitherto used by the Church and by holy men, and recommended by the Pope in the encyclical Divini illius Magistri, must be entirely preserved. The condemnation must, however, be interpreted in relation to the particular instructional approach of sex education current at the time, an approach corresponding to the fact that “the advocates of the biological or physiological method deny in man original sin, and maintain that apart from mere ignorance there exists no other defect to be remedied” (Lanza-Palazzini, op. cit. in bibl., p. 42). The instruction of the Holy Office concerns the norms which confessors must prudently observe in the exercise of their office (norms of 16 May 1943, reported in Monitore ecclesiastico, 68 [1943], pp. 76-79). Explicitly, it states: “Neque etiam confessarius, sponte seu rogatus, de natura vel ad id nullo unquam praetextu adducatur.” While these norms clearly forbid the priest from giving the penitent instruction “on sexual matters (docere) concerning the characteristics and mechanism of the sexual function,” they leave the question of a true sex education undecided, from which the priest, who in conscience deemed it necessary in a particular case, cannot be prevented.
On this concept of not abandoning the field of sex education to itself, nor indeed positively forbidding it to those who have the duty of education, Pius XII seems to insist in his address to the professors of the Discalced Carmelites on the occasion of the XXV of their International College, 25 September 1951:
“What then shall we say of chastity?... We are dealing with matters which must be treated with reverence and reason. Hence this modesty must not be so understood that on this subject perpetual silence is maintained and that not even a sober and cautious discourse on these matters is ever held. On these subjects young people should be instructed with suitable advice, and they should be allowed to open their minds, to seek without hesitation, and to receive an answer that is secure, clear, and sufficiently explained, so that it may impart to them light and confidence” (AAS [1951], pp. 736).
The words of the present Pontiff, in which he touches upon the problem of sex education, addressed each time to educators, mothers, women of Catholic Action, heads of families, and educators of religious, clarify a particular aspect and a well-defined sector of sex education: namely, the preparation of educators for this duty.
It must be admitted that often there exists, and particularly where it should be least expected, a great ignorance and a great indifference on the part of certain categories of educators regarding the problem of sex education. In particular, parents often show a lack of interest in the question, and through laziness or a misplaced sense of modesty almost seem to ignore that their children have a sexual life and that the education of this is a precise duty for them, no less important or grave than the formation of any other faculty. Many parents find an easy way out of this duty by retreating into the myth of the unquestioned purity of their children. Others willingly accept, as an alibi for their educational neglect, the principle of the inevitability or at least irresistibility of sexual license, or the supposed harm that chastity may do to health.
Let those to whom the young are entrusted, and especially parents, therefore be enlightened on certain particular points regarding the problems of sex education, so that they may well understand the terms of the question and, with true knowledge of the matter, be able to carry out their mission at the opportune moment. The points on which they should focus their attention are the following: 1) how widespread is the abuse of sexuality; 2) it is a prejudice that chastity is harmful to the health of the young and that sexual license is inevitable, indeed necessary, particularly in males; 3) it is far more useful, from the purely pedagogical standpoint (apart from the use of supernatural means—prayer, the Sacraments—which must be placed in the first place), that sex education, rather than being imparted through absolute and authoritarian prohibitions, should develop, beginning in childhood and progressively with the growth of age, rationally and persuasively, to form in the young a conscience of the sexual function, clearly directed toward an end legitimate only in marriage, in which the primary ends (procreation and education of offspring) and secondary ends (mutual help and remedy of concupiscence) may find a secure and harmonious development.
Regarding the first point, educators should be warned against excessive optimism. Without wishing to accept outright statistical results according to which sexual license, even in its most unnatural or perverted forms, would be the norm for almost all individuals, and based on what the experience of priests in the confessional, our best educators, and the most serious and prudent authors teaches (v. BIBLICA), one must admit the very widespread diffusion of sexual abuse in every sex, age, and social condition. From this, one can indirectly infer how great is the probability among young people of immoral contagion and impure revelation by peers, and how dangerous and unreasonable is the system of educational negativism carried to extremes.
Regarding the alleged harm of chastity, V. this entry (Enc. Catt., vol. III, col. 1050). Regarding the necessity that sex education, in cases where it appears advisable or even particularly incumbent—especially during the period between puberty and marriage—be imparted in a rational and persuasive manner, it is clear that only through this path can the force be taken away from sexual license that comes from prejudice, ignorance, or the uncontrolled unleashing of vegetative life. It also serves well to provide the will with effective rational motives alongside the supernatural action of the Sacraments and Grace. Moreover, it must always be kept in mind, in every educational endeavor, that our rational and free nature—especially from adolescence onward—is more easily swayed and guided by persuasion and reasoned precept than by authoritarian and absolute command.
In conclusion, far from any a priori absolutism, it is believed that the problem of sex education cannot tolerate a single solution in one direction or the other, because in individual cases many elements may determine