SEXUAL EDUCATION. – An integral part of the organism’s functions, the sexual function too cannot be excluded from the educational plan that seeks to restore the psychosomatic equilibrium disturbed in man by original sin. “It must never be lost from sight that the subject of Christian education is man in his entirety, spirit joined to body in unity of nature, in all his faculties, natural and supernatural, as right reason and Revelation alike make him known to us...” (Pius XI, encyclical Divini illius Magistri, 31 Dec. 1929 [AAS, 21 (1929), p. 744]).
Although this cannot be denied by any honest and intelligent educator, in its practical implementation the question of s. e. becomes exceedingly thorny and controversial, particularly when it becomes intertwined with that of sexual instruction, producing the sharpest disagreement between Christian pedagogy and secular pedagogy, which traces its origins to pedagogical naturalism à la Rousseau.
On the subject of s. e., opinions are divided into two opposing camps: that of initiation or revelation, and that of silence. On the one hand, it is maintained that a certain number of young people fall into sexual vice through ignorance of evil: having come accidentally to know the instrumental pleasure associated with the activity of the function in question, they then learn to induce it, convinced that they are doing something which, although improper, is neither sinful nor harmful to health. A certain number are initiated by companions already experienced in vice, so that an impure disclosure concerning the sexual organs and functions lustfully excites the defenseless imagination and, along the path of unhealthy curiosity, causes them to slide into sin. A pure disclosure, teaching the admirable harmony of the organs and functions, their elevated purpose with regard to procreation, and the harm caused by premature use and abuse, both to oneself and to one’s descendants, would be the best antidote to venereal sin, whose determinism, according to these theories, is entirely founded on the fascination of mystery and the attraction of the unknown, which grows without restraint in ignorance of the guilt and harm resulting from misuse.
To this, the advocates of silence object that teaching, particularly to boys, the structure and function of the generative apparatus, its functional deviations
and the vices associated with them, and the harms and diseases that may result from them, is gravely dangerous, because it disturbs an imagination already so exuberant in the subject, produces obscene representations in the mind, whets curiosity and, rather than restraining the individual, drives him to want to experience II. Moreover, initiation is superfluous, since experience teaches that many young people, even in complete ignorance of sexual matters, preserve their chastity through the sole means of indirect education, such as the wise direction of the sensibility, avoidance of idleness and bad company, the general training of the will, education in religiousness and, above all, recourse to 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 to the practice of the Church.
In the difficult task of resolving the doubt—whether preference should be given to the method of silence or to that of revelation—it must immediately be said that the question cannot be posed in so absolute a manner. Excellent educators and moralists (v. citations reproduced in Ruiz Amado [op. cit. in bibl.], p. 118 ff. and Lanza-Palazzini [op. cit. in bibl.], p. 44 ff) maintain the usefulness, appropriateness, indeed even the obligation, of s. e., and attach the greatest importance to the circumstances and individual conditions of each case; what matters far more than whether it is given is the manner in which it is imparted. In order to resolve the question absolutely, it seems impossible to invoke either a classical tradition or the practice of other periods, which, when examined from the historical standpoint, certainly appears to have adapted itself variously to the circumstances, the moral level, and the educational needs of different ages, and cannot bear an absolute generalization. More than the opinions of individual men, great weight must be given to the decisions of the Holy Office and to the words of the Supreme Pontiffs, particularly those which, being more recent, appear better adapted to our age and, because of the tone and circumstances in which they were spoken, appear to possess great authority.
The address delivered by Pope Pius XII on 18 Sept. 1951 to a group of French fathers of families appears to be of this kind. In it he stated that “in moral education, neither initiation nor instruction can in itself bring any advantage; indeed, on the contrary, it is gravely unhealthy and harmful if it is not firmly linked to constant discipline, vigorous self-mastery, and the use, everywhere, of the supernatural powers of prayer and the Sacraments” (AAS, [1951], p. 733). In this address Pius XII explicitly connected his words with what Pius XI had already said on 31 Dec. 1929 (cited encyclical, ibid. [1929], p. 747): “Very widespread is the error of those who, with dangerous presumption and in ugly language, promote a so-called s. e., falsely believing that they can safeguard young people against the dangers of sex by purely natural means, such as a rash initiation and preventive instruction for all indiscriminately, even publicly, and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to occasions, in order, as they say, to exhaust them and almost harden their souls against dangers... It is clear that, especially among the young, offenses against good morals are not so much the effect of intellectual ignorance as principally of a weak will, exposed to occasions and unsupported by the means of Grace... If, after all the circumstances have been considered, some individual instruction proves necessary at the appropriate time, on the part of one who has received from God the educational mission and the grace of state, all the very 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 methods based on naturalism, consisting solely of initiation and instruction separated from, if not actually opposed to, “constant discipline, vigorous self-mastery, and the use, everywhere, of the supernatural powers of prayer and the Sacraments”; on other occasions Pius XII had already clarified his position, admitting that, in particular and opportune circumstances, individual instruction might prove appropriate or necessary. Indeed, in the address he delivered on 26 Oct. 1941 to the women of Catholic Action who had gathered in Rome from the Italian dioceses, he had spoken words that clearly-offsetof
inculcated in parents the advisability of sexual education, albeit with all the most scrupulous precautions demanded by the subject: «With your motherly and educational perspicacity, thanks to the trusting openness of heart that you will have known how to instill in your children, you will not fail to scrutinize and discern the occasion and the moment when certain hidden questions that have arisen in their minds will have produced particular disturbances in their senses. It will be your task, in the case of your daughters, and the father’s, in the case of your sons, insofar as it may appear necessary, cautiously and delicately to lift the veil of truth and give them a prudent, sound, and Christian answer to those questions and anxieties. Received from the lips of Christian parents, at the opportune hour, in the appropriate measure, with all due precautions, revelations concerning the mysterious and marvelous laws of life will be heard with reverence mingled with gratitude; they will illumine their souls with far less danger than if they should learn them by chance, through murky encounters, clandestine conversations, at the school of untrustworthy and already over-knowing companions, through covert readings—all the more dangerous and pernicious insofar as secrecy inflames the imagination and excites the senses. Your words, if sensible and discreet, may become a safeguard and a warning amid the temptations of the corruption that surrounds them...» (AAS, 33 [1941], pp. 455-56).
It therefore clearly appears that the Pontiff does not wish unconditionally to exclude every form of sexual education in every circumstance and for every kind of person; rather, he wishes only to condemn, proclaiming it dangerous and deceptive, an absolutely secular and naturalistic form reduced merely to «reckless initiation and preventive instruction for all indiscriminately, and even publicly».
It seems that the same conclusion may be reached with regard to a decree and an instruction, both issued by 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 method known as sexual education or sexual initiation may be approved, answers in the negative, affirming that in the education of the young the method used up to that time by the Church and by holy men, and recommended by the Pontiff in the encyclical Divini Ilius Magistri, must be wholly retained. The condemnation must, however, be interpreted in relation to the particular informative orientation of sexual education characteristic of the period, an orientation corresponding to the fact that «the advocates of the biological or physiological method deny original sin in man and maintain that, apart from ignorance alone, there exists no other defect requiring remedy» (Lanza-Palazzini, op. cit. in the bibliography, p. 42). The instruction of the Holy Office concerns the norms to which confessors must prudently adhere in carrying out their office (norms of 16 May 1943, reproduced in Monitore ecclesiastico, 68 [1943], pp. 76-79). It explicitly states: «Itidem ne audeat confessarius, seu sponte seu rogatus de natura vel atque ad id nullo unquam praetextu adducatur». If these norms clearly appear to prohibit the priest from giving the penitent sexual instruction (docere) concerning the characteristics and mechanism of the sexual function, they leave untouched the question of a genuine «sexual education», from which the priest who in conscience deemed it necessary in a particular case could not be prevented.
Pius XII seems to insist on this conception—that the field of sexual education should not be abandoned to itself, and still less positively forbidden to those who have the duty of educating—in his address to the teachers of the Discalced Carmelites on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of their International College, on 25 September 1951: «Quid vero dicamus de castitate?... de rebus agitur, quae reverenti modo rationeque tractari debent. Quocirca huiusmodi verecundia non ita accipienda est, ut hac super causa perpetuo aequiparetur silentio utque in impertienda disciplina morum ne sobrius quidem cautusque sermo de iis unquam fiat. His super rebus adulescentes consiliis idoneis instruantur eisque licet aperire animum, sine haesitatione quaerere, responsum accipere, quod securum, perspicuum, satis explicatum ipsis lumen et fiduciam iniciat» (AAS [1951], p. 736).
The words of the present Pontiff touching upon the problem of sexual education, addressed each time to educators—mothers, women of Catholic Action, fathers of families, and educators of religious—clarify a particular aspect and a well-defined sector of sexual education: the preparation of educators for this duty.
It must be acknowledged that there often exists, particularly where the opposite should most be the case, great ignorance and great indifference among certain categories of educators with regard to the problem of sexual education. Parents in particular often take no interest in the matter and, out of laziness or misplaced modesty, almost seem to ignore the fact that their children have a sexual life and that its education represents for them a precise duty, no less important and serious than the formation of any other faculty. Many parents find an easy escape from this duty by taking refuge in the myth of the unquestioned purity of their children. Others readily accept, as an alibi for their educational indifference, the principle that sexual license is inevitable, or at least irresistible, or the claim that chastity may harm health.
Let those entrusted with the young, and especially parents, therefore be enlightened on certain specific points concerning the problems of sexual education, so that they may properly understand the terms of the question and, with genuine knowledge of the facts, may fulfill their mission at the opportune moment. The points on which their attention should be concentrated are the following: 1) how widespread sexual abuse is; 2) that it is a prejudice to hold that chastity harms the health of the young and that sexual license is inevitable, indeed necessary, particularly for males; 3) that, from a purely pedagogical standpoint, apart from the use of means of supernatural value (prayer, the Sacraments), which must be placed in the very first rank, it is far more useful for sexual education to proceed not through authoritarian and absolute prohibitions, but from childhood onward and progressively as age increases, rationally and persuasively forming in the young an awareness of the sexual function, clearly directed toward an end, legitimate only within marriage, in which the primary ends (procreation and the education of offspring) and secondary ends (mutual assistance and a remedy for concupiscence) can find secure and harmonious development.
With regard to the first point, educators must be warned against excessive optimism. While one may not simply accept statistical results according to which sexual license, even in its most unnatural or perverted forms, would be the norm for almost all individuals, if one relies on what is taught by the experience of priests in the confessional, of our best educators, and of the most serious and prudent authors (v. L. Scremin, op. cit. in the bibliography), one must acknowledge the extremely widespread abuse of sexuality among every sex, age group, and social condition. From this, one may indirectly infer how great among the young is the probability of immoral contagion and impure revelation by their peers, and how dangerous and unreasonable is the system of educational negativism carried to extremes. With regard to the alleged harm of chastity, V. this entry (Enc. Catt., vol. III, col. 1050). With regard to the necessity that s. e., in cases in which it appears appropriate or even obligatory, particularly during the prepubertal-pubertal period, be imparted in a rational and persuasive form, it is clear that only by this means can sexual license be deprived of the force it may derive from prejudice, ignorance, and the uncontrolled unleashing of vegetative life; this means is also highly effective in providing the will with efficacious motives of rational support alongside the supernatural action of the Sacraments and Grace. It must also always be borne in mind that, in every educational manifestation, our rational and free nature, especially from adolescence onward, more readily bends and allows itself to be guided by persuasion and by a motivated precept than by an authoritarian and absolute command.
In conclusion, far from any a priori absolutism, it is thought that the problem of s. e. cannot tolerate a single solution in one direction or the other, because in individual practical cases many elements may preferentially determine the choice of one method or the other, of one moment rather than another; thus, what comes to the forefront is not so much the type of education as the particular manner in which it is applied.
Precisely with regard to the manner, it seems that the following general principles of s. e. may be accepted by every intelligent and honest educator. 1) S. e. should never be given, in its explicit form, according to a plan fixed in advance for particular ages, collectively, and still less in the intermingling of the sexes; therefore not in school or in lectures, but individually, the only manner in which it can be adapted and graduated to each case, avoiding the danger that the malice of one person may spoil the simplicity with which the initiation is given and received. 2) The educator should always act personally, not therefore by means of a book placed in the hands of the pupil, since by such means it is impossible to proportion the revelation to the individual’s current needs, level of instruction and education, and particular reaction at the moment. 3) S. e. should be imparted “by one who has from God the educational mission and the grace of state” (Pius XI, encyclical Divini illius Magistri: AAS [1929], p. 747), therefore in the first place by the parents, and then by qualified educators (priests, religious, laypersons). 4) With regard to its form, it should not be a simple sexual instruction, but should be raised to the level of a true s. e., consisting not merely in the teaching of a certain number of items of knowledge concerning sex and its specific organs and functions, but tending to form conscience, responsibility, and the volitional mastery of the sexual function.