“And it’s girls who are more likely to be aware that they’re giving something away when they have sex, whereas teenage boys are probably truly incapable of seeing sex as self-sacrificial:  they’re just not made that way.”
“I can give myself to him and it will be pure and beautiful because we’ll be together forever <B <B <B” (and meanwhile, the boyfriend is thinking, “Score!”).”

I find the above quotes insulting to boys. As a past boy(now husband and father), I did not have the mindset that you are suggesting and as a school chaplain, I can state that there are many of the boys that I work with that don’t either. Other than that criticism, I like the article.

The abstinence-only horror stories can be traced to a false view of sex commonly held by conservative Protestants.
.
The view is that sex is wrong and dirty and something that Good Girls shouldn’t like, but that men NEED. Women are supposed to stay “pure” until marriage and then be available to satisfy their husbands every sexual need afterward, lest he stray. (1 Corinthians 7:5 and Ephesians 5:22-24 are frequently misused as justification. This makes women’s bodies to a certain degree the property of their husband.) Men, on the other hand, simply cannot control themselves. This places the burden of chastity is almost entirely on the woman. This is why the concept of chastity in marriage is completely foreign to Protestants. (And without chastity in marriage, you can see why they do not condemn contraception.) This is why celibacy is thought of as “unnatural”, despite what Paul said. This is also why some condemn even celibate homosexuals. (The assumption is that celibacy is impossible). And this is why there is a trememdous amount of pressure in these churches to marry young. (And if marriage is entered into with due to external pressure and without proper maturity—both grounds for an annulment in the Catholic Church—this creates a need for divorce.)
.
This is why Catholics need to be wary about taking sides in the United States’ “Culture War”. The US is predominantly a Protestant nation. This means that the battle lines aren’t between secularism and Christianity, but secularism and heretical Christianity. (Not that I don’t like Protestants, but their moral theology is seriously deficient. I certainly don’t stay Catholic for the music.) As a result, Catholics may find themselves unwittingly supporting positions and ideas contrary to Church teaching due to a poorly thought out political alliance.

I was one of those girls who lost my virginity my senior year in HS.  I was a “good christian girl”, attended church, believed in waiting until marriage, etc…until I met and fell in love with my boyfriend.  I think I totally fell into the second trap you mention.  I believe I was one of the last virgins in my class at school, if not the last.  My boyfriend was also a “good christian”, attended church and was totally in love with me.  We went on to get a college education, marry and have a wonderful family.  However, the fact that we had premarital sex has had repercussions into our marriage even to this day, and we’ve been married 14 years.  If I could change anything about our relationship it would be that, it would have prevented many of the issues we have had to overcome.  Now we too have kids becoming teenagers and wonder how to approach this topic.  Like I said, I was totally on board with abstinence before future hubby came into the picture.  Although, to be honest, I think the message I got was “sex is bad…you could get pregnant or an STD” and not so much of the positive benefits of waiting, why you should wait, etc.  I think the topic was sort of taboo, like the adults thought if they talked too much about the positive aspects of sex the teenagers would want it more so they emphasized the negative.  So maybe that’s the key, emphasize the positive along with the negative.  Also, my husband and I now live out the positive in our marriage, we use NFP and our kids see that lived out in our home.  That example is probably the best education we can teach our kids.

I heard that used food analogy at a talk at one of the Steubenville youth retreats, except it was an apple with bites taken out of it.  I never realised that negative impact, probably because for myself I would never have considered having sex before marriage anyway.  But both of those reactions are exactly what happened to friends of mine who were there.  The one girl who was already sexually active felt worthless and ruined, and as a result became bitter with her faith and even more promiscuous, and the friend who was in a long relationship became sexually active with her boyfriend because she believed they’d be together forever and he pressured her.  Neither girl considers themselves Catholic anymore.  Very sad.

I was pressured many times by aggressive girls to have sex…high school, college, etc.  I finally caved during my senior year in college.  She completely and utterly used me, which I didn’t think at the time girls could do to guys…I, like parts of the article above, thought it was always pushy guys who used girls.  That girl using me is kind of like what’s being described in The Offspring song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bueuGw47IG0), though, not quite as bad.  The result?  I ended up using others for my satisfaction.  I became a complete and utter ass and treated girls like crap.  Ugh, it was awful…for them and for me.  By God’s grace, I’ve had the opportunity to apologize to the girls I treated poorly.  Regardless, my marriage is now kinda sucky because my choice of a mate was done as I was coming out of my ass stage and before I put God first.  Really, I don’t know what could have been done differently to teach me to remain abstinent, but I do know that not having remained so has sucked virtually every day since.  Sorry to be such a downer, man!  :)

@Jennifer: That story is a great example of how heresy has crept into the Catholic Church through the “Culture War”. Catholics do NOT believe that women are “ruined” or “worthless” if they have had sex with someone besides her husband. But this is the message that was delivered at Steubenville. The people running the retreat probably didn’t think about this, but picked it up from some abstinence advocacy group which may or may not be Catholic.

@Anon guy: LOL, I had a relationship that was a lot like The Offspring song. They don’t warn guys about things like that.
.
The “‘gift to your spouse’ if you wait, ‘chewed food’ if you don’t” fails to explain the problems caused by premarital sex with your future spouse. No, you don’t have to worry about the problems cause by having multiple partners before marriage, but it bonds you sexually before your relationship is ready for that. It also creates bad habits related to sex which WILL impact your marriage. The dating/courtship/engagement period is a time to learn how to be friends with your spouse and how take that friendship deeper while keeping your clothes on. You will need these skills after you are married. Having sex before marriage short-circuits this process and these skills don’t develop properly. Plus the couple learns how to misuse sex in their relationship. Both of these causes problems in after the wedding.

I just attended a presentation on the Wyman Teen Outreach Program (TOP) yesterday. This is a group that focuses on teen pregnancy and dropout prevention by focusing on encouraging positives: life skills, healthy behaviors, and a sense of purpose. I can’t make any judgment call on the group itself, as I’ve just been introduced to it, but one thing that was fascinating was that their own research shows that their effect on teen pregnancy rates is NOT dependent on whether the “comprehensive” sexual health component of their curriculum is used or not. In other words—they believe their program works because it reinforces teens’ positive abilities to stop & think, negotiate, and self-regulate while giving them a powerful sense of purpose through community involvement (i.e., service to others). It struck me that Catholic programs/approaches that focus on vocation (i.e., the way we’re called to be a gift to others, both “little v” vocation and “big V” Vocation) and virtues (i.e., developing good habits) should theoretically be equally as successful (if done well) because they, too, place priority on forming the person with a solid positive sense of identity and direction FIRST. Any “sex ed” incorporated should only ever be done within the context of those things.

I know this an uncomfortable part of the sex ed discussion, but I firmly believe that there needs to be a place, even in—especially in—abstinence-only sex ed for discussing rape. The “gross” and “used” messages are extremely hurtful to girls (and boys, too—it can happen to ANYONE) who have been sexually assaulted. It is possible to advocate purity while respecting the ugly, sad, far too common reality.

I agree with Chris that those comments were dismissive of male sexuality.  I never dated much but I would say I had 2, maybe 3 serious relationships before I met my husband and I can say with certainty that ALL of those men considered sex an emotional act which should only take place in committed, loving relationships.  My husband as well.
.
We did study birth control, including NFP, in high school religion class.    I will say learning about birth control, more than anything else, was what kept me from having sex.  If anybody was going to be the one to five percent who got pregnant from birth control failure, I was sure it was going to be me!

Thanks for the great responses so far, everyone.  I wasn’t trying to insult boys, but I did say, “I’m going to answer as someone who remembers being a teenage girl (maybe men will have a different perspective, and can share it in the comment box).”  Perhaps even as I was actually a teenage girl, I was unfair to the teenage boys I met; but the way I describe it is how I perceived it at the time.

As a Protestant, I thought that the Virgin Mary was “supposedly” sinless (we didn’t believe that) because she had never had sex. That sex made you dirty, even when you were marrried.

Make them watch a live birth, C-section, and a worst-of slideshow of STDs, and at the very least you’ve scarred them for life.

@Simcha - that’s interesting.  Do you think a fear of being used (by a teenage boy with questionable motives) was a primary motivator that kept you away from sexual activity as a high school girl?    Was that seed planted by your parents?  That might work for some girls.  It wouldn’t have worked for me.  Fear of pregnancy was what worked for me.  What’s even more interesting to me though is that both my husband and I have a very similar outlook - sex makes babies.  More than anything else, that thought is probably what kept both of us from promiscuity.  Good thing too, because it turns out we stink at family planning - hah!

Wow, I didn’t realize that these tactics were so common among abstinence-only programs.  Definitely not a good alternative, or one that will foster any credibility with the general public.  I totally agree with your objection to these approaches, and I’m disappointed to hear that a youth retreat at Steubenville utilized some of them.  I’m looking forward to Part 2…

@Chris: Simcha’s take pretty much describes me and the other guys I knew as a teenager and twentysomething. I hope the guys my daughters date are more like you and the boys you work with.

I have seen these demonstrations and they are usually accompanied with discussion of the importance of the sacrament of confession and how it can bring us back to a state of purity. 

So, if you’re going to criticize the method, please make sure you at least know everything that takes place during the method.

It’s like Philip Pullman (who COULD have been a really great fantasy writer, if he hadn’t spoiled it by beating us on the head with his ‘I hate God!!!!’ bat…..)—

He’s been poorly catechized, so he thought that Adam and Eve’s sin was about sex. But really it was about disobedience—since OBVIOUSLY the sex was already in the plan, what with the whole ‘be fruitful and multiply’ thing—unless you believe that before the fall, people were actually yeast.
(Though I guess that WOULD explain the whole ‘leaven in the loaf’ thing….oooh… and why we use unleavened bread at Mass, because Christ, in his glorified body, IS YEAST, so extra leavening after the consecration would be stupid!!! Hey—I just invented a new crazy cult! Wanna join? :)  )
Anyway, the ‘weird ideas about sex’ do run rampant. And I think helping teens understand what marriage is, and what it is for, might be a better option. (Which recalls my sorely deficient but apparently ‘good enough’ parental lecture, where my mom said “Sex tends to result in babies. Babies need a good home. So you shouldn’t have sex unless you can guarantee that child stability and a dad, and engagements get broken all the time.” I received better catechism later on, in college, but my mom’s take worked pretty well for a HS girl who didn’t want to discuss the subject at all…...)

To be truly comprehensive, sex ed needs to be oriented toward a true understanding of the vocation of marriage. The Catechism defines marriage as “[a] covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, [which] is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring . . . .” CCC 1601.
.
In other words, marriage is a (1) lifetime partnership, (2) for the good of the spouses and (3) the procreation and education of offspring. So any proper sexual education needs to begin with these goals in mind. The question that sex education must answer is “What sexual behavior from this current moment on through marriage is most likely to lead to a life-long, healthy and happy partnership, that creates a good environment for having and raising children?”
.
With the proper orientation, the Catholic ideals of chastity make sense. Chastity before marriage makes it easier to find a good lifetime mate and makes the partnership stronger by allowing the friendship and intimacy to build without prematurely resorting to sexual intimacy. Chastity after marriage maintains the friendship and intimacy that bonds the couple together, even when sexual intimacy is not available or not prudent. Because chastity is a behavior and not a state of being, nobody is “left out”, no matter their past behavior.
.
As for procreation, the ideal environment for bearing and raising children is as part of a lifelong, committed, healthy partnership of the parents. This is common sense and needs no further explanation. (As for the spouses’ obligation to procreate, that horse died a long time ago on these forums and I will not beat it any further.)
.
Obviously, basic biology needs to be taught as well, especially to young women. I strongly disagree with the idea of waiting until pre-Cana to teach fertility awareness. By then, it is often too late. Giving young women a basic understanding of what their bodies are doing will give them a better appreciation of their bodies and of their sexuality.
.
With the proper question, the flaws in both “comprehensive” and “abstinence only” sex education become readily apparent. “Comprehensive” sex education reduces sex to merely a physical act with physical consequences. It is not oriented toward any sort of greater goal. “If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up somewhere else” and this lack of direction is exactly why “comprehensive” sex education isn’t very effective.
.
“Abstinence only” sex education has a clear goal of abstinence until marriage, but fails to provide good reasons for it and fails to provide any answers for people who are not able to achieve that goal because of past mistakes. It answers the question “why abstinence”, but never “why until marriage”, or “what after marriage”?

Growing up evangelical, I was basically taught (at the youth club, not at home) that sex was bad. We were warned against guys who only wanted to sleep with us and didn’t care about who we were. As I only had sisters and no brothers, I assumed all boys were bad. And I was literally afraid of boys / men for several years. Why thanks, protestant sex education!

@Ciska: Not evangelical, but I grew up in the Bible Belt, so I know I know plenty who did. The boys are taught that they are bad for wanting sex, but their urges are largely uncontrollable, and that the solution is to get a wife to satisfy their sexual urges without offending God(!)

I had both public school sex ed and Catholic school abstinence instruction. The former was TMI and the latter came too late: just one hour in junior year. Honestly, I knew I should be abstinent (the c-word was not talked about much), but couldn’t tell you how different it could’ve been had I not been a book nerd all my life and needed to confront struggling with chastity with a boyfriend.

@VP: I think the program you witnessed has the right approach. Healthy self-esteem and genuine respect for others goes a long way to delaying sexual activity. 

@Meg: I completely agree that the reality of sexual assault should be brought up with teens, and it’s so sad to hear that the language upset the survivors. I hope they know that just because the incidentals/“weapon” of the attack was a body part that they are still “pure” and “chaste” and be supported in thinking they are still able to “wear white on their wedding day” as they originally desired.

@Chris: do any of these young men you work with have similarly minded, single, older brothers in the New England area? :P

I agree with the first comment by Chris. Yes, there will be many guys who will not get the sacrificial understanding of sex, but others will. There are more and more girls, esp. b/c of the hyper-eroticism of our pornified culture and their juiced up on hormonal contraceptives, that causes a lot more girls than in the past to be aggressive in pursuing boys.

So what’s the solution? I propose we use JPG’s TOB model: Teach our children about God’s plan for their lives, bodies, sexuality and vocation. That they are a gift meant only for love and that anything contrary to this will fail to satisfy the deepest desire of their hearts. Give them a positive vision for love and life, as opposed to the mere negative consequences. Base everything we’re talking about in the understanding they have intrinsic worth and dignity, helping them to see that they are worth the wait, that life is much more than just a one-night or one-season fling.

Because so many of these kids are coming from broken families where trust has been destroyed, they’re scared to death to think they can entrust themselves to anyone permanently. Yet this desire is still written in their hearts, and we need to help blow that small flame into a burning fire, encouraging them to settle for nothing less than God’s best. It’s the “inception” approach: plant the idea of this great vision, making them realize their desire for real love is really possible if they would trust God and give him everything, and then no amount of lies presented to them will be able to sway them from that path. Certainly, this takes work, but God can make us, as witnesses to the next generation, worthy to this task.

I feel sorry for teenagers today- the messages in the media really doesn’t make it easier with their inner battle to do right and wrong. I suppose, for me, I found having a well formed conscience of right and wrong ( the right and wrong that tells you what works and what doesn’t- much like the pyramid analogy above ) is the best start to sex-ed. What kept me a virgin till marriage was that I always knew that if I did engage in sex or the like, I’ll have to answer to God i.e.. Confess my shame in the Sacrament of Confession. This was a deterrent, along with the fact that if my parents found out, they would loose respect for me, and I always cared about my parents respect for me. It’s good to teach kids the fundamentals of the goodness of sex within marriage, and how misuse can have all sorts of repercussions- i.e.. Pregnancy, STD, emotional baggage, an inability to hold onto ones Faith, disrespect for self and others disrespect of you etc.. To name a few. So I agree with a holistic approach that shows the positives and the negatives, and having one without the other isn’t telling the full story to children (and they’ll pick out a weak argument in a heartbeat- the clever things they are!) Good topic and article Simcha and God Bless you on your journey into the teens with your children.

Excellent article.  I love the “Wait Was Well Worth It” link as well; that described my experience to a T.  I think the part that author includes about how her past boyfriends are mostly now “somebodys I used to know” (with the exception of the gentleman who never held her hand out of respect for her future husband) would actually be really good advice to a young person.  I think it’d be hard not to make it sound insulting to a teenager who is infatuated with the person they’re dating (I probably would have had a hard time hearing it), but the reality is that you’re going to break up with all but one of the people you ever date, so it’s a good thing to keep in mind “Is it going to embarrass me later that I did ______ with this person if they don’t mean much to me in a few years?”

A good resource you can look into is “Theology of the Body for Teens” by Brian Butler, Crystalina Evert and Jason Evert. It is pretty good.  We used that program as part of our confirmation program 2 years ago.  What is good about it is it focuses on how we God created us in his image and likeness, how we can be healed if we’ve made mistakes and the great good that God created in sex between husband and wife.  For discussion groups we broke out into male and female small groups, which really freed up the teens to talk openly with their peers and adult group leaders.  Many of the young ladies in the group were a bit angry as they discovered the wonderful creation they are and reflected on their public school sex education.  Statements like “they showed us how to use condoms in 4th grade, but never shared how precious we are.  That is completely wrong!”

It is possible to talk about the beauty of sex within marriage, about what it means to truly be a man or woman, and about God’s great love and forgiveness. 

One other resource that our men’s group is studying at my parish is a book titled “Boys to Men: The Transforming Power of Virtue” by Tim Gray and Curtis Martin.  Excellent for older teens and young adults.  Very practical and inspirational, pulling from scripture and the catechism, it really does show the beautiful Catholic theology of the person and God’s tremendous love for us.

Steve: “juiced up on hormonal contraceptives”??? Really??? Hormonal contraceptives don’t “juice” anyone up. The effect is actually the exact opposite: They tend depress a woman’s sex drive, which causes all sorts of problems when they are used in a marriage.
.
Hormonal contraceptives do not make women sexually aggressive, but they can give women the illusion that sex can be “safe”. This is not to say that women don’t have a sex drive or sexual desires, but excessive sexual aggression and promiscuity in women is frequently the sign of other psychological or social issues.

JD: I was trying to be clever with my language. As an NFP teacher, I’m well aware that hormonal contraceptives often kill a woman’s sex drive. But we also know from science that there is evidence this is affecting women’s minds, making them more aggressive, much like broken men. More boys than in the past are being pressured to give up their sexual integrity by girls than before, and this is one of the reasons.

I waited until I was married to have sex.  My initial influence I think was that my older unwed sister had a baby when I was 13.  I spent my early teenage years changing diapers, giving bottles, and helping take care of him.  That made a big impact.  And since she got pregnant on the pill, I was sure that I would be that 1% for whom contraception also failed.  (I am currently pregnant with baby #5, and baby #3 was conceived while using artificial contraception.  So maybe I wasn’t far off in my estimation of my fertility.  LOL)

At first it didn’t really matter because I was a social pariah.  I had two different boys in high school dump me because of the harassment from their friends.  Once I got to college I physically blossomed, and it was a different story.  With a little alcohol in my system, I found myself “hooking up” (in my own innocent way).  But once we were both sober and the guy realized that he wasn’t going to get any farther with me than a lot of kissing, he usually dumped me.  I did date one older guy that I had known for a few years, and even though we hit it off on an intellectual level, he actually told me that he was “scared” of my virginity.  The fact is he was looking for women that would not only put out, but in deviant ways.

So, my virginity became a great litmus test to weed out a lot of creeps and the uncommitted.  However, I also developed this false idea that the first guy who was willing to wait would be Prince Charming.  However, just because a guy was willing to wait to have sex with me until marriage didn’t mean that he was automatically the right person for me to marry. 

But the hardest part about being a virgin was the crap I took from other people.  Even my most well-meaning friends (none of whom were virgins by the end of the first semester of college) would bring it up in casual conversation with some guy I just met.  And then there would be the groups of people, like my teenage co-workers one summer, who would have big debates about whether it was “ok” or “stupid” that I was waiting as if I wasn’t standing right there.  It ended up kind of being a “shameful” label people put on me. 

But I think this issue goes way beyond abstinence education or birth control education.  I think this starts with attitudes we instill in our kids about dating and marriage from our kids at a young age.  We ended up banning a lot of Disney and Nickelodeon tween shows (which are really marketed to kids as young as six) because they glorified young tweens and teens dating and even making out.  (There’s one episode of iCarly where the ending has Carly’s guardian intentionally leaving 14-year-old Carly alone in a dark room with her new boyfriend.)

These ideas that dating is a recreational activity, parents should have no say or commentary about who their children date, and that children deserve absolute privacy is rampant everywhere.  As a result, all of my kid’s 6, 7, and 8 year old neighborhood friends go on and on about their boyfriends and girlfriends.  I’ve even seen parents bragging on Facebook about how cute it is that their young child has boyfriend and girlfriend, as if it is all innocent fun.  But they don’t see that condoning that silliness now insures that by the time their kids are older tweens and teens they are going to want to have relationships like they think adults have (meaning sex).

My husband teaches sociology at a secular college and most of those kids are shocked when they are asked to consider what the purpose of dating is.  They simply never thought to ask “why”.  Dating is just what kids do, right?  Never mind the conventional wisdom that you should live together before marriage as “practice” or for “financial reasons”...even though the statistics show this is completely wrong-headed.

And I know that it’s not perfect, but I think Josh Harris’ “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” does a good job of redirecting teens as to the purpose of dating, waiting to date until you are in a position to be ready for marriage, and using the time you would have wasted obsessing about dating and dating for more productive things.

Thank you so much for taking on this issue! Misogyny is a key feature of lots of abstinence only education. 

I was told as a child that no man would want me if I were “ruined” by sex. One reason I didn’t believe it was that I didn’t need to look far to see examples of people getting married and presumably being happy. Also, I can’t believe the teen boys believe it either—if you ask them, would you turn down sex with a hot girl b/c she’s not virgin? Of course they would say ‘heck no’.

PLEASE don’t flippantly say “but surely this only means that conservative girls who get pregnant aren’t getting as many abortions as pregnant teens in more liberal states”. I think you need to check your facts on that one. There is a lot of complexity to this issue. Poverty, education levels, use of contraception has a lot to do with it.

Coming from a different perspective, we must also blame “Hollywood” for making sexuality into a playtime, to gratify our carnal desires.  Never before have we seen such immorality except in the time of Noah, Sodom & Gamorrah, Rome etc, etc.  These kids today, are bombarded w/sexual ads, condomes, freedom to be you and me, the normalacy of homosexuality, schools teaching that homosexuality is normal and, television is no friend of the family either!  God have mercy on this country!
As for me, I refuse to view secular movies and junk on the boob tube.  This only lines the pockets of all the liberals in Hollywood who then donate to the Obama campaign.  And you know the rest of the story…

My parents were not very comfortable talking about sex, so I grew up with the mistaken impression that sex is evil, but because children are necessary to the world, it was allowed in marriage. *sigh*  It wasn’t until I was about 17 or so that I got a new look at it, and strangely enough, it was from reading a fairly smutty romance novel. By the grace of God, it opened my eyes to the concept that sex can be a beautiful gift.  Since then, of course, I’ve read “Theology of the Body” and improved my Catholic understanding of the purpose of sexuality, but as a teenager, my reasons for wanting to wait were ill-informed.
.
Unfortunately, knowing the purpose for my sexuality hasn’t really helped me remain chaste. My first real boyfriend was in college, and despite both being Catholic and understanding how sex and marriage works, we pushed boundaries.  Praise God we never slept together, but I did many things with him that I fully regret and which will affect every future relationship, especially marriage. Since then, I’ve struggled to be pure. It’s certainly easier when I’m not dating, but experiencing those things with him has made it harder to draw the line with a guy—the physical urges are that much stronger because I KNOW where they lead. For the teenagers we are trying to educate, this is especially important to address, because they need to know that despite the difficulties or past mistakes, it’s never too late to try again.

@JD, you said: The view is that sex is wrong and dirty and something that Good Girls shouldn’t like, but that men NEED. Women are supposed to stay “pure” until marriage and then be available to satisfy their husbands every sexual need afterward, lest he stray. (1 Corinthians 7:5 and Ephesians 5:22-24 are frequently misused as justification. This makes women’s bodies to a certain degree the property of their husband.) Men, on the other hand, simply cannot control themselves. This places the burden of chastity is almost entirely on the woman. This is why the concept of chastity in marriage is completely foreign to Protestants.

Seriously, I cannot say enough “Amens” to this. I was raised this way, and the scars that mindset left on me went (and still go) far, far deeper
than the wounds my husband and I had to work through because of our respective premarital sexual relationships. This is not to say that the current “anything goes” contraceptive culture is better than the Protestant way of teaching abstinence, just that the effects of the Protestant idea of abstinence are hardly ever recognized. For me, the idea of being able to satisfy my husband went way beyond the bedroom. I was taught that I shouldn’t be a stay-at-home mother unless I worked from home or found some hobby that took me out of the house frequently, because if all I did was stay at home with the kids, I would have nothing interesting to say or offer my husband anymore and he would inevitably have affairs to fill the boredom…and it would be my fault for not keeping him interested. That’s just one example, but the way it has played out for me has been really difficult. Even after converting to Catholicism five years ago, these ideas are deeply ingrained and leave me panicked that my husband will have an affair for no reason, and he in turn is insulted (rightly so) because I have no reason not to trust him. Protestantism does not offer a complete understanding of the human person nor any real understanding of human dignity (because we’re all dung hills, after all, and God can’t even stand to look at us except through Christ), and the damage that does to people is real and lasting. Thank you, Simcha, for bringing this subject up.

@W - I’ve been married for 22 years now, but struggled with chastity during my college and post college years.  Even with two faithful Catholics, just wanting to be chaste wasn’t enough.  It takes setting parameters that avoid situations where it’s easy to be carried away by emotions.  For example, praying together and opening your heart is a very intimate experience… best done in a public setting (i.e. Church, park bench in a busy park, etc) versus his/her apartment as it helps create a positive environment where the public location helps create boundaries.  A second thing that can help is asking a couple of close friends of your gender to hold you accountable: let them know the standards you want to stick to and give them permission to check in with you on how you’re doing, to pray with you, to encourage you and to question you when your thinking gets clouded.  I know in my pre-marriage years, I had too much pride to do the latter, but recognize now that accountability with other men would have been immensely helpful.

God Bless

@Barbara - how did all those people know?  I can say with confidence my two oldest kids (both teens) are not sexually active.  However, I would never want them to go around announcing their sex life (or more accurately, the lack thereof) to the world.    I particularly find it distasteful to have them label themselves with embroidered white V’s for Virgin.  That’s a private matter between them and their future spouse.  It strikes me as icky that people go around casually talking to their peers about whether or not they’re having sex.  So not their business. 
.
When it comes down to it, there are a lot of good secular reasons not to have sex until you’re older, responsible,  and in a committed relationship.  Flame away, but at this point, I am content if all I’ve done is delay my children to that point (presumably well into their 20’s), even if for them a committed relationship doesn’t mean they’re actually married.  There comes a time where waiting to have sex until marriage becomes about their own religious beliefs.    My husband and I do everything we can to impart the Faith but ultimately embracing it is up to them.  A faith that has always been forced upon children is shaky at best.   
.
I have more to say, but if I go too long no one will read it.  I don’t want to give the impression that we don’t talk about sex with our kids.  We absolutely talk to our kids in both explicit and general terms about sex.  For instance, just recently we discussed with them the seventh grade girl who gave blow jobs to all the high school boys at a party.    Yup.  No avoiding explicit sex talk these days.  However, I’m worried that abstinence only education of the type that was discussed in this post will result in a lot of very young, ill advised marriages.
.
Keeping teens off drugs, sex, cigarettes, and booze - all of it - is a tough job.

Simcha, I can’t wait to hear your thoughts on how to better handle abstinence education—there is such a need for this! 

My husband teaches at a Catholic girls’ high school, and at the end of every school year each theology class has some sort of discussion or presentation on chastity (at the students’ request!).  The video several of the other teachers were using was the “don’t have sex, you’ll get an STD and feel guilty” message with absolutely nothing about the beauty of chastity, sadly done by a Christian group.  He opted out of the video and the two of us gave a joint presentation to the students focusing on the beautiful Yes of chastity rather than the incomplete picture of simply saying no to sex.  (Although I brought our then 5 month old son with me and there was a clear chorus of “Oh! I want a baby!” as the girls left… not the takeaway we were hoping for!).

As mentioned by some others, it is both sad and of great concern that the (seeming) majority of resources available to and in use by even Catholic schools/programs focus on a one-dimensional no-sex message utilizing fear and guilt rather than a positive message elaborating on the Church’s teachings about sexuality.

JD wrote:
“Catholics need to be wary about taking sides in the United States’ “Culture War”. The US is predominantly a Protestant nation. This means that the battle lines aren’t between secularism and Christianity, but secularism and heretical Christianity. (Not that I don’t like Protestants, but their moral theology is seriously deficient. I certainly don’t stay Catholic for the music.) As a result, Catholics may find themselves unwittingly supporting positions and ideas contrary to Church teaching due to a poorly thought out political alliance.”

I don’t normally just say, “yeah, what he said.” But…. yeah, what he said. I couldn’t agree more.

@JD: “This is not to say that the current “anything goes” contraceptive culture is better than the Protestant way of teaching abstinence, just that the effects of the Protestant idea of abstinence are hardly ever recognized.”
.
Exactly. Catholics should not embrace error in the name of fighting error. And this “black and white”, “us vs. them”, “Culture War” posture has gotten many Catholics doing exactly that, like those at Steubenville.
.
A closer analysis shows little real difference between the conservative Protestant idea of sexuality and the secular one. In both cases, the feminine is degraded and the masculine is held out as superior. The conservative Protestant idea is that women should accept their inferior position as their husband’s “helpmeet”, while the secular (and liberal Protestant) idea is that women should try to become men. (Note: Related to this is why Mary is missing and Protestants do not have consecrated Sisters.)
.
Protestants act as if sex is dirty and degrading to women, but something they must do to please their men. The secular world says that sex is dangerous and needs to be tightly controlled and sterilized so that women can enjoy it like men do. The Catholic Church believes that sex is beautiful, powerful, and sacred, and, therefore, must be respected and not misused. It is neither masculine nor feminine, but the union of both.

“That’s a private matter between them and their future spouse.  It strikes me as icky that people go around casually talking to their peers about whether or not they’re having sex.  So not their business.”

I hate to tell you this, but this is the reality. 

When you are living in a culture that talks about sex ALL THE TIME it seems normal to talk about your personal sex experiences or lack there of.  Even in 7th and 8th grade, people commonly knew who was doing what and who wasn’t.  Especially, when you are in an environment like the college dorm where everyone is trying to process their own personal ethics in light of the different viewpoints they are encountering, discussions can range all over the place.  And it doesn’t take long for people to get reputations one way or another.  All it takes is dating one guy and for him to dump you, and the whole dorm knows that you don’t put out because you’re waiting for marriage.

It’s not like I went around introducing myself “Hi, I’m Barbara, and I’m a virgin who’s waiting until marriage to have sex.”  But in the course, of dating it is going to start to come up, especially if you go out with the same person for any period of time.  The underlying societal assumption is that everyone will have sex before marriage except religious whackos.  The mainstream consensus is that three to six months is the longest that a couple should date without having sex.  So the idea that a person’s sexual history would become a discussion only between a person and their intended spouse is ridiculous. 

My husband and I have been thinking long and hard too about how to approach this.  We both graduated from public schools and were raised in nominal Catholic families that did not openly discuss sex before marriage. Yet we were both virgins when we married at 27 and 30. (He was 30!!!)  Then there are homeschooled kids raised in devout Catholic homes that are taught theology of the body and church doctrine thoroughly and they still have sex before marriage. ????  I have come to the conclusion that there is not perfect approach but I will still try.

Just to take the onus off of Protestantism: I’ve always felt that, within Catholicism, the inadequacy of sexual catechesis could be summed up by pointing to the number of people who assume that the Immaculate Conception refers to the fact that Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus.  (In all honesty, though, I’ll confess that I still bristle against the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity—that one I find really hard to account for except as a slide into the alignment of sex with sin.  So I cherish a teeny spark of heresy in my heart on that matter.) 

Back on topic: The book that did most to help me with chastity as a college student was Henri Nouwen’s Lifesigns, which isn’t exactly (or at least, only) a book about sex, which may be one reason I found it so useful.  In particular, his account of intimacy as the opposite of fear became a touchstone for me: it was clear to me at the time that I’d be unable to experience sex outside of marriage without letting in some degree of fear: fear of pregnancy, fear of STDs, and, above all, fear of eventual abandonment or regret.  So I decided to wait for sex in a context where those fears wouldn’t have to apply, where I could feel the full joys of intimacy.

I mention this mainly because that motivation continued to sustain me while dating my husband, who isn’t Christian and wasn’t a virgin himself, and it also made sense to him—indeed, the few times I wavered, he insisted that even if I tried to seduce him, he’d refuse, because he wanted to have sex with me in a way that didn’t seem predestined to involve fear or regret on both our parts.  It also made a non-issue of his sexual past—the point wasn’t that we were either “saving” ourselves for each other or not, the point was that we wanted sex between us to be as rich and happy and intimate as possible.

Well, ashley.elise, the problem is having an “end of the year presentation on chastity”.  It gets treated like a PSA or after school special instead of an intricate thread of Christian life.

The problem with a lot of Catholic schools is that they more or less act like public schools that tack on religious class as a mandatory elective.  Therefore, the faith isn’t brought into History class or Biology class or Health class..because “those are separate subjects”.  I’m not saying that all classes should ONLY teach the Catholic view, but the students would be better served if IN ADDITION they were being told how the Church views different things.

I went to an all girls’ Catholic high school, where in health class our options were artificial birth control or the “ineffective rhythm method”.  With very little mention of chastity and abstinence.  In the “Christian lifestyles” subsection of religion class there was not one mention of what the Church teaches about marital chastity.  Instead we added up the cost of our dream wedding and how much it costs to have a baby.  Then once a year the “sex lady” would come answer our questions about sex and STD’s.  Is it any wonder that five girls were pregnant at graduation?  But for most of my peers the battle was lost before they ever left junior high.

I grew up in a quasi-fundamentalist home but because I was very insecure with myself and a bookworm, I didn’t worry about sex and dating.  I never had a boyfriend in high school except for a short month in 8th grade and I never brought him home to meet my family. We would just sneak behind the theatre and kiss :(.  All throughout my high school years, I thought I was too ugly to get a guy so I buried my head in books.  It kept me safe. When I was in my 20’s, I had two failed relationships. Granted, we weren’t as chaste as we could have been (by that point I became a Catholic) but we didn’t have sex thankfully.  For the rest of my 20’s, I thought I was too ugly to attract a man until I met my husband at 29.  He was 38 and also still a virgin.  Was it worth the wait??  Sure but it was also very painful and lonely too.  I think that its appalling that using dirty cup images or eaten fruit is considered good abstinence education.  The only reasons why I didn’t give up my virginity was because I didn’t think I was desirable and I didn’t want to go to hell.  I admit that it wasn’t a positive thought that kept me from having sex. In fact, I was tempted at times to find any guy and just get it over with because I was so lonely :(.  Thankfully I didn’t have to do that and I am happily married now although I still deal with a lot of pain, mostly related to my abysmal sense of self-esteem.

My husband and I have two sons.  When they were adolescents a well-meaning but thoughtless person said, “You’re so lucky - you have boys, you don’t have to worry about them ever getting pregnant.”  After I picked my jaw off the floor, I told her that it was WORSE for boys than girls. 

Girls call all the shots:  they decide whether to (1) kill the child through the pill or surgical abortion, (2) keep and raise the baby on the government dole, (3) burden the baby’s grandparents with raising another child, or (4) put the baby up for adoption.  The boy’s extent of involvement can be reduced to making child support payments until the baby is 18.

Since they were old enough to know what sex is - I’ve told my two handsome sons (who frequently get hit on by girls)that they BETTER be virgins when they enter into their life’s vocation - whether it be the priesthood or marriage.

The bottom line is this:  premarital sex is an INJUSTICE to the unborn.  You wouldn’t hurt a puppy or a kitten, right?  So don’t hurt a baby! 

Without the safety net of married parents the baby is vulnerable to all sorts of horrors not limited to abortion and abuse from the single-mom’s boyfriends.  Consider the marked increase in depression, poor academic achievement, promiscuity, drug and alcohol abuse, and criminal/gang involvement of children raised in fatherless households.

Babies DESERVE:  a father and mother (notice I didn’t say “two mommies” or “two daddies”) who are grown up, can provide for themselves financially and are married.  These folks are finally ready to be “Makin’ Whoopee” (Frank Sinatra - check it out!)

When I taught sexual assault prevention classes, I used to talk to the young men about how demeaning the culture is concerning their sexuality:

Boys and men cannot be raped because they want it all the time.  Boys and men think about sex every 18 seconds or some ridiculous number of times per minute.  If that were true, how did so many men, and boys, throughout history manage to do great things?  How do you pass a math test or mow the grass?

I think that lesson teaches more about the value of human beings than the horrible example you gave.  And it recalls young men to their responsibility for the results of sexual activity.

catherine, Barbara C.: Volumes could be written about the inadequacy of Catholic catechesis on MANY things and for quite some time. (Could Marty Haugen have had a career any other way?) Catholics—even clergy and religious—have bought into both evangelical and secular views due to a poor understanding of Catholic teachings.

I did not lose my virginity til I was a high school senior at age 17…but I started masturbating at age 11. I now have a six year-old son, and I am worrying more about how to stop him from starting that horrible habit, s opposed to not fornicating. My thoughts are that if he does not start puberty acting out sexually with himself, it will help formulate virtues in him to stop him from pursing a sexual relationship with a girl. I would be curious to know from all the parents out there with teenage sons, what did you do to teach your child not to masturbate? How does one address this issue?

Great article, Simcha.  I would raise one point, and it’s really more of a question. I wonder what kind of positive message about physical love that is appropriate before marriage we can offer (I know I’m stepping onto somewhat controversial ground here).  Certain acts of physical affection are not only permissible before marriage, they are good.  But the perspective of the abstinence message is often “err on the side of caution” or “the less physical contact, the better.” And of course, this makes sense given that the vast majority of us struggle to avoid sin in this area.  But that kind of message also makes it difficult to convey the goodness of physical acts of love in marriage, and I think short-circuits a good opportunity for young couples to grow in virtue.  Maybe it is risky to affirm and encourage a girl to hug and kiss her boyfriend because maybe it will go too far.  On the other hand, maybe it is a good opportunity for them to learn to discipline the excess of their desires, and be temperate in their physical love. 

Love in the Ruins: you bring up a good point.  I personally don’t see anything wrong with hugging or even some kissing as long as it doesn’t go to far.  In fact I think it is somewhat disturbing for a couple, even an engaged one to not kiss at all before they are married and then on the wedding day, after they have said their vows, they slobber all over each other and make it a big deal.  It shouldn’t be treated as a huge deal. Its the same with people advertising that they are virgins.  It is no one’s business.  I don’t think that showing no affection helps to promote chastity or abstinence.  In fact, I think it inadvertently teaches that not only is sex bad before marriage but so is any form of affection bad before marriage.  This is weird because historically this has NEVER been the case.  Even in Victorian times, if a couple was engaged, they could kiss and spend some limited time alone with a chaperone nearby.

Something that might be worth discussing with teens is that there have been recent studies which show that when a couple engages in intercourse, bonding takes place on a chemical level. I heard about this on a Catholic show - I think it was Women of Grace, but it could well have been on the radio. The upshot of the research was that every time a couple engages in sex, there are certain pheromones in the exchange which chemically bond the couple, much like a mother bonds to her baby during the course of nursing. When a couple breaks up, the bond is broken and never fully “healed”.  Very interesting stuff.  (I don’t know if this is mentioned in the TOB because it’s still on my “to be read” list.) :-)

@Barbara - I’m 45, but things weren’t different back when I was a kid.  In grade school everybody knew who was doing what.  By high school if you had a boyfriend, it was assumed you were having sex.  I didn’t have a boyfriend until college, but things would never have gotten serious if I’d have sensed he was someone who’d go blabbing about my sexual history.    We certainly teach our kids that they need to respect themselves and the gift of their sexuality enough so that people’s sex lives (are not a topic for the coffee klatch.    I hope my kids have the same good sense to pick out decent potential suitors.  I just think whether or not a person is sexually active does not need to be the topic for the water cooler or even the barroom.  I do not like or agree with this current trend to stand up in front of the youth group or church or bar and proclaim, “I am a Virgin!”
.
I read that link that Simcha posted to the woman who wrote about her painful and beautiful wedding night.    She was sorry she’d kissed her previous boyfriends?  What???  I think this chastity stuff gets taken too far.  I see the Duggars waiting until they’re married to have their first kiss and it not only seems weird to me, it just seems wrong.  It seems if you have that outlook you’re in very grave danger of marrying the first nice guy/gal of a similar faith background that comes along.    And *that* can be a much bigger travesty with consequences potentially much more dire and soul(s) endangering than kissing boyfriends you ultimately don’t marry.

Exactly Eileen, that is what I had in mind when I wrote the comment.  Its weird that some groups are trying to hold themselves up to a standard that has never happened (ie. no kissing before marriage, standing up in front of groups proclaiming they are virgins, ashamed that they kissed other boyfriends/girlfriends before they met their spouses, etc).  We don’t live in Victorian times.  It seems that some of these groups are trying to outvictorian the Victorians.

@Joseph - It’s important you teach your son that his life is all about make a self-gift. Offer him opportunities to serve and to integrate this mindset into His life. Affirm his masculinity, esp. his masculine body, letting him know he is loved by his father and is called to love others. By leading by example in this, when his feelings become eroticized, he will have a wealth of experiences of being a gift to draw from. In the midst of those changes, you can help him to integrate his erotic feelings to continually choose to love others and not act selfishly.

I am LDS (some people call us Mormon) and we also believe in abstinence until marriage. My sister and I both were virgins when we were married, as were our husbands. I have 4 daughters, 2 of whom are teenagers, who attend public school. I don’t know much about how to teach this ideal to teenage boys, but I have given a lot of thought about teaching it to girls.

1. Be very open about bodies (including teaching modesty, etc.) from a very young age. If a child is old enough to ask the question, they are old enough to get the answer. Keep answers short and to the point, and then ask, “Is that what you wanted to know?” If they need more information, they will ask another question.

2. Ask your child questions as well, and listen carefully. If your child (or his/her friends) are talking about crushes, or who’s cute, or what someone was wearing, you need to find out what that means. What does someone do with their crush? If they are “dating”, what does that mean? Are other kids at school kissing each other? Even if your child isn’t doing the behavior, they need to know your feelings about it. You should use the information you gather about what other kids are doing to guide your discussions about morality, chastity, etc.

3. Be blunt, and do your best. Your child will hear your opinion, even if he/she seems to be ignoring you. I would much rather know that I tried to teach my child the right way, even if she doesn’t choose the same path, than stand by and let the world tell her what to do.

I like the couple mentioned in the very first paragraph of your post. There is merit in keeping some innocence and discovery for the marriage tent. I know I regret going into my marriage with so many preconceived ideas. So, my wife and I have a few kids already grown (and a few more that are pre-teen.) The older ones rebelled against what we tried to teach them about morality and purity. We made many mistakes but one of the biggest obstacles remains the culture. More specifically the “Peer Orientation” phenomenon (Ms. Fullwiler covered this in an older post). This is a hard thing to tackle but it is certainly a real problem and busy parents are easy prey. As your kids get older you really see this influence on especially sex. So you really have to come up with some practical ways to keep the dominant orientation of your young people in the home. One important thing is to give them a stake or ownership in familial life. That’s at least where my wife and I are putting some concentration with the younger set.

Yes. Thank you. This needs saying so badly, and you nailed it. By only qualm is this:

“whereas teenage boys are probably truly incapable of seeing sex as self-sacrificial:  they’re just not made that way.”

This just doesn’t read ring true with my experience (I was dating teenage boys a short three years ago) about what young men, wholly secular young men, are like when they let down the front of hyper-agressive sexuality/manhood that both pop culture an abstinence education tell them to project. 

Otherwise what frustrated me most was the complete negation of female desire I experienced from the pro-chastity movement. Apparently girls had a lot of feelings, but that was about it. I’ll never forget the boys leaving the room for their talk on how to conquer lust, while we stayed for a nice young woman’s instructions on how not to turn boys on. I wanted to scream, and still do when I think about it. 

Interesting stuff!  I used to belong to a pro-life/chastity group of teens that woudl put on short skits and things. to youth groups, etc. I have no idea whether any of these things ever made an impact, but I can say being a part of people who believe the things you do is important.  I do know a friend from the group who ended up having sex with her boyfriend in HS and eventually it seemed gave up on the abstinent lifestyle, so it is obviously not fool proof. I think a lot still has to do with the groups you’re in.  I don’t really have any answers, expect that we need to be open and honest because the culture is. This will mean something different for each child, depending on what they are exposed to. I think another interesting angle is to come at it from a “pro life” view. I think if children are aware of childen as a gift, that leads to not using others, which leads to why sex is a gift, etc. Ugh, having a hard time explaining this, but for me, i became aware fo the pro life movement very early on and by 8th grade did a full report defending the pro life position from purely legal and logical reasoning.  To me, from there I saw how people treated sex and babies with a worldly viewpoint and how the people who treated others, sex, and babies as gifts. It was the declaration of that beauty, I think, that helped me to make that decision. Now, in the heat of a moment, is that going to help? Perhaps not, perhaps the STDs, pregnancy fear, etc will do more at that point, btu hopefully the former conviction can prevent or severely limit the times you’re at the “heat of the moment.”
/

I am eager to look in to “Sex Respect” by colleen kelly mast (I think that’s the public school version) or her catholic version.  What interests me about that is that it covers the whole person. She had mentioned once about a chapter talking about the purpose of dating. What? There’s a reason? Not just some guy likes you and you happen to think he’s alright so now you have someone to hang out with every Friday. . . I wish my parents had spent more time talking to me about being purposeful. They did the obligatory birds and bees once but that was it. My husband is a good guy, but I had NO idea how to evaluate dating relationships and that has led to a very difficult 6 years. We were both good people, just not right for each other but because the other was “faith filled” and we each wanted to raise a joyful, loving, holy family, we had a hard time calling it off. Never did. By the grace of God we’ll eventually get there, but it’s a hell of a time trying!

And fwiw (don’t flame me!) I find that blog to be slightly rose-colored, but maybe it’s because I don’t seem as dumb happy as her that I get annoyed. lol

Ok, read that article.That was nicely balanced. Can I take back what I said about her blog earlier? *cringe*?

This kind of analogy is also grossly unfair to girls who have been subjected to sexual abuse.

I think a better analogy for the female anatomy, if some analogy is required, would be a temple or altar or other sacred space.  Even if it somehow becomes desecrated, it can always be cleaned up and rededicated, just as a church can. 

I think these courses are probably designed by Protestant men who are grappling with their own issues and fallout from the sexual revolution.  And I sympathize with them. The key message that these men need to hear from their wives is “I would go back in time and do it all differently if I could.”  That’s a very counter-cultural message and not one that many men are likely to have the good fortune to hear, from anyone, ever.  And, if this hypothetical married couple were Catholic, they could both go to confession, go to Mass and receive the Eucharist, get a fresh start, pray together to rededicate themselves body and soul to God and each other, and get on with their lives.  Having the Church and the sacraments and the True Presence makes everything so much easier.  Oh, and a period of abstinence and some time away together (perhaps a marriage retreat) couldn’t hurt either. 

P.S.  When you hear about jealous husbands, this is the same issue.  The same sort of hurt is at the core.  Both men and women need healing from the disaster that is the sexual revolution.  The good news is that healing is available!

When I was younger, my prime motivation for not having sex was that I feared more than anything disappointing and angering my parents. The idea of having them either find out I was sexually active, or having to go to them to tell them I was pregnant, those ideas kept my chastity belt cinched tight! Then around age 15/16, when classmates were starting to sexually experiment, I reevaluated my motivation for remaining pure and realized that God’s plan was purity until marriage and that then became my prime motivation.
.
It wasn’t that I feared my parents for punishment reasons, it was that I was raised in a household where we honored our father and mother. And the idea of disappointing them kept me on the straight and narrow (from drugs, sex, alcohol) until I was old enough to start to mature in my thought processing and was in an environment where through retreats, religious instruction, open communication with my parents, and developing a group of friends (guys and girls) that had similar mindsets, I was able to cement my morals and values and have that foundation to carry me through the rest of high school and college.

“I think this chastity stuff gets taken too far.  I see the Duggars waiting until they’re married to have their first kiss and it not only seems weird to me, it just seems wrong.  It seems if you have that outlook you’re in very grave danger of marrying the first nice guy/gal of a similar faith background that comes along.  And *that* can be a much bigger travesty with consequences potentially much more dire and soul(s) endangering than kissing boyfriends you ultimately don’t marry.”
.
I’ve seen a LOT of that and why I cringed when someone mentioned Joshua Harris’s book. (Good critique of dating, but gives some really BAD advice as an alternative.)
.
At its core, marriage is a friendship. And to be a happy one that lasts for a lifetime, it has to be a very strong and deep friendship. My advice is to not look for a spouse, but to look for a friend. If the friendship goes somewhere, don’t be afraid to follow it.

You wrote, “...the effects of sexual sin, which include getting pregnant, getting STDs, and suffering the heartache that comes of behaving like you’re committed to someone when you’re not.” Let us also not forget that another effect of sexual sin (at least on some males - I being one example) is to condition the sinner to reflexively be selfish whenever encountering an instance of sexual attraction.

@ Elise,  i’ve only heard of that understand of the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate state - and I tell you I am -shocked- by the misunderstanding!  I guess I can see how that conclusion is formed if proper catechism is not available.
Let me assure you… the Blessed Virgin Mary is without sin because she was conceived WITHOUT SIN. Meaning, as she was formed in the womb, she did not possess original sin.  It has nothing to do with Mary’s virginity, or even her mother and father’s sexual relationship!!! 
.

@ Eilieen and Barbara’s response to her…. sheesh Eileen, are you kidding?  Even just telling your best friend that you couldn’t continue dating that guy because he wasn’t going to wait for sex… is going to mean that eventually everyone in your social circle knows about your virginity. 
And have you seen TV or a movie lately?  With the culture trained that sex is an option by the third date… it’s going to be pretty obvious when a certain girl never gets to the fourth date with anyone!

.Just last night I was watching a re-run of Big Bang Theory in which Howard learns that couples have sex on the third date… and that is the right of passage to making the ‘home run’ in any dating relationship.  And it’s not just Big Bang Theory… that third date theory is everywhere!!  (frankly, I’m sick of it!)
.
I even had a date not too long ago, who, once he was informed that we weren’t going to consummate anything… said, in all seriousness… “Well Renae, the third date is pretty standard.” 
Oh really? Well, allow me to get on my back!  (this scenario happened in my late 30s!!!!)

Posted by JD on Thursday, May 24, 2012 2:11 PM (EST):
At its core, marriage is a friendship. And to be a happy one that lasts for a lifetime, it has to be a very strong and deep friendship. My advice is to not look for a spouse, but to look for a friend. If the friendship goes somewhere, don’t be afraid to follow it.”

JD: this is the core of it.  This is ultimately what Marriage is and it can only be done if the couple forges the friendship at all its levels, especially the spiritual, mental, and emotional.  I think this is also why so many marriages end up in divorce because they failed to cultivate their friendship before marriage.  For the couples who concentrated on their physical relationship first, the marriage will start off with shallow roots because the relationship can’t survive on the physical aspect alone.  The opposite is also true.  Some couples, like the example given by the Eileen above, jump into marriage before they have a chance to get to know each other first.  That can lead to serious consequences too. I know that we are not happy with the turn that the general culture has gone when it comes to sex and marriage, etc but it is equally dangerous to go into the opposite extreme.

I think parents should be required to attend any kind of sex ed curriculum their children are in.  Honestly, so much of it comes from the parents, IMO, that I think a lot of this other stuff is secondary.  In homes where kids get little or no feedback from mom & dad on sex issues, they will default to the next set of authority in their thinking (other educators, peers, media, whatever).
—
I also think it all starts at home, and from a much earlier age than anyone gives credit.  5-year-olds need to understand what modesty is, and why our bodies need to be given an appropriate amount of respect.  7-year-olds need to be able to ask questions (and get answers) when they see “weird” magazine covers at the grocery store.  10-year-olds need to have some understanding of their biology.  And so on.  I don’t think there is an age that is too early to plant the seeds of modesty, purity, and chastity because it involves so much more than sex.  It is ultimately ordered to charity and the basic understanding that all people are created in the image and likeness of God.
—
One other point I’ll make: there is a lot of misinformation out there, particularly geared to kids.  I can’t tell you how sad it was for me to learn that our local h.s. had a PP volunteer come in for sex ed and how grossly inaccurate her presentations were.  Scary inaccurate.  I ended up coming in afterward to give a fact-based STD talk to try and at least mitigate some of the damage.  Unfortunately, because it’s a public school, there was a lot I wasn’t at liberty to discuss (like marriage), but at least I was able to tell these kids that condoms won’t actually protect you from a great number of STDs. (These kids were actually told that condoms need to always be used because they prevent all STDs - absolutely false!)  So while I’m sure there are many problems with a lot of absinence-only curricula, the “safe sex” curricula are also really, really bad.

As a teacher, I often find myself wondering how those in my profession got “charged” with providing sexual education (other than, of course, the pure biology involved).  The school I work at has an abstinence-only program and I’m still not comfortable with this.  It’s hard enough to get today’s kids to study history, literature, and mathematics…

Regarding waiting till marriage to kiss:  I myself would not have been comfortable with this.  It would make the wedding night way too intimidating if we had never hugged or kissed, in addition to more advanced intimacy.  Also, I think kissing at least helps to gauge whether the couple has chemistry.  However, I don’t fault people who choose to wait.  For one thing, my husband I went way further than we should have, and prolonged kissing can make other behaviors way too tempting.  Sometimes it’s hard not to cross that line.

I’ve encountered the used food argument too and yeah, it’s lame and just not helpful. At what point does getting physical with someone make you like a gross, used item? Touching? Exchange of bodily fluids of any kind? Full blown sex? It really makes very little sense and since few kids are going to be in one of those classes and never have even kissed someone I place my bets on almost everyone in the class going away with an “it’s too late for me” type feeling.

As to hardcore Catholic sex ed, good Lord don’t even get me started. I encountered this one course, can’t remember it’s name, multiple times. The core idea was: “Girls are responsible for making themselves unappealing sexually and fighting off the boys.” and “Boys are ravaging lust beasts who have no control over themselves.”. One fairly well known (at least in conservative circles) Catholic college even had rules where the girls couldn’t walk in front of the boy’s dorm but the boys could walk in front of the girl’s dorm because they “didn’t want the boys looking out their windows, seeing the girls and losing control”. This is the same school that would pull girls into meetings if their shirts were form fitting enough that you could get a good idea of their weight or that they had breasts…

I don’t think you can get through to every kid and kids are different from one another so something multi-pronged is going to work best. My thoughts are some combination of the psychological/hormonal effects of sex on your ability to discern the merit of a relationship or get out if it’s time, the way sex tends to usurp a relationship and diminish other important aspects, how pre-marital sex hurts other people and a review of the challenges of teen pregnancy.

I haven’t mentioned sin even though I’m Catholic. Well, I think it should be mentioned clearly and concisely exactly what kind of things are sinful (for informational purposes)but that shouldn’t be counted upon as a primary motivating factor for young people today. Fear is not the strongest motivator for a generation that are being encouraged to be fearless and buck tradition and the love of Jesus is not the most proactive thing for teens. It’s more of a “what I think about after I do some impulsive and sinful thing when I am apologizing” thing.

Renae, your story made my jaw drop.  Obviously that guy wasn’t communicating on the same wavelength!!  I hate that media-reinforced “standard” - I can’t even fathom it really.  At least being committed to waiting until marriage really does make it easier to determine early on whether someone else might be compatible, since if they are also willing to wait (or respect your decision even if they may not have done so before) you can at least know you share that value.  I always thought it was a little refreshing to have that issue completely off the table - no guessing about whether “it” would happen at date three or month three.  Relationships are tricky enough without adding that to the mix!  By grace, my husband and I were both virgins when we married (at 26 and 27), after dating for four years, and I am also so glad we waited.  But what made the difference probably wasn’t abstinence-only education - more a growing understanding of TOTB, a sense of responsibility to my family and parents, a fear of pregnancy and distaste of STDs, and a sense that it would be sinful.  I will say that I’ve struggled with embracing sexuality within marriage out of some sense that it is still sinful/distasteful.  That’s not my parents’ fault - I don’t know where it came from :(  I think I just need to continue to study TOTB and learn to embrace God’s plan.

Kim wrote:  “Something that might be worth discussing with teens is that there have been recent studies which show that when a couple engages in intercourse, bonding takes place on a chemical level.”

This is also true of kissing.  Kissing releases the same bonding and trust hormones at a less intense level than sex and breastfeeding.

On the kissing issue, it’s all about finding that balance again.  I think for the people who regret how many people they kissed before marriage is because they went around indiscriminately kissing people.  The kissing wasn’t something that happened after three or four dates and wasn’t just a small kiss good night.  For a lot of people a lot of relationships started with drinking at a party, talking to someone for 10-30 minutes, and then spending the rest of the night in the corner sucking face.  (Think Ron and Lavender in Harry Potter!)

While I don’t tell my kids that they shouldn’t kiss until they get engaged or married, I do tell them that they should be discriminating in who they kiss.  Because if you kiss someone before you get to know them, then your brain could trick you into trusting them more than they deserve.

Again, I don’t think that the Josh Harris books are perfect, but I think they offer lots of prompts for good discussion about the role of dating and encouraging chastity that you just can’t find in mainstream culture.  This is the same reason that I enjoy watching the Duggars with my kids.  We often talk about the similarities and differences we have with them in terms of faith and practice and family rules.

RMMT makes a lot of good points.

It’s funny, though, how the secular world thinks that starting sex education early means teaching first graders how to put on a condom.  But it really involves teaching kids basic modesty and respect and answering their questions as honestly as you can without confusing or scaring them.  Since I am always pregnant, there is always a lot of questions about how babies are made and how they grow and how they come out.  My kids know that it takes something from a man and an egg from a woman to make a baby, but they are satisfied that they don’t need to know the details of the “how” until they get older.

And Dr. Miriam Grossman’s “You’re Teaching My Child What?” goes into a lot of the errors in the standard sex education classes…like the effectiveness of condoms for certain STD’s and in certain usages.

Starting around the age of 13 or 14—I told my kids to watch what happened to their friends and people that they knew who were having sex. Did they think it was the best decision ever? Were those people truly happy? Or were they the most unhappy people they knew? I asked them to ask them if they would make the same decision again?  How did having sex too soon effect their friends?  Then I told them that I really had never met anyone who was happy with that choice—not my college roommate who had an abortion, not many of the people I knew in my young life would make that same choice again. We all make good and bad decisions in life, and sometimes by pointing out the obvious you may reach someone who—never having thought of it that way may pause, and make a different choice when put in a situation they may be placed in in todays world. The results were nothing but positive for my family.  Sometimes to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

By the way, I read that the higher teen birth rates in abstinence-only education states is really an economic phenomenon, not a social one.  Those states tend to have the poorest populations, including teens who do not have a real future to look forward to, education-wise.

In other words, studies of the efficacy of varying types of sex ed are meaningless if they do not control for economic variables.

But I still agree with your assessment of current sex ed programs - sort of the equivalent of “Scared Straight,” whether they are abstinence-only or not. 

As far as your own kids?  Cover everything you can by the time they are 12.  Sometimes, as teens, they just cannot hear you.

I loved the article and I think that it gives good insight into abstinence only education. Like previous posters said however, I have to object to the characterization of boys especially that they are incapable of seeing sex as self-sacrificial. This is certainly not my experience of many of the good men and boys I have known. I remember in particular one friend in high school who was a “jock” type. He broke up with his cheerleader girlfriend over sex. She was insisting they go all the way, and he wanted to wait until marriage. I can’t tell you how much respect he earned in the eyes of many girls when that became known.

Just published on Wikipedia:
Filipinos are the most religious

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: In the Philippines the most faithful living. Interestingly, the University of Chicago study shows that 84 percent of Filipinos believe that God exists, at least until the believers, only 4.3 percent in Japan. On average 33 percent of the planet are believers, and believers have in most Catholic countries.78.2.65.232 (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making that point Chris. The article makes good points but has gross gender bias that I find insulting.

I like your article a lot, but I decided to venture into the toxic wasteland that is the comment section of a ncregister article to voice my opinion about on aspect of your article. You were extremely critical, disrespectful, and cynical about teenage guys, and I want you to know that not all of them are “incapable of seeing sex as sacrifice.” That’s just a horrendous blanket statement to make. It’s too bad if you’ve never met any young guy in your life more personally mature than that, but for some of us, we don’t think that way and we are not hopeless idiots until some time in the future.

I’m taking the straightforward approach with my son, who is so sexually aware that in kindergarten he had his first girlfriend.  We’ve pounded into him that *sex is for marriage when you want to make a baby* and the value of *girls as friends*. 

While that seems to have worked so far, he hasn’t hit hormonal stage yet, and he’s not very faithful (in that he’s got at least three girlfriends I’m aware of right now, at age 9- more girlfriends at the same time than I had sequentially by 16).  But I think being honest with him to the limit of his developmental ability, instead of worrying about an innocence based on ignorance, is going to be what will pay off for us in the long run.  Especially since he’s special needs- I like to say “Emotionally and physically 9 going on mentally and academically 6”.

Very nice post, hard to disagree with your logic.
Sorry, I’m not from US(That’s why my English is bad), but from former Soviet Union. I’m an Eastern Orthodox Christian, and maybe someone will find it useful how do we deal with those issues. Sorry, if I offend someone, I don’t want to, I’ll try just tell the facts.
In country we realy have not very much respect for law. Not for justice, but for low. That’s why we haven’t got things well organised. Them same thing is with sexual education. Well, realy I didn’t have any, there were said in our school only were the children come from(I studied in a very good school, some people from our school actualy won internetional olympiads on various subjects), and I live in ex-atheist country(Atheistic matherialism for example was one of the Univirsities subjects, I was also tought in every school), with all the ideas of throwing away the sin in culture.
Ideas of atheism and materialism are still very strong in our culture(In laws, for example, on abortion). But if child doesn’t attend any subject(for example sexual education), they(government,school) won’t say anything to his parents, because we haven’t got such a formal system. We haven’t got developed culture of political correctness, so if one person offends someone, I thik no one will do anything(exept companies, wich tend to co-operate with the West).
So I found myself some things about the opposite sex, but do I need it? We live in a popular culture like yours, so sex is widely discussed, so I don’t watch TV, I don’t need it.
Imagine a person. He is already grown. He is a man. At some point he meets a girl. They love each other. They marry(because they don’t live in TV culture, they live in christian culture). Well, I absolutely agree that women need to know very much things about babies, sex, etc. But does the man need it? If he is a christian, he knows how to treat other people, and ecualy he must treat his wife, with full love and respect. If there will be any point that he needs to know about his wife’s body, she will tell him.
Well, let me tell you some personal experience. When we were told at biology lesson about how children are born, we(the boys) started to think about woman’s body, surf the internet. We were doing very bad and impure stuff. One of my friends was very strongly addicted to pornografy(we all watched it). I’m not pretending that this was the source of impure thoughts, but this was some kind acceleration to them. And now the problem of pornography is very widely discussed. I’ll tell about my friend, he had problems, for three years, he couldn’t break them, but had lot’s of tries. But when he turned to Chist, he dropped all his bad habbits in one moment and for many years never returned to them.
So my main thought is that boys, man don’t need to have sex ed, all they need - they know from the Bible(About treating woman, respect for her, kids, etc.). If there is something special - his wife will tell him, all other things will lead him to sin, in my opinion.

Best wishes. Sorry for English mistakes, my main languge is Russian. Michael.

As JPII taught, Sex is a “language of the body”.  Children are learning about sex from a very early age, as they watch their parents interact.  As they grow older, they are noticing lot’s of things in THEIR OWN HOME that are fixing them in a mentality.  Much of this is a “vibe”,that they absorb, an ethic that is imbibed.
.
This is the “Blueprint”.  Dominant culture, whispering peers, alluring romance novels, Planned Parenthood presentations, sl—ty college room mates, rap songs that call women awful things, frat guys who call chicks “Beddy”...Even the conversations we have with them to help them put all that they see and hear into perspective, which are so very important, are VASTLY secondary to the “BLUEPRINT”, which they will eventually REJECT or EMBRACE.
.
We can preach, sequester them, wear our faith like it’s a costume,pray our rosary on our knees every day…Unless they watch two parents that love and cherish each other,in the happenstance of everyday life,  their concept of sex will be marred.
.
The best way to teach your kid about sex?
.
LOVE your wife/husband with an undivided heart.

This is what mine looked like:
http://cathofeminism.blogspot.com/2012/05/my-8th-grade-sex-education-class.html
Worked for me.

For what it is worth, and I am sure you will address this in another post, it IS possible to have a clear, articulate abstinence message. The abstinence program I teach is based off of a model by John Van Epp in his book humorously titled “How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Jerk or Jerkette.” The practical advice to teens—and everyone else—is to get to know someone before you trust them, trust them before you rely on them, make sure they’re reliable before you commit to them, and commit to them before you touch them. It is a simple message but runs deep when you start talking about the consequences of getting the five steps out of order. And the biggest advantage? At the end of the curriculum, you don’t just know WHY saving sex for marriage is beneficial, you have also learned the skills of building a healthy relationship from the ground up. For someone who teaches thousands of public school children and can’t use any theology, this message is a lifesaver—literally, for some students.

The diocese of Boston has a sexuality program which is fairly far-reaching so I hesitate to call it an abstinence program, but it uses the tape-on-the-arm presentation - though one with a different ultimate point than those mentioned here. 

Rather than ending by telling the kids that the tape is dirty or simply “used,” the message presented involves two pieces of tape which have been repeatedly attached to things and which in the end have a difficult time attaching to one another as a result.  It places the emphasis on the problems created by premarital sex - specifically its effect on future relationships - and not on any kind of metaphysical state that it may impose on one individual who falls into this kind of activity.  There’s also a strong emphasis on the value that someone maintains as a person even in spite of mistakes and on the potential for redemption in Christ.

To me, this approach - even if it could be refined - is far better than either the food-in-the-water one described here, or the opposite possibility of failing to point out the damage to a person which these kinds of choices can indeed make.  Of course we don’t want to make a person feel like chewed up food, but we also need to avoid painting a picture which wholly excludes the reality that such exercises are trying to get across.

Oh, and when my eighteen y.o. gets home, I’m going to have her read *everything* here!
This morning when I was reading this post, when I got to the “regurgitated food” part I felt like gagging, because I was eating breakfast.  “That’s idiotic!” I thought.  But then I remembered telling my daughter when she was in middle school that “kissing lots of boys is like being a soft-serve ice cream cone, that’s been licked all over and starts dripping into the gutter”  Ha ha. Fail.
She laughed at me.

You should hear my 25 y.o. doing his high pitched impression of me saying: “Your kisses are like diamonds, don’t give them away!” (guffaws) Double Fail.

@Renae - well, I think sex on the third date is pretty standard, but I have to say that I never made it to a third date with a guy who expected it.  We would have been so incompatible in so many ways (Faith, pro-life, upbringing, children) that there really would’ve been no point in taking a dating relationship to a third date.  I didn’t marry until I was 30, yet I never had to have a conversation where I informed my date the evening wouldn’t end in sex.   
.
Have I had very deep and personal conversations with boyfriends where we discussed our sexual histories and the possibility for any sexual future?  Sure, but by that point we knew our values and outlooks on life were similar and the topic was a safe one and not a relationship ender.    Have my girlfriends been privy to those conversations?  No.  Has my husband?  Of course, as I have with his.    Sex properly belongs between a husband and wife and unless I was considering marrying a man and he was considering marrying me, he was entitled to know NOTHING about the most intimate part of me.
.

The second comment, from JD, is dead spang on. I have heard, in so many words, sermons preached publicly from fundamentalist pulpits, that claim men can’t control themselves so they need to get married so they have “a legitimate outlet”. Gosh. I wonder why atheists think Christians are misogynist?

Having come out of an abstinence-only program, I can’t say any of the article makes any sense.  The program I went through was a health class.  This class addressed sex as part of your over all health and the key to being sexually healthy was waiting until marriage.  The class was not geared to make us fear sex, but to help us understand that premarital sex was up there with drunk driving: you might get away with it, but when it catches up with you, it’s always someone else who gets hurt.

And with the copious amounts of scientific studies out there that show exactly how the brain and body work in relation to sex, having any kind of abstinence-only program without that information is ridiculous.  Science and good health support waiting until marriage.

The one thing that would have really helped was if the class included parenting and parenting theories.  It’s one thing to learn to stay away from sex until marriage, but it’s a whole new ball game when parenting is made a testable reality.  Learning about breastfeeding is way more on the mark than flour babies.  (My flour baby became two chocolate chip cookie cakes.)

Actually, the pregnancy rate is lower in liberal states because the kids learn about birth control and condom usage, not because they get abortions.

Do you have any stats to prove that Jen? Most states don’t have mandatory abortion reporting laws, so there is no way of knowing how many teens are having or are not having abortions in liberal states.

The problem I have with sex ed, abstinence ed and whatever else you may call it, is the fallacy of “just because one knows that something is good/bad, that means that the person will/will not engage in that activity”.  I just don’t buy it.  Sin is sin is sin is sin.  Some kids have problems with chastity, some with alcohol, drugs, some with pride and selfishness.  Are the sins of the body that much worse than the sins of the spirit or intellect?

Simcha,
You should create a “Kahn Academy"ish and teach human sexuality to teens and preteens.  :)) We need you!

First pray to Our Lady and Saint Joseph. Then keep the tv off and watch their friends. Teach them the dignity of Mary and women, of vocations and chasity, and fornication and mortal sin.  Talk and show respect in the home.  It sickens me seeing so many children by us and in the media who dress obscenely.  We will do whatever it takes to protect our daughter.  Holy Family Ora pro nobis!

Abstinence education isn’t catholic.  We’re about chastity education.  When we were in public schools we were takend out of ALL sex education- abstinence too.  It just isn’t desgined with the Catholic worldview in mind.  As an aside, I saw a duct tape analogy at a catholic program in high school and it was good- not about being used, but how there is bonding or something.  (Deep impression, obviously.)

The topic should involve Chastity as the virtue that will become the breaks in our own life to keep our physical virginity safe.

I agree with a previous poster - sex education belongs at home.  Catholic schools should know this.  They can direct parents to resources.  Any catholic who would let their kids sit through a public school’s sex ed program is an idiot.

As far as youth groups, I’m still going to say this is a topic for parents.

Did the explosion of promiscuity happen around the same time schools started teaching sex ed?

Right on, Simcha! I always say that if Adam and Eve had been more focused on the POSITIVE command in the garden, they may not have gotten around to breaking the negative one.

Re. Nicolle. My public school experience was the same. Your mention of flour babies brought back hilarious/pathetic memories!  What better way to teach young people that raising children is a one-way, no rewards, big heavy burden, a colossal bore, a joke, a big mess, and, really? creating and nurturing an edible commodity? (Oh, and don’t forget reinforcing the already deep suspicion that teachers are clueless and weird.) Good to know I was not the only flour baby cannibal mommy.

We teach Theology of the Body to our young teenage boys, as well as the the grace of chastity, and living a chivalrous life. Boys need a mission. Their lives take on meaning through selective sacrifices - and these are solidified when they learn them from their fathers, and see their fathers live it. It all makes for a great conversation to have with others in your church, and people you know in the wider world. When you live in a family and with friends and communities where people practice the giving of self to one another, it is less difficult to imagine how that give of self to another can take on a more cosmic quality, wanting to complete itself with physical intimacy found within the sacrament of marriage.
“Hey, We’re the Young Generation, and We Got Something To Say…....” (OK, so maybe we leave out the “Hey, hey we’re the Monkees”! part….

“Well Renae, the third date is pretty standard.” 
-
Maybe this is going to sound odd, but I’m reminded of a violin maker who replied “I dunno, that’s pretty standard” when I said I thought the instruments he had were too big for me (we’re talking millimeters—not as a criticism either, just because I have a very petite frame and bony fingers).  I wanted to yell, “Do I look ‘pretty standard’ to you?”  I would guess I would have much the same reaction: “Gee, I’m sorry, I mistook you for someone who doesn’t settle for ‘pretty standard’!”

Simcha, your conclusions are completely false. You have been reading studies financed and conducted by population control policy wonks paid by the US govt to falsify data that says abstinence doesn’t work, making the case for contraceptives. This is to ensure they continue to receive grant funding. However, CDC reports show the opposite. Two bloggers also analyzed data from African nations and also concluded the exact opposite. This is a very large population. You can see the analysis, graphs and conclusions yourself. Google the blog “Shameless Popery: What Impact Does Catholic Teaching Have On Aids In Africa” at blogspot dot com. Read it for yourself and learn something.

@That Hat Lady, as is so often the case, you seem to have read a different post from the one I actually wrote.  The “abstinence only” education I described is not Catholic at all, which is what I was trying to demonstrate (and why, I believe, it’s not very effective).  What Catholic missionaries teach in Africa is completely different from what evangelical protestant teachers present to American children.  Abstinence education is effective in Africa because it’s CATHOLIC abstinence education.  So, I agree with you; you just don’t seem to realize that you agree with me.

Simcha ,  this is what sexualized catechetics looks like in parochial schools.  See motherswatch.net and be horrified of the corruption against youth once a crime:
Growing in Love Part I
Grades K - 3
Growing in Love (GIL) is the most deceitful, lewd, perverse K-8 sex-as-religion, homo-promo series yet to be inflicted upon innocent children by bishops. The following includes Mothers’ Watch indepth critique of the childrens’ Text, Teacher Guide, Program Resource, and Family Resource for each grade level.
The bishops have tragically and deliberately transformed religion programs into sex programs that lure young Catholics into the sleazy world of sex. The programs entice hildren to believe that they are sexual beings. Before many children are taught to read, they are being indoctrinated to embrace a “joy of sex” mentality where sexual activity will be judged on the basis of personal desires, not according to the Commandments of God or the teaching of the Church.
In Catholic classrooms, the sins of homosexual acts are diminished. Homosexuality, bisexuality and other perverse aberrations are subtly and systematically normalized. Ordinary vocabulary words like “family,” “respect,” “relationships,” “community,” and “dignity” take on new meanings as they are linked with homosexuality. Homosexuality becomes a God-given “gender,” a gift rather than a cross to bear.
As in all Catholic sex education programs, including Growing in Love (GIL), sex and religion are mixed and stirred until sex becomes religion and religion becomes sex. Catechizing has become sexualizing. This is what today’s bishops across the country want for your children. They also want to draw in the parents as “partners” (silent partners, that is) with the diocese in the destruction of the faith and the sexualization of the minds of children. Parents who disagree are treated with contempt.
For years, Catholic youth have been led astray by such programs. Parents blame themselves, television, movies, music or society in general, but they seldom think to look at what their children are being taught in their Catholic classrooms. Yet, it is the schools where children spend six hours of the prime time of day when students are alert and eager to learn. Parents trust the schools; they don’t want anything to be wrong with their often-beloved Catholic schools.
Parents also turn a blind eye to the millions of dollars of parishioners’ money being dolled out in sexual abuse cases, and fail to see the connection with classroom sex education. Yet it is bishop-blessed sex instructions, like Growing in Love, that so desensitize youth that they become easy prey. The terrible crimes being perpetrated particularly, but not exclusively, against young boys by the religious and bishops has become so routine that such crimes have lost their shock value with the public.
The Bishop’s Role
Notwithstanding all the lawsuits, American bishops have created an “ad hoc Committee on the Catechism” to give a more authoritative approval to the contents of their vulgar sex education programs. Growing in Love, is published by Harcourt Religion Publishers (publisher of pro-abortion materials and deeply entrenched in the pro-abortion network). Harcourt has recently absorbed Brown ROA, formerly William C. Brown publishers of the gross and highly controversial New Creation Series.
The credentials of the three consultants for GIL, Fr. Richard Sparks, Toinette Eugene and James DeBoy are also cause for concern. In addition to his homo-promo leanings in his writings, Fr. Sparks’ preoccupation with sex has him scandalously and disgracefully discussing Our Lord and His Blessed Mother at a teacher workshop. Sr. Eugene, who calls herself a “womanist” is absorbed in “re-imaging” the Faith to conform to the new-age church. Mr. DeBoy is a long time trainer of “new church” catechists.
Growing in Love is among the programs that the bishops, by their endorsement, must heartily recommend. Their endorsement of this series reads: “The Ad Hoc Committee to Oversee the Use of the Catechism, National Conference of Catholic Bishops has found the activities and family booklets copyright 2001, to be in conformity with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” While Mothers’ Watch is hearing that some bishops are saying only the GIL student text is approved, the above statement can be found in the GIL books. . . .”

“Are the sins of the body that much worse than the sins of the spirit or intellect?”
/
I don’t think they are worse, but the consequences can (and do) touch far more innocent lives. Because sex makes babies.

MJD mom, I know the tape analogy you’re talking about—it’s used to make the point that the more sexual partners a person has, the less sex fulfills the purpose of creating “one flesh.”  (The tape gets less and less sticky the more it’s applied to different people’s clothing.) Brain studies show that the more partners one has, the less bonding chemicals (such as oxytocin) are created during sex to help “stick” you to your future spouse and become one flesh.

This exercise makes a good point, but I don’t know how able many teenagers are to take a long view of life.  Some will listen to this message—but it may be the ones who are already more prone to thinking about the future.

From a purely secular standpoint, I think sex ed must take place in a much larger context about relationships, what your child is “worth,” how he or she deserves to be treated, and wanting to have a marriage that lasts.  From a Christian standpoint, we need to teach our kids about sin in ways that are not shame-based—but based on the unimaginable love Christ has for us, and wanting to follow Him and be conformed to Him above all else.

@ Eileen,  somehow you sound rather judgmental regarding the fact that I have dated men who expect sex on the third date.
It’s kind of hard to learn everything about someone’s morals and values without spending time with them first (which is generally considered a date.)  But Bully for you- that perhaps you were in a sheltered social circle of only Catholics or something -  that is not most people’s experience.
.
If you know where the pocket of chaste and respectful men is in this country, please share, because I have a couple bus loads of women to send there!!

@Renee- I have to assume based on what I’ve heard of the sex education at St. John Bosco High School in the Willamette Valley, that just such a pocket is being created in Oregon.

@ Ted ...  :-)

Yes, but how old are these men? I’m not a Catholic Cougar!

One blog that I follow is www.stevegershom.com - written by a young, faithful Catholic with SSA.  He’s very open about the struggles he faces as he tries to remain chaste, and has helpful links on the sidebar of his blog, too.

Well, if you want to meet older men- then I’d suggest joining Catholic Daughters of America and volunteering every time they have a joint event with Knights of Columbus.

The best way for parents to train their kids about chastity is to use NFP and to avail themselves of the Sacraments.  NFP requires self-control.  Kids will have been observing this self-control for years.  Also, parents who use NFP will have a sense of when to ease up and when to pull on the reins of their children because they will have their own experience to drawn on. Etc. Kids who have parents who use NFP have been in the school of chastity for years without knowing it.

My previous comments are just the opinions of someone looking at child-raising from the outside.

We should NOT teach “abstinence only.”
.
We should teach chastity.
.
They are not the same thing.

The United States Catholic Council of Bishops are responsible for what is taught in the schools of their diocese and follow the leader of the Vatican.  There is not a diocese in the U S that does not mandate sexualized catechetics, that is, that is teaching what has been condemned by Pontiffs.  Uncatechized parents desire it.  Each dime put into the collection plate approves it.  In her book, “Sex Education, the Final Plague”, Randy Engel describes how sex education is raising the ‘new barbarians’.  All society is at risk.  The St. Joseph Foundation of Texas, canonist lawyers claims there is no way to bring charges against the USCCB or their collaborating teachers who are victims themselves by teaching these pornographic materials in parochial schools.  So who are these so called lawyers defending?  Not the Catholic Church!  Their job?
  – How is it possible that 53% of lay religious (paid) teachers believe a Catholic can have an abortion and continue to teach our youth?
How is it possible that a mere 10% of lay religious teachers accept church teachings on contraception; …………….65% accept that Catholics may divorce and remarry and remain in good standing; ………….77% believe Sunday Mass is optional? (Statistics taken from “Tumultuous Times” by Fr. Francisco Radecki and Fr. Dominic Radeck.,
Where are the true and seasoned real Catholic adults?  Silent!  Who said for their measly jobs they will do it?

Re: how to talk to your kids if they are gay:  here’s a good resource written by a mom who struggles with SSA herself:

http://www.catholicsistas.com/2012/05/24/my-catholic-kid-is-gay-now-what/

Your blog is very sad to me because I am an abstinence educator and a curriculum author.  The quote about the abstinence program that you used is from the prevention, contraceptive, family planning people that teach young people how to use condoms etc and have lead many young people astray.  They love to twist what abstinence programs teach, which is exactly what they did in that quote.  We are really relationship and character educators not as the opposition has named us “abstinence-only educators,” and if you understood our programs you would have known that.  In Ohio where over 250,000 students heard the abstinence message each year of the past decade, the teen pregnancy rates have decreased 36% and the teen abortion rates have decreased 35% and according to research have saved the Ohio government over $300 million a year.  Students, teachers and parents comments to our program are incredibly positive.  We are making a difference and encouraging churches of all faith to get on board, pray for our kids especially while we are teaching in their schools, and be ready to encourage students to attend church.  We cannot talk about God in the public schools but we can teach about building good relationships and why marriage is so important to a healthy society. We have many Catholic churches that support us and evangelicals as well.

Okay, I guess I should respond to all the guys who were offended by the way I characterized teenage boys, even though I said in the post, “I’m going to answer as someone who remembers being a teenage girl (maybe men will have a different perspective, and can share it in the comment box).”  To my mind, when I proactively offered to be corrected, it’s kind of churlish to be angry at me for needing correction.

.

I’m guessing that the most offensive part was this line:

.

“And it’s girls who are more likely to be aware that they’re giving something away when they have sex, whereas teenage boys are probably truly incapable of seeing sex as self-sacrificial:  they’re just not made that way. )”

.

First of all, let’s be clear that I was talking about teenage boys, and I really meant YOUNG teenage boys, those just dipping their toes into relationships with girls.  I didn’t say “all men are pigs” (as some have accused me of saying in emails); I didn’t say “all teenage boys are invincibly selfish” or “teenage boys are incapable of self-sacrifice.”  What I meant to say was that it’s much more obvious to girls than to boys that sex is self-sacrificial.  I realize that I said “they’re not made that way,” but what I meant was that they’re not made so that it’s obvious to them.  I’m sorry for not stating that more clearly, but I think I can stand by the way I said it without being too far off the mark.

.

It’s not sexist to say that most boys are more at the mercy of their hormones than most girls in a sexual relationship, and think of it primarily as physical.  It’s not sexist to say that most girls are more likely to be at the mercy of their emotions than most boys, and think of it primarily as an emotional connection.  Girls are just as deluded as boys when they are learning to have relationships.  Saying, “But I’m a man and I have feelings!” doesn’t contradict anything I just said.  I’m very happy for you that you have a soul, but I never said that you didn’t.

.

Maybe some guys have been so wounded by true offenses from truly sexist women that they now see insult where none exists.  Or maybe things really have changed so radically in the last 15-20 years that teenage boys are no longer creatures who tend to think with their bodies first and their minds and hearts second? 

.

I hope that clears up any lingering dismay I may have caused with my words. 

“Maybe some guys have been so wounded by true offenses from truly sexist
women that they now see insult where none exists. Or maybe things really
have changed so radically in the last 15-20 years that teenage boys are no
longer creatures who tend to think with their bodies first and their minds
and hearts second?”

I for one think answer A is far more likely than answer B.  I know for a fact that it took me nearly 20 years to undo the damage done by growing up male in the 1970s, when *every* sex act was considered rape by some feminists and being taught that men were evil (it did NOT help that I was suffering from undiagnosed high functioning autism either).

To those who object that they teach abstinence-only classes that DON’T look like the one I described:  okay.  Good, that’s great.  My point was that many people clearly DO teach this sort of class (as you can see by the fact that so many commenters in the XOJane piece recounted similar stories, and so many commenters on THIS piece also had the same experience).  It doesn’t matter how good the curriculum is:  if so many people got the wrong message out of it, then it’s not a good lesson.  Right?  If you have a great message but 100% of people misunderstand it, then you really have to change your message. 

,

I’ll be very happy to hear that not all abstinence-only classes are like this =- that some teach chastity rather than abstinence.  I have no criticism of them.  I was criticizing the curricula which seem to hammer home the idea that girls are commodities and that people who are vicims of abuse, or who have had sex and regret it, are damaged goods.

Simcha, I think those that have gone on the front-foot micro-attacking your wording or construing (I hope correct spelling) a meaning that is not what you intended are, well, just wanting an argument cause they just wanna argue- for the sake if arguing.
I understood your article and the majority here did too. You begin to waste breath defending your choice of words rather than discussing the issue at hand. And the issue at hand is “how do you help your teenager not fall into a pattern of sin that will damage or misdirect his/her life into adulthood and beyond…?”
And criticizing this one dimensioned “damaged goods” approach, obviously, does not work. Teenagers are thinkers, questioners and are smarter than that- which you clearly understand- but many take for granted. Can’t wait for your follow up article on suggestions of abstinence education.

Response to:  Posted by Simcha Fisher -Re: “how to talk to your kids if they are gay” 

There is not a person who is gay, only those who claim they are and have been led by falsehoods.  God, who calls each of us into existence, does not call a person to be what He abhors.  Your statement is very offensive.  Look at the parochial schools’ sexualized catechetics and we know with certainty there is a conniving agenda to abuse youth.  Kids are not born gay; kids are unprotected from uncatechized adults.  The parochial education system is not leading with Truth taught by the Roman Catholic Church.  Not only our youth but the whole world suffers because good men do nothing.

Joe- did you even bother to read the link?  The artice agrees with you.

Ted, I sincerely desired that you be correct and I needed to be corrected.  But I fail to see any warnings in the article that our youth’s souls are being lost in parochial schools.  Youth are not being led by Truth.  The Vat 2 document, Gravissimum Educationis,gave the green light to teach sex education in parochial schools.  Pope Pius XI taught otherwise.  In his encyclical, Divini Illius Magistri, On the Christian Education of Children, 1929, cautioned that parents not descend to details which would destroy their children’s innocence.  Pope Pius XI also in another encyclical, Casti Connubii, 1930 dutifully shared with families that the primary end of marriage is the procreation and the education of children.
As Pope Pius XI noted in Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928, there is no need to “strain” to “find” Catholicism in the pronouncements made by Holy Mother Church.
How do parents know what the educators in parochial schools believe, practice or accept?  Most of all and more importantly, what sensible parent would entrust their children to sex educators when Roman has spoken on the matter.  Once Roman settles a matter on faith and morals, it is not up for discussion.  That is the point I striving to make.

Sexualized catechetics is dehumanizing.  There is no room for compromises in regard to sex ed in parochial schools.  It is the parents who have shirked their duty by allowing this atrocity and it is up to the bishops and priests to assist the parents or remind the parents they have the grace in the Sacrament of Matrimony to teach their children.  Of course we know they will not because they allow it to exist. 

If a child needs more assistance in this matter, let the parents make their own decisions how to deal with it and never acquiesce to a sexualized pornographic dangerous classroom setting.

Oh dear, Anon Guy!

“Regardless, my marriage is now kinda sucky because my choice of a mate was done as I was coming out of my ass stage and before I put God first.”

I feel really bad reading things like this. Surely your wife is a precious person in God’s eyes with at least some virtues. I guess from your comment, she’s not a practicing Catholic or something, but if there is not mutual respect between spouses, a marriage is headed towards divorce and that would be horrendous and completely contrary to God’s will.

I was sexually abused growing up, and raped by my first boyfriend in college.  So I learned young that there was no point in saying, “no.”  So I didn’t.  And I had three children by myself.  My two girls were 4 and 3 when I had my first little boy.  I was so terrified having him; I started praying incessantly to God.  “Please help me be the mother that they need.”  So I stopped having anything to do with men.  I kept my head down, taught, and took classes while we enjoyed each other’s company.  Then 10 months later I met my husband.  We married six months after we met.  He has adopted the older three and we added a fourth together. 

I introduce my post this way to say that I have told my children since they were little that the reason I *never* drink alcohol is that abuse of that substance runs in my family, so I’d rather be safe than sorry.  I call it what the Church calls it:  the near occasion of sin.  And we talk about those near occasions in many contexts.  So it has naturally come up in the form of human sexuality.  We are all beautiful and made in God’s image.  He loves me just as much as he loves someone who wasn’t broken when she was little (yeah, I’ve been called damaged goods).

When I married my husband I became Catholic and I have told him that he is the patriarch of our family.  I think that the best “sex ed” comes from a family that is divinely ordered.  And that will take different forms for different people, but will always require a great deal of listening.  Getting to know our children and spending time with them individually and in groups has been essential.  So I have three young adults and a teenager who all want to wait until they’re married, and who see dating as a way to understand that other person and discern what is best for each of their lives.  Oh, except my teenager.  He wants to be a priest.

JB, what a beautiful testimony.  I’m so sorry for what you have been through, but so glad for the healing you have experienced.  I hate that term “damaged goods”.  It is so disrespectful and treats people like objects, and also totally disregards church teaching on mercy and healing.

Someone posted a comment about teaching their sons ‘theology of the body’.  I went through the Chrisopher West theology of the body series.  From this experience I advise the parent to cease and desist ASAP.  This is a man centered theology and not a God centered theology.  Your sons will not develop Christ like virtues to combat the vices with these teachings.  You will much better serve them by teaching them to first pray daily, especially pray Five Decades of the Rosary.  Any man who has a devotion to our Mother will be an honorable man of God.

Youth who are taught to pray will be given protections beyond human understanding.  They will be significantly set apart, undoubtedly mocked for their different choices and lifestyle, but they will save their souls.  Isn’t that what parents are to do, to teach their children how to save their souls?

Correction:  A devotion to “Our Blessed Mother”

St. John Bosco on “The First Virtue of Youth is Obedience to Parents and Superiors”:
“Honor thy father and thy mother,” says Our Lord, “that thou mayest be long-lived upon the land” (Exod. 20, 12). In what does this honoring consist? It consists in obeying, respecting, and assisting them. As to obedience, when they give a command, you should carry it out promptly, without any show of opposition. Guard against acting like those who murmur, shrug their shoulders, shake their heads, or, what is worse, answer back insolently. Such children give great offence to their parents and to God Himself, for in the commands of our parents is to be found expressed the Will of God. Our Savior, although all-powerful, submitted Himself to the Blessed Virgin and to St. Joseph, the humble carpenter: “And He was subject to them” (Lk. 2, 51). As an act of obedience to His heavenly Father, He willingly offered Himself to die upon the cross: “Becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross.” You should show, likewise, great respect to your father and mother, and never undertake anything without their permission. Never manifest impatience in their presence, and never reveal their faults. St. Aloysius Gonzaga always first sought his parents’ permission, or, if they were absent, he even asked leave of the servants. The young Aloysius Comollo was obliged one day to stay away from home longer than his parents had allowed, but when he returned he humbly and sorrowfully asked pardon for his involuntary disobedience. Finally, you must be ready to wait on your parents and assist them when they are in need, in such ways as are open to you. Furthermore, help them with whatever you earn, and follow their suggestions. Again, it is the duty of the young to pray every morning and evening for their parents, that God may grant them every spiritual and temporal blessing. What I have said to you about obedience and respect for parents, you should practice also towards your superiors, whether ecclesiastical or secular. Likewise you should obey your teachers, from whom, with equal humility and respect, you should willingly receive instruction, counsel, and correction. Be assured that whatever they do is for your advancement. Be convinced also that obedience shown to your superiors is as if it were shown to Jesus Christ Himself, and to Mary most holy. Two things I recommend to you from the depth my heart. The first is, to be frank and open with your superiors and never to try to cover up your faultsby deceit, or, worse still, by downright denial. Always tell the truth without fear; lies, besides offending God, make you the children of the devil, who isthe prince of liars. When your deceit is found out you will be marked as aliar, and dishonored before your superiors and companions. Secondly, I recommend you to make your superior’s counsel and advice the rule of your life and work. Happy, indeed, you will be if you act thus. Your days will be joyable; every action will be well-regulated, and you will edify all. Therefore, I conclude with this remark: The obedient child will become a saint; the disobedient travels a road which will lead himto perdition. (From Companion of Youth, p. 10-12. St. John Bosco.)

Joe- exactly what “Christ like virtues” does encouraging ignorance for the sake of innocence create when it comes to priests abusing children, if the children don’t know that sex outside of marriage is wrong or even what sex is?

Pius XI was the same guy who encouraged Eucharist without Confession for children.  His knowledge of the faith is not suspect, but his knowledge of human brain development and how that affects the soul is very suspect indeed.

Also- Christopher West is no substitute for John Paul II- go to the source on Theology of the Body.  It’s available online.

When the topic came up Mum looked me in the eye and said “Do you really want your husband to be at work one day, and have someone come up to him and say: ‘Oh, is that who your wife is? Oh yeah, I KNOW your wife. She had this mole on her ...‘It taught me never to trust anyone with that level of intimacy until I got married. I’m 46 and I still thank God for her wisdom and the peace of mind it has brought me.

Ted, lay theologians or claimed Catholic writers want you to believe parents must accept assistance to teach their own children.  I’m not saying do not teach them about sex, I’m saying the men in black, the United States Catholic Council of Bishops have mandated our youth to view pornographic materials in sex education series such as “Growing In Love” in parochial schools because LOUD uncatechized voices requested, they say, help in these matters of sex education.  In spite of what the Catholic Church has hand on, it is only within the Sacrament of Matrimony that these teachings should occur, sex ed occurs in parochial schools.  Parents have the grace to instruct their children.  I did not say it.  Pontiffs have written about it.  Who knows the child better than the parents?  Pontiffs have told us that it is a grave violation to teach such tender matters in a group setting.
Those who impose sexualized catechetics upon youth oppose the infallibility of the Vicar of Christ and have an agenda to destroy Sacred dogmas and doctrines.  If we live separated from Holy Mother Church teachings, we put our souls at great risk and those souls around us are likewise put in jeopardy.  Rome currently is not leading with the truth.  Rome has appointed these current bishops who have a blind ear to parents and grandparents begging them to stop these sacrileges teachings in parochial schools and CCD programs.  I’ve met some parents who had to remove their children from parochial progressive scandalous teachings in parochial schools as far back as the ‘70s. 
Take a good look at what is going on in the university and colleges.  Tim Drake of NCR once reported on the promiscuity of Catholic women in so-called catholic universities and colleges being more promiscuous that their peers.  He’s also reported graduates from these same schools to have less faith than when entering.  Are you connecting any dots as yet?  If we do not defend youth from being corrupted in parochial schools and CCD programs than I ask you, what can we expect for a reward in the next life?  Make no mistake:  we are held accountable.  NO, it is not easy.  YES, it is uncomfortable to buck the clergy who are obviously intending to destroy Catholicism.  BTW, read the book, “Animus delendi, II : desire to destroy” by Atila Sinke Guimarales. 

“Christians are, moreover, made for combat….To recoil before an enemy, or to keep silence when from all sides such clamors are raised against truth . . . is insulting to God, and both are incompatible with the salvation of mankind.”  ‘SAPIENTIAE CHRISTIANAE’  www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13sapie.htm

Pat: that is awesome!  What a great point.  If I had a daughter, I would definitely use that approach (something tells me that it wouldn’t have the same effect on my son, unfortunately).

OK… LOVE this post. But as a chastity educator, I HAVE used the tape demonstration. It goes like THIS:

God made sex to be the “sticky” in a relationship. It binds two people together, and out of that love and bonding comes babies. HOWEVER, the more you use your sticky with many people (and here I would pass the duct tape from one guys hairy arm, rip it off, and put it on another guy’s arm, rip it off, etc) the LESS sticky it gets. Which is why so many married people who used their sticky with others before the wedding night wonder “Hey? Whats the big deal about the wedding night? This doesn’t feel any different?” (We look at the used duct tape and see that it is covered in arm hairs and no longer sticky.)

“Now, guys, here is where the analogy breaks down. I CANNOT get the sticky back with this duct tape. It WILL NOT do what it was made to do anymore. But, as Catholics, we have recourse to Confession, where we can go and confess that we have misused our sexuality and decide to save it for the person it was meant to stick us to in marriage.”

4 words: jason and crystalina evert. their sex ed teaching is actually what really made me think “huh. they’re right. i wonder what else the catholic church is right about…” and this was in high school. i think we should give teenagers some credit. if they can take pre-calc in high school they can understand sexual morality. expain it to them like you would explain it to an adult.

Theology of the Body.

The commentaries teach me a lot ... in terms of wisdom. Thank you !
However, I also read that Protestants are part of Heretic Churches ...

I find this statement amazing ...did you know that the Protestants are also called elsewhere `the people of the Word`  ?  -meaning the Word of God-

They cannot be totally out of touch with the Holy Scriptures, can they ?
As the Beatles used to say : `all my lovin` to you !`

I have a burden to fear for youth who are not taught Christ Crucified, who are not taught what Christ has done for us.  The ‘significance of humanity’  is only because He first loved us, only because He died, rose from the dead and Ascended into heaven and is now seated at the right hand of the Father.  Also, for our protection and those around us, Our Blessed Mother at Fatima asked us to pray five decades of the Rosary each day.  As we meditate upon these Sacred Mysteries of the Rosary, our eyes, hearts, minds and wills, will be transformed into the likeness and image of Her Son.  To Jesus through Mary.

Rose-Marie - Do you believe in papal infallibility?  Do you accept what has been handed on by Sacred Scripture as well as Sacred Tradition - revelation not written but guidance of the Holy Spirit to the Vicar of Christ to give needed clarity to all Christians in the world what they must believe already personally spoken to the Apostles by Christ when He was here on earth?  Or do you believe in personal interpretations and new can be true?

The heretical Protestant Word is just the Bible.  The Catholic Word of God is the Logos- the Word Made Flesh who came to dwell among us, who was crucified and died, and who sent His Holy Spirit to guide and protect us.

“People of the Word” is like the Islamic “People of the Book”- the heresy of replacing God with a artistic work of man about God.

The strange thing is that Islamics and Protestants alike call us idolators for having pictures and statues of our family in Christ- when they have actually *replaced God* with the Qu’ran or the Bible- a far worse form of idolatry.

As a former middle school CCD teacher, I’m going to add that there’s a such thing as making sex sound *too* good. Our textbook had a very neo-TOB approach, and one girl in particular only heard the “sex is great! sex is beautiful!” part of the lesson, and missed the “within marriage” part. I had to explain to her dad later that I did NOT tell a group of 8th graders that premarital sex was acceptable.

53% of lay religious (paid) teachers believe a Catholic can have an abortion and continue to teach our youth.  A mere 10% of lay religious teachers accept church teachings on contraception; 65% accept that Catholics may divorce and remarry and remain in good standing; 77% believe Sunday Mass is optional?  (Statistics taken from “Tumultuous Times”, page 496). 

I went through the T O B series by Christoph West and learned it to be a discarding of the virtues.  Read Rangy Engel’s analysis of T O B.  She is an expert on these matters.

RangyJoe, I still don’t understand why you do not read John Paul II’s theology of the body, instead of Wnd hand distorted sources like Christopher West and Rangy Engel.

Ted,  I’ve read T O B by JPII and have been involved with TOB more than I care to explain here.  Before studying Randy Engel and others’ analysis of T O B that resignated within me,I had already recognized a new doctrine shaping a new religion.

Joe, if putting God and the unitive and procreative aspects of sex at the center of marriage, while denying sex in EVERY OTHER SITUATION, is new religion to you, then I for one question if you were ever truly Catholic to begin with.  In fact, you’re talking like the Shaker heresy of American Protestantism, and you know what happened to them- the few children they did have left the religion and within three generations they simply died out.

Ted,  I can’t believe you’ve come up with such a mouthful from so few details of my postings.  Furthermore, the “unitive and procreative aspects of sex at the center of marriage” is a changed novel definition of the “Sacrament of Matrimony”.  Which pope said, “I cannot change the Sacraments, I am only the Pope?”  More later.

Joe, if that was a change in the sacrament of matrimony, then the human race would have died out long before Christ was born.  It is an accurate description of what the sacrament has always been when practiced faithfully and in love.  That is why I say you talk more like the German Congregationalist heresy group than like a good Catholic- they deny sex within marriage as well.  The better ones reduce it down to only the procreative denying the unitive; the worse ones like the Shakers thought that having children was proof of sin.

To a Catholic, openess to life within marriage is as chaste as celibacy.

Or is it the idea that married people can have a vocation too that is troubleing to you?

Ted Seeber,    Simcha and her husband have blessed the world with 9 children.  They inwardly knew by a special grace that the PRIMARY purpose of the Sacrament of Matrimony is the ‘procreation’ of children.  Thank you, Simcha.
The important truth is that the end of matrimony is primarily directed for children, to educate them particularly with a Catholic upbringing for happiness in this world and in the next.  Look what has happened because the laws of the Catholic Church have not been observed.  The procreation of children has been relegated to a secondary role and sometimes not even desired.  This is proven by the widespread use of contraceptives and abortions among Catholics.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute,  Catholic women are as likely to have an abortion as the general population.  Obviously,  couples are no longer focused upon children but upon the sexual unity.  Very few married couples are open to more than 2 children.  Three is considered a large family and more than 3 children, the mother will experience a lot of criticism.  Simcha must have her own stories to tell of how her family is critically received by others who have chosen fun morality and materialism to be their end purpose for the family.  The sin of contraception is not taught in parochial schools nor in the proper preparation of marriage.  (that’s another sensitive issue) 
We all know that the chemicals injested by women for birth control are abortifacients that do not always prevent the conception of a child but prevent the continued growth of the child in the womb because of the chemicals.  The mother will spontaneously abort the child alone.  Are married couples being reminded of the sin of contraception?  NO!  Couples are led by their own consciences and that is a tragedy especially when we know the world is in desperate need of people, but more importantly, souls are destined for hell because of the practice.
Furthermore, because of the lack of proper instruction in the Sacrament of Matrimony, annulments have skyrocketed.  Indissolubility of marriage has been buried.  Thousands of annulments are granted each year.  Obviously the (new) church does not know how to prepare couples to stay together.  In the year 2000 97% of the 44,861 cases for annulments heard were granted.  How disastrous!  To break the family unit is to destroy society and is to destroy the nation.  We all know there are ‘methods’ of destruction more dangerous than bullets. 

Joe, NONE of what you are talking about is in Theology of The Body.  Must have been something added by Christopher West or Randy Engel.  All the Pope is saying is that thesin of contraception does not just prevent children, it also prevents matrimony.

The rest is just Baby Boomer secular culture invading the Church.  JPII’s theology of the body was designed to prevent that evil by teaching the Truth.

JOE, as proof of what I say, every sin you mention existed in the 1960s and 1970s as well.  You have cauuse and effect mixed up.  TOB was in response to the sin, not the cause of it.

Ted, T O B is ingenious ambiguity and turned the Sacrament of Matrimony on its head.  T O B gave the world what it wanted and not what is so desperately needed.  The Sacrament of Matrimony clearly states that it is FIRST an indissoluble union prepared for the bringing forth of children, to educate and prepare them for the next life.  Putting the unitive before the procreation of children in the newly designed sacrament confused couples and did not prepare them for parenthood properly.  Statistics bear it out that the new religion helped create chaos in the family by redesigning this very important Sacrament meant to keep society safe.  Yes, it had been coming.  Morals were being relaxed and given new definitions.  Most of all SIN is a dreaded word, therefore feared to be spoken of and avoided in discussions where and when needed and necessary.  I’m in awe of parents who are afraid to teach what sin is!  No wonder barbarians are being raised.  Youth do not know what they must do in order to save their souls.

Joe- “T O B is ingenious ambiguity”

How can something so concrete be ambiguous at all?  I see no ambiguity in TOB at all.  It’s very straightforward.  Some people, like Christopher West, tried to add ambiguity, but the original JPII Wednesday audiences were extremely straightforward and honest to anybody who has a large enough vocabulary to understand them.

“The Sacrament of Matrimony clearly states that it is FIRST an indissoluble union prepared for the bringing forth of children, to educate and prepare them for the next life.”

So does the original TOB.  I’m not seeing your objection.

“Putting the unitive before the procreation of children in the newly designed sacrament confused couples and did not prepare them for parenthood properly.”

I don’t understand- if parents don’t have an indissoluble union (the unitive aspect) how can they prepare children for the next life (the procreative aspect)?  TOB didn’t put “unitive before procreative”, TOB is “unitive AND procreative”.  Seems to me you’re the one confused, not JPII.

“Statistics bear it out that the new religion helped create chaos in the family by redesigning this very important Sacrament meant to keep society safe. “

Except those statistics were the same in 1975, long before JPII was Pope or TOB came on the scene.

“Yes, it had been coming.  Morals were being relaxed and given new definitions.  Most of all SIN is a dreaded word, therefore feared to be spoken of and avoided in discussions where and when needed and necessary.  I’m in awe of parents who are afraid to teach what sin is!  No wonder barbarians are being raised.  Youth do not know what they must do in order to save their souls.”

Why are you blaming the Church for what the hippie drug abusers did?

Ted ———  See the bad fruit of a Sacrament absent of grace.  The unitive before the procreation is the root of the bad fruit causing so many annulments.  There was 392 annulments granted by the Catholic Church world-wide for all the years between 1952 and 1956.  These are the numbers granted in the years indicated:
1984 - 36,461
1985 - 53,320
1987 - 60,570
1988 - 50,000
1989 - 61,416
1990 - 62,824
“Tumultuous Times” by Fathers Radecki have the numbers up to the year 2000.  It does not get any better.
Since 1962 divorce has increased by 350%, births to unmarried girls (15-19 years old) are up by 500%, child abuse is up by 2,300%, and teen suicide is up by 450% (Traditional Values Coalition, Paid Advertisement 2008, Washington D.C.) In addition, our society’s “culture of death” has been responsible for the killing of more than 50 million unborn children.

If the faithful, with sincere mind give consent in the sacrament of Matrimony, Pope Pius XI wrote that “they open up for themselves a treasure of sacramental grace from which they draw supernatural power for the fulfilling of their rights and duties faithfully, holily, perseveringly until death, [and that this sacrament] not only increases sanctifying grace… but also adds particular gifts, dispositions, seeds of grace, by elevating the natural powers” (Casti Connubii, December 31, 1930).

T O B is false intellectualism because it is not based on theological Catholic marks, such as: 
St. Paul says: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for her, that He might sanctify her, cleansing her in the bath of water by means of the word; in order that He might present to Himself the Church in all her glory, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she might be holy and without blemish. Even thus ought husbands also to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife, loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh; on the contrary he nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ also does the church (because we are members of his body, made from his flesh and from his bones). For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This is a great mystery — I mean in reference to Christ and to the Church. However, let each one of you also love his wife just as he loves himself, and let the wife respect her husband” (Eph. 5:25-33).
Moreover, absent in T O B is that a wife is to love her husband as the Church loves Christ. First, this is with a respectful and submissive love. Wives are to yield to their husbands a willing and ready obedience in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety. Second, her love must be a faithful love and she must be ever true to her husband. Finally, the Church loves Christ with a courageous, persevering love; so too, a wife’s love should be constant, patient in suffering, and magnanimous in action.

And more specifically the intellectual psuedoism of T O B fails to teach that married couples should look for help at Calvary. There is no truer example of the meaning of real love than there. 

Ted, you asked, “Why are you blaming the Church for what the hippie drug abusers did?”  I’m blaming the church that ‘subsists in the Catholic Church’.  Holy Mother Church, the Apostolic Church does not teach error. The church that subsists in, Lumen Gentium 8, is not the Roman Catholic Church. 

What do you mean TOB is not based on those marks?  Every single one of those Bible quotes is in the original TOB!

And church annulments do not track civil divorces.  There were plenty of Catholics who were divorced in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s who were not granted church annulments.  The families were still being destroyed back then too; the church just refused to acknowledge the destruction that had already taken place.

You are blaming the church for breaking up families when the Church was trying to put families back together.  Even today, more annulments are NOT granted than are granted- the annulment process is by no means the revolving door you paint it to be, though I’ll admit that it is used far to often for my taste.  50% of Catholic Marriages since 1960 have ended in divorce, and that number is way too high. 

I agree that the solution is pre-marital counseling and long engagements though.  My own archdiocese REQUIRES 6 months of pre-marital counseling; my wife wasn’t Catholic when I met her so we also went through a year of RCIA & NFP training while we were engaged.

Medically we’re sub-fertile, so the NFP has come in handy; my son is the result of using NFP as a fertility treatment; and we have NEVER used it as a contraceptive.  We also, in accordance with church teaching, refuse to pay thousands of dollars for artificial fertility treatments.

I found our pre-marital counseling to be excellent, though the mentor couple our priest assigned has a less than perfect marriage themselves (due to mental illness they’ve come close to divorce several times, but he, being a faithful Catholic and very patient and understanding with a wife sometimes disconnected from reality, has always fought for the marriage in court- even when accused of the worst).  I’ve been married 13 years this June, and while we’ve had our problems, I’ve got to say the TOB- based training I received is actually one of the reasons we’re still married.  *Commitment* first can carry you through a lot of trouble that procreation first simply can’t.  I’ve known couples who were pro-creative first whom the death of a child or a special needs child caused a divorce; it happens more often than you’d think.  Where by emphasizing the unitive, that actually prevents divorces. 

I would say just about any Catholic who gets an annulment either never heard of theology of the body to begin with, or wasn’t taught what commitment really means- and likely had used up all the oxytocin receptors in their brain in sexual sin long before getting married in a Catholic Church.

So you’re claiming that:
“This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic,[12] which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care (Jn. 21:17), commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it (cf. Matt. 28:18, etc.), and which he raised up for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him.[13] Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”

Is not the Roman Catholic Church?  What are you, Eastern Orthodox?  Or a schimsatic radical traditionalist whose tradition only goes back to the missal of Pius V?  How can you say that the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with Rome are not the Roman Catholic Church?

The proper instructions for raising our children have been buried.  A priest is uncovering the rich teachings of Holy Mother Church to assist families.  Here is one article he has recently sent to interested families seeking assistance.  May this bless many families.

On the Manner of Accustoming Children to the Observation of the Fast

Cardinal Antoniano, Bk. 3, Ch. 19.

We should mention here the care thatfathers of families ought to take to accustom their children littleby little to the observance of the precept of fasting, for the faultswhich are committed in this regard almost always originate from theeducation one has received. I know that Holy Mother Church, a motherfull of tenderness, does not oblige anyone to fast before attaining21 years of age. Nevertheless, it would be highly advantageous if theears of children would often hear the fast mentioned in the home andif the children could see the religious exactitude shown by theirparents and by the servants in the fulfillment of this precept ofpenance imposed on Christians. It is good to teach them about thevigils of solemn feasts and the Ember Days, and to train them to holdin high esteem the holy season of Lent which Our Lord Himself taughtus to observe by His example and by which we, in some way, give God atenth part of the whole year.

The father or mother could sometimesgently invite their children to fast along with them, but withoutdepriving them of the amount of nourishment which their age requires.The mere sight of a table set out more frugally than usual and whichdoes not contain some of the accustomed items of food familiarizesthem little by little with the idea of fasting and prepares them, asthey grow older, to observe these holy practices themselves one day.

It is so difficult today [writing inthe 1500’s!!] to stir Christians from their habitual lukewarmnessto the fulfillment of the precepts of Holy Church, that I scarcelydare to recommend here the pious custom of fasting on Friday inmemory of the cruel passion of Our Savior, and to encourage fathersto transmit this happy tradition to their offspring.

We can, without any inconvenience,impose some privations when the body has gained strength at about thefourteenth year. Moreover, since youth often put themselves to sometrouble in skipping a meal out of pure caprice or in order not tointerrupt their play, could they not sometimes do this for love ofvirtue and for the benefit of their souls? In addition to thesatisfaction which comes from the fulfillment of a duty, it iscertain that habit makes fasting much easier to bear. On the otherhand, those who have failed to accustom themselves to the fast littleby little find it very difficult regardless of the strength and vigorof their physical constitution.

A father must not forget that hischildren have no enemy more dangerous than their own body if it istoo delicately nourished and supported, for then it rebels againstthe soul. Therefore, we must strive to disarm this domestic enemy.The Holy Scriptures and the Fathers and Doctors of the Churchconstantly urge us to this fight against the body. There is hardlyone of them who has not written some discourse or treatise in praiseof fasting; St. Basil, among others, has spoken of it in most divineterms. Holy Church herself calls it the medicine of body and soul.Indeed, the duties of civil life and of various social conditionsoften require that we know how to bear fasting and abstinence, andthat we not be like those who cannot bear it if the time set fortheir meal be delayed for even a moment. This arises not so much outof necessity as from impatience.

No one can appreciate how happy he willbe in his older years if he has learned during his youth to endurehunger and thirst, the severity of the seasons and a thousand otherinconveniences of life.

Ted,  This is an age of no birth and less control.  Catholics are being decimated with the new sacramentals of thermometers and charts, sexual pop- theology and a debasement of Catholic spirituality.  The conjugal relations are a kind of sacramental act so the modernists say.  Yes, God ordained a Sacrament for the marital relationship but He did not designate it as an expression of love for God as taught by the twisted thinking of modernists. 
Even JP II shortly before he died lamented of the lack of children being born, the lack of priests and religious, the difficulty for people to make life long commitments.  George Weigel author of “Witness To Hope” said the experts are still attempting to ‘unpack’ the meaning of T O B.  Yet you claim it to be perfectly clear.  I claim its purposely obscure.  There was no spiritual growth in the pursuit of it and I sought to return to the basics of Catholic morality and a healthy fear of damnation for sins of the flesh.  Our Blessed Mother at Fatima told Jacinta, “The sins which hurl most souls into hell, are the sins of impurity.”  This truth has been lost. 
I congratulate you in your good marriage but I dare say it has nothing to do with T O B.  NFP, according to some prelates can be used to regulate births.  Never have these words, ‘regulate births and regulate the size of families” ever been heard of in Christ’s Church.  It opened the door to go against the infallible teaching of contraception.  One will lose their soul in its use.  Once the spouses adapt themselves to the regulation and size of their family, they also pick and choose what Catholic doctrines they will follow.  They become as protestants.
So what am I?  Brace yourself.  I was blessed with the grace (I must add that I am nothing special, it was purely by grace )  to see the error of T O B and if I did not renounce these errors then I would be contributing these errors to God.  It is doctrine to believe in the infallible spirit given only to the Catholic Church.  Catholics must believe that Christ’s Church will not teach error in faith and morals.  His Providence does watch over us.  If one can read and understand what they read, they will recognize the novelties of T O B that are disastrous, but than one needs to read what has been handed on.
BTW, Pope Pius V was beatified by Pope Clement X in the year 1672, and was later canonized by Pope Clement XI…Did the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church make a mistake?

Joe, why is it that everybody I know who practices NFP either is infertile ( and thus using NFP in reverse) or has large numbers of children?

Your data does not fit the truth.  It is not pop psychology, it is neurochemistry that has confirmed TOB.  You ar not special, you have no private revelation contradicting 4000 years worth of observational biology.  Monogamy is the way huan beings were meant to live, and TOB does not say what you seem to think it says.  NOTHING in TOB says go out and have sex without children.  Nothing in NFP says have sex only when the woman is infertile, and nobody has ever claimed that NFP charting is a prayer.

Ted,  are you familiar with the Oath Against the Errors of Modernism required of priests at the time of their ordination?

May I repeat that the primary purpose of the Sacrament of Matrimony is for the procreation and education of children.  This has been taught for nineteen hundred years.

A good book:
Parents, Children and the Facts of Life by Henry V. Sattler, C.SS.R. Ph.D

Joe, I often find that those who are stupid enough to think, that any teaching of the Popes is modernism, are usually so self-deluded that they are guilty of modernism themselves, just slightly older ones.  After all, the Protestant rebellion was once modern.

TOB MUST be interpreted as part of the continual teaching of the Church.  To interpret the unitive aspect as anything other than natural monogamy for the sake of raising children and grandchildren is absurd- and highly offensive to anybody loyal to the magisterium.

P.S.  The “Oath Against the Errors of Modernism” was abolished in 1968 as being not infallible teaching and actually a form of modernism.

Ted,  Pope SAINT Pius X realized that the poison of Modernism would lead to a loss of Faith and to a loss of countless souls.  This strong and pious Pope relentlessly attacked modernists’ theories on all fronts.  In his paternal authority as Supreme Pastor of all the teachers and doctors of the Church, he decreed that Modernists must be removed from positions of influence and authority in the Catholic Church…… He drew up and published on Sep 1, 1910 the Oath that seminarians are to take before their ordination, likewise all professors of philosophy and theology in seminaries and universities, all confessors, pastors, preachers and religious superiors. 
The warnings of Pope SAINT Pius X were prophetic.  The removal of the Oath Against Modernism made the impossible possible.  Conciliarists renounced this Saintly Authority, this Supreme Pastor and Saint (declared Saint by Pope Pius XII)  of all Christians and blatantly showed to the world their arrogance by their rejection of   the guidance of Holy Spirit over the Vicar of Christ.
  Modernists prefer their horizontal focus, have renounced the supernatural and the infallible Pontifical Magisterium and the promise of the Holy Spirit to keep this Supreme Authority free from errors in regards to Faith and Morals.
  Conciliarists want what they want, the way they want it and therefore, have created a man-made new religion without connections to Sacred Tradition, have thumbed their noses to the infallible Magisterial Teachings handed on that bind all Catholics and have renounced Christ’s command to protect the total Deposit of Faith given only to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
Randy Engels states in Sex Education The Final Plague that we are raising the NEW BARBARIANS.  WOW!!!!  When we reject the Holy Spirit, we reject Christ and His Church. 

What did you say in your previous post about being highly offensive against the magisterium?  What about being offensive to Popes who have been canonized as Saints?

Joe: “Ted,  Pope SAINT Pius X realized that the poison of Modernism would lead to a loss of Faith and to a loss of countless souls.”

And it did.  The SSPX’s worship of the modernism of Trent over the more historically accurate Novus Ordo is positive proof of that.

“This strong and pious Pope relentlessly attacked modernists’ theories on all fronts.”

While committing a form of modernism himself.  But Saints aren’t sinless; in fact, they often sin.  Heroic virtue would not be heroic without the tendency towards original sin.

“In his paternal authority as Supreme Pastor of all the teachers and doctors of the Church, he decreed that Modernists must be removed from positions of influence and authority in the Catholic Church…… He drew up and published on Sep 1, 1910 the Oath that seminarians are to take before their ordination, likewise all professors of philosophy and theology in seminaries and universities, all confessors, pastors, preachers and religious superiors.”

Yep, and a later generation in 1968 decided that was modernism IN AND OF ITSELF- having been drawn up in 1910 and been entirely unconnected to the previous 1900 years worth of magisterial teaching.  The fight against modernism officially lasted 58 years out of 1900- less than 4% of the history of the Church.  Mainly because the fight was WON- Vatican II was the result, a return to magisterial teaching and the end of the modernism of the counter reformation that had lasted for 500 years.

“The warnings of Pope SAINT Pius X were prophetic.  The removal of the Oath Against Modernism made the impossible possible.  Conciliarists renounced this Saintly Authority, this Supreme Pastor and Saint (declared Saint by Pope Pius XII)  of all Christians and blatantly showed to the world their arrogance by their rejection of   the guidance of Holy Spirit over the Vicar of Christ.”

Except, that hasn’t happened.  What *really* happened was a bunch of people got upset about a change in discipline, and left the church over it; following the Vicar of Synnada in Phrygia rather than the Vicar of Rome- and thus guilty of MODERNISM in the extreme.

Can you tell I’m an Ultramontaine by comparison?

“Modernists prefer their horizontal focus, have renounced the supernatural and the infallible Pontifical Magisterium and the promise of the Holy Spirit to keep this Supreme Authority free from errors in regards to Faith and Morals.”

Yes they do- and following the SSPX is so horizontal it’s almost flat.  The entire hierarchy of the SSPX is maybe 3 layers deep, if that.

“Conciliarists want what they want, the way they want it and therefore, have
created a man-made new religion without connections to Sacred Tradition,
have thumbed their noses to the infallible Magisterial Teachings handed on
that bind all Catholics and have renounced Christ’s command to protect the
total Deposit of Faith given only to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic
Church.”

Except the true council is full of connections to Sacred Tradition- the REAL Sacred Tradition of our Fathers that existed for 1500 years before Martin Luther attacked it and the Council of Trent in retaliation chained it up.

The center of that Sacred Tradition includes the Right to do Right- the Right to follow a conscience informed by LEGITIMATE authority of the See of Peter- not the illegitimate authority of the See of Synnada in Phrygia.

“Randy Engels states in Sex Education The Final Plague that we are raising the NEW BARBARIANS.”

We are.  And the ultimate mark of barbarism is ignorance and a refusal to inform the conscience- which to me is a mark of all who follow somebody other than Rome.

“WOW!!!!  When we reject the Holy Spirit, we reject Christ and His Church.”

And nobody has done that more, than the modernists of the Vicar of Synnada in Phrygia known as the Society of St. Pius X.  The good Pope must be spinning in his grave with all of the modernist Protestantism you’re attributing to him!

“What did you say in your previous post about being highly offensive against the magisterium?  What about being offensive to Popes who have been canonized as Saints?”

By following schismatics instead of Rome, yes, you are highly offensive to the memory of St. Pius X- so much so that I consider the disobedience of the Society to be a stain upon his honor.

Warning- rcf is a modernist heretic blog that follows the Vicar of Montana, Pius XIII

@ Joe, just wondering…do you have a wife and children?

And another example of modernism from the right- taken from an article on DistributistReview.com called “Is Usury Still A Sin?”

In the Middle Ages, it was taken for granted God’s law applied to the totality of life. The idea of a double standard of morality, with a strict code for private life and a minimum of moral obligation for business and public life, is an innovation based on philosophical and religious individualism of the eighteenth century.[63]

@Joe, I’ll take that as a “no”.  Which explains a lot.

Anna lisa,    I’m a grandparent and I lament each day of having only two grandchildren.  Vatican II devastated my family along with many others into thinking small families are all we could afford.  I think they called it responsible parenting and family planning.  I cry thinking of those little faces that never got a chance to sit at my kitchen table because of practicing birth control which is rampart in the conciliar church today.    Most teachers in the parochial schools are pro contraception which leads to being pro aborts which they admittedly are pro abortion.  Conciliar Catholics are not only not regenerating themselves they are being decimated with a new doctrine.
  I finally left the new religion with a protestanized mass on a table serving a meal to those who worship man and not God.  I am connected with priests who travel thousands of miles each week end to bring the Latin Immemorial Holy Sacrifice of the Mass to Catholics who renounce the new religion, the novus ordo missae, the changed sacraments and the new world order church that no longer teaches that it is good to have holy fear of losing one’s soul because in the end they are all eulogized into heaven.  I left the ‘modernists’ church that is not founded by Jesus Christ, that has renounced the dogmas and doctrines handed on by the Teaching Authority, the Vicar of Christ guided by an infallible Holy Spirit.  BTW, these priest who are not allowed in Catholic Churches to say the true Latin Mass make the taming of the wild, wild west look like a piece of cake.  Their first dedication is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass daily and to bring it to as people as they can for the needed graces of the true Sacraments.
You might ask what am I doing posting in this place?  There are many good people left in the novus ordo church.  I pray for their eyes to be opened to the fact that ‘things are not going to get better’ staying in it.  Facts prove it.  How can it for it is not led by Catholic doctrine and merely ‘subsists in’ the church and is not the Catholic Church that “IS”.  I’m continually shocked at their tolerance for error.  Tolerance is not a Catholic virtue.  I pray they will renounce these errors, stop participating in them and stop supporting those who practice them so not to lose their own souls.
I do not know anything about the pope and the groups Ted claimed I’m in connection with.  I’ve never heard of them and I renounce any who rise to ecclesiastical authority by any other way than through the principles as instituted by Jesus Christ in the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

I agree with the author of this article that the message of the abstinence class is skewed regarding human worth & dignity, however from a biological view, the second hand chocolate passed around is a pretty good illustration of STD’s spread through sexual contact.And again, biologically speaking, women are indeed a prime “receptacle” for STD’s & are more likely to be affected by them than men.
We all have eternal value in God’s eyes, but the old saying comes to mind: God forgives always, man -sometimes, Nature-never.

Joe, can you show me the line from Vatican II documents OR TOB that says “small families are all we can afford”?  I am well aware of Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood saying that, but I’ve never heard it from the Church in a magisterial document.

I would point out to you that if it wasn’t for Atheist Libertarianism, there would still be family wage jobs available like there were back in the 1950s instead of this Globalist Race-to-find-the-cheapest-workforce.

Ted,  The words are loudly and implicitly stated by the fact that priests stopped speaking about sin and its consequences and failed to give reminders to the families of their need for the supernatural dependency and not on the charts and thermometer paraphernalia. Priests were giving absolution in the confessional to those who were practicing birth control stating there was no sin in the practice of it.  Many priests caved into the need for families to practice birth control and BTW, it was priests in the Catholic Church before Vatican II that opened up the need for controlling family size.  I implore you, read and study and investigate, then ask yourself why no excommunications, no renouncements, no corrections in regards to these men who grabbed a hold of the purse strings of the Catholic Church to spin their dastardly deeds.  If at all possible, get a hold of “THE SIECUS CIRCLE , A Humanist Revolution” by Claire Chambers.  (SIECUS – Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States)  It will make you sick to see the corruption of some in the ecclesiastical regime hell bent on destroying from within and the loud silence of those who knew and feared their careers would be ended if they spoke out.  Get the facts about Bella Dodd (who converted to Catholicism assisted by Bishop Sheen) who alone assisted one thousand plus men to enter Catholic seminaries in order to destroy them.  I can’t stress enough the writings by Randy Engel who BTW is a novus ordo concilarist still in spite of all she so well documents.  Another important place for the facts is about Fr. Luigi Villa:  http://padrepioandchiesaviva.com/Padre_Pio___Fr.html

Now I might be able to bring in ‘personalities’, particular prelates who led the way in regards to your first question, but I’m trying to refrain from it.  If you sincerely are seeking truth about these issues, ask Our Blessed Mother to show you the way.  She leads us to Her Son.  Pray your Rosary daily with your family.

Joe:  You didn’t blame the priests.  You blamed Vatican II and the Pope’s teaching TOB directly.

Now you’re moving the goalposts.  So which is it?  Was it the Magisterium?  Or was it cafeteria Catholic priests on the left, most of which are homosexual themselves?

And better yet- how does somebody else’s sin justify you *becoming Protestant* and joining the SSPX?

Joe, I understand that the world has become a pretty wicked place.  Godless materialism and the cult of “me” has replaced religious fervor in people’s hearts.  THIS is the problem, not the Novus Ordo.  Vatican II and TOB are *gifts* of the Holy Spirit.  The temptation that the Devil recycles all the time, is to make people feel that “change” is bad. He plays upon *pride* of piety in people’s hearts when he can’t tempt them in the other direction. Isn’t this in fact why the Jews rejected Jesus? They were worshiping outward forms so much so that they failed to recognize God himself—preferring their bells and tassels to *Love* incarnate.  Saint Paul explains how God “works with us”—babies need milk, youngsters basic food, and so forth.  The Holy spirit is forever creative, giving gifts as they are needed, helping us to grow in wisdom, and continuing to beckon us on toward the Heavenly Jerusalem. 
.
I was born in the late 60’s.  I don’t remember the Latin Mass.  I did go to a Latin Mass for the funeral of a friend last year.  To be honest, I was singularly struck by how pompous the officiating priest was. He was a young man, but he lectured us like we were ignorant buffoons.  I, as the mother of eight was *shocked* by his condescending manner.  I go to daily mass, I pray the rosary daily as well.  Why on earth would this young man treat us like such barbarians?  It really was an eye-opener.  But it reminded me of some ultra conservative women I know who I realized had the same problem.  They acted and spoke like they were the “small flock” that Jesus was tending, before he comes back to burn up everyone else, and send their souls to hell.  I used to go to daily mass out of fear then, so I could be a member of that little flock.  Now I go out of love alone.  I understand now that some *distort* God, and his message, adding endless lists of do’s and don’ts to what is otherwise a far simpler message.  I understand *who* is behind this unpalatable distortion.
.
My sister had the same experience with an ultra conservative Catholic school that is not in communion with Rome.  She lives in the dessert, and these nutty people would wear long sleeves in triple digit weather to show the kids that they were “expiating” for all of the souls going to hell.  My formerly fun loving sister started behaving so STRANGELY! She judged the rest of our big Catholic family mercilessly.  She lectured me about my clothing, movies, books…Eventually after years,she got out from under that school,those people, and all of their super-pious craziness.  It was like getting away from a cult.  Her children suffered from their years there, and it damaged their Catholic faith.  I literally had to explain to my niece not to turn her back on Jesus,when she stopped wanting to go to mass, because she associated so much bitterness with Him.  I think somewhere in the back of her mind, she still felt she was going to Hell because her new life seemed incongruent with her old one. She started to wear bathing suits instead of the shorts and shirt her mother would make her wear at the pool and beach. She starting to accept culture and life in a new, non narrow way and she *liked* it.  Who could blame her for wanting to have nothing to do with that rigid world?
.
Joe, I’m not writing this as an indictment of the Latin Mass, the Latin mass is fine, so long as people don’t worship IT.
.
This IS an indictment of the wily ways of the evil one, and how he keeps getting away with recycling new forms of gnosticism that appeal to the prideful.
.
This IS an indictment of all those who think they are holier than John Paul II!!  The man spent a lifetime, LOVING others, and spreading the good news. I can’t wait to hug him in heaven for TOB.  I named one of my six sons after him.
.
God Bless you Joe, I wish you well.

Ted,  I do not associate and have no attachment with those who “recognize and resist” the SSPX.  I sense your fear in your attacks of my character.  I’m nothing—-but in the eyes of God only have I been made clean from my past sins with the legitimate Sacrament of Penance.  I regularly attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that reminds me of my sin nature and the need to be cleansed on going and regularly.  I pray for conversions at each Mass especially for my family and those still with the church that subsists in. Yes, I pray for conversions of Muslims and Jews as taught by our Pontiffs to pray.  I also pray for purity in words thoughts and actions and modesty in words and attire that has become so relaxed because people are not praying the Rosary.  Most of all conciliarists are not receiving the needed graces for this life’s journey because of the new sacraments of the new religion.  ONLY by the grace of God go I.  I thank God each day and have holy fear of losing that grace.

Joe:  “Ted,  I do not associate and have no attachment with those who “recognize and resist” the SSPX.  I sense your fear in your attacks of my character. “

Fear is something that was robbed by my autism.  Do not presume I have the same emotions as you neurotypicals do.

“I’m nothing—-but in the eyes of God only have I been made clean from my past sins with the legitimate Sacrament of Penance.”

If you got that sacrament from a priest who isn’t in communion with Rome, then it isn’t legitimate.

“I regularly attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass that reminds me of my sin nature and the need to be cleansed on going and regularly.”

Unless the priest is in communion with Rome and has Apostolic Authority, it’s just play acting, not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Your schism is a sham; it’s just another form of Protestantism, Protesting against the Holy Father and the Pontiffs that went before him.

In his goodness, Pope Benedict XVI has commissioned the Fraternity of Sts Peter and Paul to preserve the museum piece that is the Extraordinary Form of the Mass.  But we must remember always that the Novus Ordo is the ORDINARY Form- and the norm for those who are actually loyal to the Successor of Peter- which defines what is.

Anna lisa,  I’m sorry about your experience of that priest.  I wish I could know more but of course I can’t in this media.  While I was still attending the novus ordo services I was given a copy of Divine Intimacy by Father Gabriel.  It was difficult to follow because of all the changes to the liturgy by Vat 2, but once I renounced the protestanized service humanly contrived (by protestants)  it came alive and has given me a new prayer language, a more in depth understanding of the Catholic Church, a conviction of virtues to combat vices and so much more.  I can’t stress this daily meditation enough in order to put our spiritual life in balance with all the Magisterial Teachings of Holy Mother the Church without compromises.  St. Francis de Sales, we pray that the Catholic Press and media be vehicles of Truth.

Ted, there is legitimate Apostolic succession with the Priesthood of those where I attend Mass, I can assure you and none can deny all though they have tried and failed.  Imagine making a museum of something that was in extistence for over 2000 years and SUDDENLY Vatican II turned its back on it own Tradition, opened up the windows and let protestants and communists evaluate and draw up changes and form new agreements that have formerly been Supremely condemned by Pontiffs.  Holy Mother Church does not lead with error nor does a pope correct his predecessors. 

OR ——-Are you stating the Holy Spirit has not guided the Vicar of Christ who is given an infallible spirit as promised?  Are you saying Christ teaches error?

A wise priest said when there are no legitimate priests left in the n. o. church (the newRite of Ordination is suspect), than they will give back ‘a version’ of the Latin Mass.  I could find his name if you are interested.

anna lisa,
I hear what you’re saying & I’ve had similar encounters with the ultra-comservative folk.However, the Tridentine Mass is beautiful & perfectly legit to attend in many dioceses.“Normal” Catholic families & students from the local art college attended the weekly Latin Mass in my previous parish.We even had the local NAACP president join us.
Yes, there are odd,cultish folk who will ONLY attend Latin Mass & believe any other Mass is illegitimate, but there are also lots of regular Catholics who simply appreciate the beauty of the Tridentine Mass.Maybe that’s why we had the art students visit?
God bless!

On a lighter note, although we are Catholic, our neighbor invited us to attend their Christian church because their 13 year old teenage daughter had recently completed a program called “True Love Waits.”  I later learned the parents must also attend the program with sons or daughters as a requirement.  The cermony was unique in that each young man and woman were presented before the congregation making a pledge before their parents, Pastor, Elders, the entire church and the Lord to remain pure until marriage.  Personally, my wife and I were both impressed.  Such an open commitment before the entire church would only serve as reminder to the young lady (or young man) of what they committed to do with the knowledge that everyone there could be counted on to support them.  I understand this program is common in many Evangelical churches and appears to be a good thing.  I am not sure why the Catholic church has also not adopted the same program.  I hope it’s not because its ..... Protestant.  btw, no one tried to convert us away from being Catholic but they did provide free coffee and donuts for first time visitors.

Kathleen, please don’t get me wrong.  I find nothing wrong with the Latin Mass, in fact I’m sure I could get attached to it, for it’s beauty, and ancient appeal.  As one other guy posted, considering the novus ordo: “I’m not staying in the church for the music”...
Has the devil waged a full scale war on the church?  Yes.  Has the smoke of Satan entered?  Yes.—All the more reason for UNITY FOR GOODNESS SAKES, to counteract this momentous assault.  It’s not like those of us attending the N.O. are sitting around paying no attention to what is going on.  I think Joe is a good guy, who is misguided over whom to blame.  He wants to throw the baby out with the bath water.  If he attends a “mass” that is not sanctioned by Rome, than yes, sadly, he’s a protestant.

Correction, I shouldn’t have put quotation marks around an unsanctioned mass if the priest has valid orders, even if that mass constitutes a grave disobedience to “Peter”.

anna lisa,
Thank you, good points.And I don’t “stay for the music” in my new parish either.:)
Catholic means universal & we have to be in union with Rome to be Catholic.When we splinter off,as you state, we become protestant for all intents & purpose.

Joe- I am saying that Vatican II did not turn its back on previous church teaching, and that any attempt to say that it did is nothing more than imagination on the part of the person making the accusation in an effort to *break* with Apostolic Tradition and Authority and form a new church not in communion with Rome.  There was no break.  There was heresy within the Church on the part of some Catholics who thought Vatican II was a change.

The SSPX has been excommunicated for insisting that more times than I can count.  FSSP priests have to take a vow that admits the Ordinary Form of the Mass is the normative for the whole church.

I should mention that heresy *also exists on the left side of the spectrum*- with all of the liturgical abuse and lack of catechisis that Joe *rightfully* charges the left-wing Cafeteria Catholics with.  He’s just blaming the wrong people is all.

@Joe, I want to tell you about the University parish I attend on week days.  I could go to the big cathedral-like church I was married in, but I prefer to go to the little, humble college church, where my childhood friend is the priest.  He is a truly wonderful priest who is both pious, but also knows how to hang out with his little rag tag group, (one Asian kid sports a huge blue mohawk) and be a father to them.  He smiles and jokes a lot.  He’s a deep thinker. He brings this to his sermons and encourages them no end.  After mass there is evening prayer and the rosary.  Why do I drive further to go there? I often consider this, as I kneel on the stone floor, so close to the altar.  *It reminds me of what the first masses must have been like, over 2000 years ago when mass must have been said in small rooms in their native language*.
(Oh, and when our stone floor was being resealed, the rabbi from across the street lent us the synagogue,to have mass—which was amazingly moving.)

In the pew,
“The union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in the past they have unhappily left it”. (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#10) January 6, 1928.
Vatican 2 contradicts the Supreme condemnation of joining in with those who deny Christ’s Church.  No wonder you’re are asking ‘ what is truth ‘ and are confused.  The Sacrament of Confirmation directs us to be willing to suffer and even to die for our faith, not to join with those who oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church. 

Ted, you said, “Now you’re moving the goalposts. So which is it? Was it the Magisterium? Or was it cafeteria Catholic priests on the left, most of which are homosexual themselves?”

ANSWER:  It is the corrupted hierarchy who appointed them and allowed them to desecrate not only Catholic people and properties but the Total Deposit of Faith.

Joe- and with that, I understand why you feel justified in becoming a Protestant.  Martin Luther said much the same thing in his day.  He was wrong then and you are wrong now- mistaking the surface for the depth.

@Joe, you must have confused me with someone else on the blog.  I never asked “what is truth?” nor am I confused.  We were invited to a Christian event for our good friends and neighbor of 17 years regarding their daughter.  We know the daughter well since she has grown up on our block.  We have no interest in leaving Catholicism, but you sound like Peter, James and John complaining to Jesus after coming down from Mt. Hermon following the Transfiguration.  The apostles complained that there were disciples (some of the 72) teaching and healing in the name of Jesus.  They complained to Christ “They are not of us”—indicating the pride they took in being of the “select” 12.  Jesus replied:  “He who is not against us if for us.”  It’s time you grow up, Joe, and live in the real world of the gospel.  By your standard, I imagine if Jesus returned today, you have Him hesitate and stop prior to embracing any Christian and first check to see what Vatican II had to say.  Good Lord, it’s people like you, Joe, pointing fingers and citing rules and regulations which are dividing people of Christ.  Satan is no doubt quite pleased with people like you running around playing Catholic Policeman.

In the pew – What I meant about you seeking truth is by your action of going into a protestanized setting.  Our Roman Pontiffs have warned us against this and I gave you one quote.  We are not to seek truth in those who have left Holy Mother Church; we are not to worship or listen to their teachings for they do not have the fullness of Truth.
It is not a matter of growing up, it is a matter of obedience.

“Let those who wish to be save come to the pillar, to this foundation of the truth which is the Church, let them come to the true Church of Christ which, in her Bishops and in the Roman Pontiff, the supreme head of all, possesses the uninterrupted succession of apostolic authority……”Pope Pius IX, Ubi Primum, December 17, 1847.

May I repeat, a legitimate pope does not correct his predecessors nor do legitimate councils contradict legitimate councils.

Ted Seeber - the novus ordo missae is everything Martin Luther desired when he defected from the True Faith, from the only Church with Apostolic succession.  Have you not yet investigated how this circus of performance (I’m not exaggerating)  was fabricated by protestants who hated the Holy Sacrifice of the Catholic Mass. 

You have eyes to see that a service on a wooden table mocking a Catholic Mass, you have ears to hear consecratory words that are sacrileges for they are not as Christ taught His Apostles, and you witness that ‘the bread’ is handled by unconsecrated hands and put in to hands, a practice condemned at least FIVE times by Pontiffs—————yet you claim I’m the protestant???  For the sake of your soul, take the time I implore you to study “Work of Human Hands”:
http://www.philotheapress.com/store/work-of-human-hands/

Joe, either join in communion with Rome or don’t.  But do not pretend to be following the Popes when you and I both know full well that St Pope Pius X would have wanted you to be OBEDIENT above all else.

Stop taking his words ot of context to justify YOUR Protest.

The real spirit of Protestantism has nthing to do with theology, and evrything to do with telling Catholics that you are too special to be in Communion with Rome.

Joe- that “Wooden table” as you call it is a consecrated altar with relics of the Saints embeded in the top.  For you to not know this is a sure sign if your spirit of Protest and Rebellion.  Every word you say turns me more towards the Pope and away from yor Protest against Rome.  Tell the devil who hs possessed your soul that he has failed, and submit now to The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  This will be my last message in this thread, and I pray you do not lead other souls to Hell.

In the words of my Lord and Savior, away from me you Satan, you schismatic, you breaker of Uniy.

Ted Seeber,  If I was to return to your church that substists in I would be denying the infallible Spirit given to the Vicar of Christ.  I would be acquiescing and attributing and settling for the errors taught at the Vatican 2 council which opened up the wooden table sacriliges scenarios.  I would say to the world that these errors are attributable to God, and now acceptable,  and that He did not keep His promise to guide His Church into all truth and accept that truth evolves.  I also would be saying the Sainthood of Pope Pius V was a charade. He promulgated Quo Primum stating that the essentials of the Mass must not be changed.

We have witnessed endless desecrations to the Catholic Faith.  Being a Catholic is not easy.  The Holy Sacrifice and Oblation of the Immemorial Latin Mass was offensive to protestants, so protestants rewrote a mock service which included delegating the Tabernacle to a closet or obscure place.  Also, our many prayers and devotions to Our Blessed Mother offended protestants so She is now just another good example but not to be recognized as the Mother of God, the Perpetual Virgin before, during and after the birth of Christ and the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. 

One poster said in Simcha’s current columns mentioning her ONCE was adequate at the Vat 2 council.  How sad for the world to have this attitude and so statutes and devotions got thrown out and now the novus ordo service is welcoming to all.  It caused an amazing exodus out of the Catholic Churches.  Many many people have lost their faith because of the ‘changes’ enacted by Vatican 2 .  Shall I start listing some of these imposed to ‘counter the Syllabus of Errors’?

Joe, How sad that in the autumn of your life you have decided that *you* and your small band of dissenters are the guardians of the true deposit of the faith.  You are saying that every council up until Vatican II was valid, and then John the twenty third who AS POPE says he was given a direct mandate (in quite a supernatural way, and is incorrupt btw) to initiate Vatican II was a FALSE Pope? That it was *not* the Spirit of God, because God had DEPARTED from this successor of Peter? You are saying that when hundreds of millions of Catholics get down on their knees to worship God and adore Him in the Blessed Sacrament, that they are deluded, and worshiping a false God? That YOU, JOE whoeveryouare are one of the FEW ELECT that GOD has CHOSEN??? How truly frightening to suffer from such delusion, and to try to further such dissent.  You sit on your high horse because you and a band of other illuminati have declared The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass presided over by Benedict the VI as *false*.  *You* sir, are one of the proudest men I have ever encountered.  Stop accusing others of such terrible falsehoods,as if the subsequent popes INVITED pedophilia, or that betrayers are the evidence you need that GOD ABANDONED the Catholic church. Stop mocking the Holy Mass that I attend, and is the heart of every single day of my life. Stop grieving the heart of Our Lady by ripping at the Body of Christ.  Get to the root of your real problems.  Based on what you have said in the thread, it seems to me that you have some deep regrets in your life. You need to forgive, forget, and STOP blaming others for why your life wasn’t as perfect as you think it SHOULD have been.  It’s always easier to point a finger and set yourself up on your private mountain top because you will not serve where God has sent you to serve.  Non serviam.  Does that sound familiar?

anna lisa -
In the history of the Church there has been 41 (FORTY ONE) Antipopes and there has been 17 illegitimate councils.  (See “Tumultuous Times” )
I belong to the Catholic Church, the Church of Christ that began when the spear pierced the side of Our Most Blessed Redeemer just after he expired on the Cross.  Five years ago I renounced the church claimed Catholic that began in 1962 and the church that mocks the Sacred Deposit of Faith handed on to be safe guarded and promulgated throughout the world as Christ commanded.
anna lisa,    You are right about regrets.  Daily I try to forgive not only myself but all those who misled me.  All human beings have regrets.  It keeps us humble and on our knees.  These are also crosses we must bear.  Yes, I take responsibility for not checking things out so that I would be obedient to the doctrines of Holy Mother Church.  Today, I stand on what the Catholic Church teaches without exception to the best of my feeble ability.  I believe in all the Truths of Holy Mother Church without exception which meant that I could no longer stay in the church that:
* puts the bread in the hand,
* believes Catholics are to seek truth with protestants
* listens to those outside of the Catholic Church
*changes the meaning of truth
* gave sodomites personhood
*denies that real ecumenism is promoting the return to the One Church of Christ
*denies the ex cathedra infallible primacy of jurdisdiction of the Roman Pontiff
*believes the Church is a federation of denominations
*maintains heretics may attain eternal life
*claims Martin Luther’s historical instinct in proving to be right
*allows heretics the use of Catholic properties for their services
*changed the Mystical Body of Christ to the “community of people”
*signed agreements with communists, Lutherans and Anglicans
*that administers Sacraments to unbelievers of the Catholic Church
*never excommunicated those involved in the cesspool of pedophilia
I have challenged protestants to go back in church history is to become a Catholic.  I say the same to those who attend a protestanized version of a mass to go back in the history of the Church and you will become a Catholic. 

the items I listed in my previous comment can be found in the book, “No Crises in the Church?” by Simon Galloway.

Joe, *You* are a protestant.  I’m so sorry you are an apostate.  I love my protestant brothers and sisters. Some of the most noble people I know are protestant.  They choose love.  One of them is my obstetrician who delivered eight of my 12 children and served for many years as a missionary in third world countries.  He personally intervened when I would stop a mother about to abort her child in front of Planned Parenthood.  He would see these women at any hour.  He testified on my behalf when Planned Parenthood sued me to get me off of the government owned sidewalks in front of their death mills. I love homosexuals practicing and not, I empathizing with them because I understand something wounds them.  The Divine Mercy seeks them out and begs for them to return.  The One Holy Catholic Church LOVES, and does not condemn sinners. Only haters go to Hell. Yes, there is a crisis in the church, but it is not God’s crisis, it is OURS and how we bind the wounds of our neighbor is how God will judge us.

p.s. My husband just nearly ordered me to “leave you to the crows”. (He never tells me such things!) He says that you “need to feed on the pain of others to feel whole”.  So that’s it for me.  God Bless you.  I will pray for you at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

anna lisa, God calls us to follow the precepts of His Church.  I did not design them.  Christ admonished us to love our enemies, and be good to those who hate us.  I did not design that practicing the sin of homosexuality is an abomination to God and cries out to heaven for vengeance. Scripture is very clear about the sin of practicing homosexuality.  These are HIS words, not mine.  We must love the sinner and we must hate all sin.  God does not create a person who offends him.  It was the new church that gave homosexuals personhood and apparently promises to love them all the way to hell.  God is a God of justice.  The sixth and the ninth Commandments God gave to Moses.  I did not design what offends God
Our Blessed Mother at Fatima said that more souls will be sent to Hell for the sins of the flesh than any other.  It’s a tough love to not accept their horrific practices and for a lot of other health reasons, not to mention they do not regenerate.  They also die younger because of their diseases.  That’s not OK with me.  I know some homosexuals also and it is the culture that has created their lifestyle.  There is not a Sacrament for the practice of the homosexuals.  That should say it all.  Sinners will spend their life absent from God in the pains of hell unless sinners repent of their sins.  That is God’s design, not mine.
.  Furthermore, anna lisa, I know there are many, many good protestants.  What the Pontiffs have condemned is that we are not to worship with those outside the Catholic Church nor adapt Truth to their liking.  They left the Church that has the fullness of the Truth.  Catholics are all called to have a missionary spirit.  That is true charity to get people back in to the fullness of faith.
Please stick with issues and do not character assassinate.

Joe, I read all your bullet points.  You are a Pharisee living in our contemporary culture unable to distinguish Kingdom living versus man made church laws.  I concede believers need not be tolerant of sinful and abhorrent biblical behavior in people or in society.  Your problem, however, is that you have turned Christianity into legalism —that of Vatican ordained rules and regulations.  Plenty of Christian churches are guilty of the same.  Keeping all your church laws is rooted in the Torah which no man could keep.  You’re mistakenly centered on earning your own way to Heaven which you cannot do.  Fortunately, all the points you raise are not a condition of personal salvation in Christ Jesus.

in the pew,  You are entitled to your opinion. I noticed you did not substantiate ‘your opinion’.  I’ve given plenty of resources to check out what I’ve posted. Do not take my position but see what the Teaching Church, The Supreme Authority, the Pontiffs have spoken.  None will be embarrassed and will be on solid ground when we line up our consciences and our actions with these wonderful guide lines. 

Do you refute these Apostolic Teachings?  Please, say it is not so.  Why have you failed to study any of it?

Joe, none of your bullet points are teachings from the 12 Apostles.  Paul does address sodomites in Romans 1.  By your bullet point standards, no Catholic should even attempt to evangelize a non-Catholic for fear of contamination.  To the contrary, Joe, Jesus engaged everyone —not only Jew but Gentile.  Wake up, Joe.  You are locked in legalism.  Jews referred to Gentiles as unclean—dogs they were.  You position is that Catholics should not engage non-Catholics (unclean dogs).  Joe, you are not following the command of Jesus.  You are not practicing the gospel.  You are a modern day Pharisee afraid of contamination.

In the pew——Each of us is a sinner and we must continuously make reparation for our many sins.  We must continually ask ourselves where do we want to spend Eternity, in Heaven or in Hell and let us thank God for Purgatory but not aim for it.  Sodomy is a sin against Holy Purity.  The sins of the flesh are probably the most difficult ones to harness, but God commands that we not violate the Sixth and the Ninth Commandments.  Other helpful information:
http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/articles/damian1.htm
“Vatican II, Homosexuality and Pedophilia” by Atila Sinke Guimaraes
“Understanding the Cesspool of Corruption” by Randy Engel

Joe, you clearly have a problem of competency;  I already stated Paul condemns homosexuality in chapter one of his letter to the Romans.  If you need assistance finding Romans, it follows ACTS of the Apostles in the NT.

In the pew     Please, don’t follow what I say or you’ll fall off a cliff.  What I’m attempting is to direct you to years of the Magisterial Teachings that have been hidden.  A brief testimony:  Five years ago I saw the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, (unspoiled and unchanged).  I was convicted immediately of the promise that God has protected His Church.  There in the Latin Immemorial Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was the Church alive and well.  I’ve posted some resources for assistance in the Teachings of the Church handed on, but if one as often as possible attends the True Sacrifice of the Mass they will be in a place of safety for their soul.  That is the most powerful prayer, to attend and assist at Mass by readings from the Missal or praying the Rosary.  These Latin Masses are not plentiful because the priests who say them do not say the novus ordo missae and therefore are not allowed to say Mass in Catholic Churches.  They and the people who want the True Mass are denied access to the very Catholic Churches they and their families financially supported for many years. 
I know that scares people for they believe that the priests who say the Mass according to Quo Primum do not come in the Name of The Lord.  And most of all to attend the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass will cause you to be ridiculed, will cause a loss of family and friends making it very uncomfortable to renounce the new religion. But to respond to your latest comments: 

Are you familiar with the Act of Consecration of the Human Race to the Sacred Heart of Jesus?
“…..Be thou King of all those who are still involved in the darkness of idolatry or of Islamism…..Turn Thine eyes of mercy toward the children of that race once Thy chosen people…..”  The new religion has removed this powerful prayer because that church teaches one can be saved in whatever faith they desire according to their own consciences.

It is merciful to lead those outside the Catholic Church into the One established by Christ.  Once again, you are leading with things I have not said.  Why do you fear to ‘check out’ what the Pontiffs have spoken?  Yes, it’s work and time and effort.  May I repeat, we are not to worship nor seek Truth with those outside of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  Christ’s Apostolic Church has the Total Deposit of Faith to safe guard and promulgate throughout the world. 

We read in the Gospel today:  “…Going therefore, teach ye all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.  Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; ….”  Matthew 28:18-20   Ignorance is not an excuse.  God gives all his creatures an opportunity before going on to the next life to ask forgiveness of sins and to be baptized.  Blessed are they who bring the good news of the Gospel.  God said it is through His Church there is salvation.  How confusing for non-Catholics if they see us wrangling over what is Truth.  One of us is not Catholic and there are not two Catholic Churches.

Joe, since my parish Pastor (and his priests) do each mass in the Novus Ordo, is the entire parish apostate?  Does this make the diocesan Bishop a false shepherd and a heretic along with the people of his entire diocese?

In the pew,  I can lead you to some good books and information as I already have and I have so much more.  How strong is your desire for Truth and the salvation of your soul and those around you?

this line is the most asinine logic i’ve read in years. ah, christians.

But abstinence-only education (as provided in the classroom) doesn’t seem to make much of a dent in promiscuity rates, either.  (It appears that teen birth rates are actually higher in conservative states ; but surely this only means that conservative girls who get pregnant aren’t getting as many abortions as pregnant teens in more liberal states)

The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the right arm of the abortion killing industry is pleased with federal funds for abstinence education programs because it secures abortion.  Any kind of group sex education is dangerous.  There are no graces given to these educators who teach any kind of sex ed in parochial schools.  These sex educators are actually cooperating with the abortion industry even if they refuse to admit it.  I charge them with willful ignorance and of course The Saint Joseph Foundation in Texas, the canonist lawyers of the reformed canon laws cnnnot protect youth from them.  So what good are they?  What a fiasco!

Posted by beth on Monday, Jun 4, 2012 11:12 PM (EST):this line is the most asinine logic i’ve read in years. ah, christians.

But abstinence-only education (as provided in the classroom) doesn’t seem to make much of a dent in promiscuity rates, either.  (It appears that teen birth rates are actually higher in conservative states ; but surely this only means that conservative girls who get pregnant aren’t getting as many abortions as pregnant teens in more liberal states)
***********
Dear beth,
What is not logical about that? If fewer abortions occurr, the birthrate may be higher. It’s just math.And differing values.

I have to write in defense of Protestantism since many of the posters above feel that Protestants have a very negative view of sex.  I was raised Protestant, and I never experienced the kind of ideas that posters above stated.  Not once.  Ever. 

On the other hand, I’ve found a lot of Catholics on the internet who argue about whether or not it’s a sin to have sex after menopause, at what age couples should begin “weaning” themselves from sex, and how marriage hinders a person’s spiritual growth. 

It had to be said.

Dear Rebecca,
You’ll always find some offbeat comments online whether it be in Catholic, Protestant,secular, whatever type of threads.It speaks more about the individuals than the religion I think.

Rebecca, there are plenty of nutcase Catholics and Protestants who base their understanding on what “someone” has told them including a crackpot priest or minister.  They simple don’t know what the Bible says.  As for not having sex after menopause and marriage being a hinderance to one’s spiritual growth, let’s take the biblical position on both issues.  Sarah gave birth to Isaac at the age of 90.  One year earlier the Lord visited Abraham and Sarah telling them they would have a son.  And since marriage was instituted by the Lord Himself, we know He does not create anything impariing our relationship and ultimate transformation into the image and likeness of Christ Jesus.

kathleen, i find it hilarious that the author said “SURELY” that must be the only logical reason for higher birth rates. no, there’s other factors that could be at work there, too. it isn’t simply that conversative daughters aren’t getting abortions. in fact, i live in a pretty conservative state, and when i was in high school in the 90s, the liberal girls had their babies most of the time, while the so-called “conservative” girls hid their pregnancies by rushing off to have abortions done. interesting, no?

beth, how did you have this inside knowledge that the conservative girls were having abortions?  If they were trying to hide that fact, how did you find out about it?  And how do you know that there weren’t liberal girls having abortions?  I’m sure that liberal girls who have abortions aren’t much more likely to broadcast that fact than conservative girls are.  The bottom line is that birthrate doesn’t equate pregnancy rate.  Until all states have mandatory abortion reporting (including demographic breakdown), there is no way of knowing what the actual teen pregnancy rate is.  I don’t think it’s all that hilarious or far-fetched to presume that abortion rates among teens are likely higher in more liberal states.  Actually, I don’t think the term hilarious belongs anywhere near a mention of the holocaust of abortion.

Dear beth,
Thanks for clarifying your post.I think there can “surely” be more factors, but overall, the cultural views on abortion & societal acceptance of teenage moms would likely influence local teen birthrates.

beth, is that some box girls check on the Planned Parenthood form when “checking in” for an abortion?  Is there also a box for Moderates and Independents?  How many of these girls having abortions identify with the Green Party?

i know because 3 conservative girls that i went to school (and church) with had abortions. they hid it at first, but over the past ten years they’ve all come out and let a few people know. the “liberal” gals that didn’t go to church or join see ya at the flag for prayer usually ended up poppin’ em out when they ended up getting pregnant. it’s not some scientific !@#$%, just real !@#$%. plain and simple.

Three girls isn’t exactly representative of the bigger picture, and even if you saw liberal girls “popping them out”, that doesn’t mean there weren’t other liberal girls having abortions.

beth, on what basis do you know these 3 girls having abortions were conservative?  Explain your definition of conservative.  If you think going to church is only for conservative people, you haven’t lived very much and obviously don’t attend church yourself.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. First, speaking rather practically, I think that by the time many children are receiving sex education, they have already experimented with sex. To perpetuate the fetishization of virginity is make them feel used up, disgusting, and hopeless - which often, in the young and anyone else, results in a defiant sneer and a refusal to listen further. I wouldn’t want to listen further if someone was telling me how permanently blighted I am. The focus should not center on virginity, but rather chastity. Anyone of any age can come from any place in life, any number of experiences, and choose chastity - that is the humane approach. A fetishization of virginity actually objectifies a person, a distinct and ironic sin. As a Catholic, I believe that sacraments like baptism and reconciliation can make a person whole again; for those who aren’t Catholic, I simply believe that if they wish to change their lives, they can. This is the spirit of hope that we should be known for. If I didn’t believe in all of that, and if I hadn’t been exposed to positive enticements to chastity, I would have a drastically different life. I was not a virgin when I became Catholic, but in the newness of baptism and the beauty of a theology that told me that healing is constantly available, I found that the door to the joys of sexual continence had not been shut and that the past is simply the past. I couldn’t have my healthy, joyful Catholic marriage if I thought that I were a permanently befouled vessel. I pray that this kind of education falls out of favor and that instead of frightening gimmicks, we can learn to educate young people with honesty and hope.

Mama Bear,
Absolutely, in a spiritual health sense the focus of the abstinence training in this article is all wrong.Our Faith is all about redemption,forgiveness & a new start in life.
But in a physical health sense, the demonstrations of germ laden food passed around are dead on.If we stumble, God can forgive & make us whole, but our bodies do not recover in the same way.The huge increase in STD’s reflects that & some are becoming antibiotic resistant.
Kids need to know they are loved by God (& us)no matter what, but we’re not acting in true charity if we don’t present the real truth about sexually spread disease.There should be a balance in the abstinence classes.

Mama Bear,  You’ve figured it out.  It’s totally all grace.  Unbeknownced to the non-believing world, the message of Christianity is forgiveness, not condemnation.

I was lead to this article by a conservative, christian friend, and (as rather liberal atheist) I found this very refreshing.
To read that there are christian people who do not think sex is a horrible, bad, disgusting thing.

But I wanted to post to point out one non-political thing:

Hymens cannot be broken…at least, not in the fashion we are told.
Each girl has a hymen, which is a stretchy tissue just at the opening of a vagina, unique to her body and each hymen has different shapes, densities and positions. Such variances may change the elasticity of the hymen or how easily it may allow penetration but, in typical cases, the hymen does not break. It may stretch and usually returns to its normal state after vaginal sex.
Instances of blood due to “broken hymens” are often the result of clumsy and ill-prepared penetration that tears the tissue and causes pain.
But a girl never “loses” anything when she takes a sex partner. In such consensual sexual experiences, a girl is not robbed of anything and boys do not gain something at the girl’s expense. (Social stigmas, however, may dictate otherwise and they aren’t productive or healthy.)
Pregnancy, however, is a risk for girls, not boys. In which case, a girl is not robbed but burdened.

I am sex-positive and a strong advocate for public sexual education and alleviating the stigmas that keep people from healthy, responsible sex and relationships.
I agree that abstinence works the best to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs and I have no argument against it.
But Abstinence Only education does not work at all and, as you so well illustrated, seems to create an unhealthy image of girls, love and sex.
Cheers!

These discussions have turned out to be like something one would find in Cosmopolitan or Play Boy Magazine.  We know this column and this media is not a credible source to follow for guidance in these tender matters of the regenerative parts of the person for these things are not spoken about before all the world, but is done in a much more private and proper setting.  That is to be respectful of one and of others.  These comments are as if human beings are only body without a soul and without a spirit.  If this was a credible Catholic site to get wholesome information on these tender matters and what leads one and others to true happiness,  a credible Bishop or Priest would be directing this column to the Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic Church and what the faithful Pontiffs have written on these matters.  I know of a priest who is uncovering these writings for families in assisting them to raise their children.  Sadly they got hidden.  Also, if this was a credible Catholic site it would encourage the necessity of reading the lives of the Saints, Virgins and Martyrs in order to keep eyes focused on a good and Final End in Eternity.  We must not forget daily devotions to Our Blessed Mother who leads us to Her Son.  She asked us to pray the Rosary each day. 
  God created a Sacrament for the purpose of procreation.  Its purity and its rightful intention is only to be shared with the spouses in Holy Matrimony.  If youth were properly catechized they would develop a Catholic conscience that would keep them from being controlled by their passions.  Adults can still learn to do so.  Unless the energies are controlled properly we cannot become and accomplish all that God created us to be.  We are temples of the Holy Spirit.  None would know it from this column that is not guided by the Holy Spirit.

Joe:  [“a credible Bishop or Priest would be directing this column to the Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic Church and what the faithful Pontiffs have written on these matters.”]  Joe, you’re kidding of course?  Priests, Bishops and the Pope should be considered credible experts on sexual matters, relationships and married life?  It is to laugh.  They have no experience and many are emotionally stunted themselves with women.  That’s why many current priests entered the seminary.  Now, if you suggest professional Catholic or Christian counselors as a source I will agree.  They would have a biblical perspective and life experience.  But clergy having zero experience in healthy male/female relationships as a helpful source is a joke.

The Catholic Church has always made women responsible for sexual misconduct and live as ‘owned’ objects of men. Here is what I was taught about sex by the Catholics I know: 1) the man who sexually assaulted me from the ages of 2 to 7 is innocent of his crimes and should be pitied because females are devoid of any worth. A man must be excused for being a pedophile and/or rapist. The child/female has tempted him and abusing him/her is not serious at all 3) Men cannot abstain. They are weak and morally helpless. Their penis is the most important thing to them. Men only do well when they sublimate their energy away from their penis. This is an unnatural state for a man. (I find this position brutally insulting to all the decent men I know.) 4) An abuse victim is responsible for sending their abuser to Hell. I was told the man who sexually abused me would go to Hell because I was sinful as a female who’d tempted him to be a pedophile. I was aged 2 when he started. 5) a woman cannot own her own body. A man owns it. A woman has no right to refuse sex. It is a sin. A husband can rape his wife and the sin is hers. This happened to my poor, poor Grandmother. So what do I think? Sex is about respect. Respect for self. And respect for others. Sex can hurt yourself and it can be used to hurt others. The idea that sex is ‘safe’ and without hurt in marriage misconstrues the truthss of sex entirely. Dutiful sex, passively accepting it to please a man so to speak, is extremely damaging for the woman. Yet dutiful sex is allowed. Marital rape is excused, only recently being seen negatively by the Church. Abuse is not seen as a bad thing (see the case of a 9 year old rape victim in Brazil 2009 or the ongoing sex scandals). Sex must be about awareness, control, respect and love. Marriage will not guarantee this Nirvana. To say so is a flat out lie. Sex in a misjudged marriage can be total devastation to a soul. To sum up; Catholicism is my bitterest sexual experience. I appreciate that not all Catholics adhere to these views but you should be aware that many, many Catholics do. Teaching the impacts of abuse, rape, unhappy emotional sex etc is the only way to enable young people to cope with the real issues sex brings to themselves and the others they connect with. Teaching should make them plan for and understand the unbiased dark complexities of human sexual growth but also why it can be such an amazing and powerfully beautiful thing. In marriage sexual life should be a joyous one but ignorance will not produce this outcome. Gender or a marriage certificate is no excuse for sexual violence.

In The pew,  For a credible Pope, Bishop or Priest to speak with Authority has absolutely nothing to do with experience.  Read again the experiences of those posted in this column.  They will leave it and still be without a sense of direction or correction.  How sad for the world that they have no place to go, so they think, to get theological bearings, theological marks and sound ways to conduct their lives.  No one should begin a thread of discussion of such a tender matter if they are ignorant of what the Catholic Church teaches.
I do not need to experience the murder of someone to know that it is against the Ten Commandments, therefore don’t do it. I’ve not experienced stealing another’s purse because once again we are taught and are bound to accept that if we die with mortal sin on our soul it will deny us access to God in Eternity.
  Because of original sin we all battle with a sin nature, but God has provided the Church with a Priesthood that can absolve sin in the Sacrament of Confession which gives added grace to assist us to not continually be caught up in sin.  Absent of mortal sin Catholics can receive graces from the Body and Blood of Christ at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  What happened to holy fear of losing one’s soul?  Nothing is spoken about it here!  One would think hell has frozen over and no longer exists.  There will be no martyrs from this new religion.

Former Catholic, the “Catholics” who conveyed those views to you are completely ignorant and completely misrepresenting Church teaching.  None of those views have any grounding in Church teaching, and I have never met a faithful Catholic who holds those views.  I’m very sorry that you were victimized twice, first by pedophiles and then by ignorance.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_25031954_sacra-virginitas_en.html
Pope Pius XII has given us powerful words in the need to create homes of virtues.  From this encyclical and others we are assisted to grasp the concepts of “Consecrated Virginity”.  It will develop an awe and a wonder of who God is and instill the desire for modesty and purity in words, actions and motives.  This is a holy prayer language that has been smeared and tarnished by the theology of the body gurus who are terribly misleading people to a humanistic mentality and not the supernatural way of life and living. 

Para. 60 of the encyclical “….Christian modesty, which is so important for the preservation of perfect chastity and which is truly called the prudence of chastity. For modesty foresees threatening danger, forbids us to expose ourselves to risks, demands the avoidance of those occasions which the imprudent do not shun. It does not like impure or loose talk, it shrinks from the slightest immodesty, it carefully avoids suspect familiarity with persons of the other sex, since it brings the soul to show due reverence to the body, as being a member of Christ[101] and the temple of the Holy Spirit.[102] He who possesses the treasure of Christian modesty abominates every sin of impurity and instantly flees whenever he is tempted by its seductions.

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, Jun 6, 2012 3:47 PM (EST):These discussions have turned out to be like something one would find in Cosmopolitan or Play Boy Magazine.”
*****
Joe,
I have to agree with you there.The topic draws an unhealthy interest for some & the remarks can turn graphic & creepy.

Joe, does it ever enter your mind why papal encyclicals cannot speak in plain language instead of their incessant attempts to impress us with their Shakespearean prose.  Translation of Para 60:  **To the unmarried, avoid sexual sin.**  All the Vatican needs to do is reference much of what Paul has already written which, by the way, is far easier for most people to understand and makes the point much faster and with fewer words.

In the pew, the post Vatican II writings are ambiguous purposely meant to speak to the conservatives in paragraph and the modernists in the next all the while contradicting Sacred Tradition. 

So I don’t understand your question about the legitimate Pontifical writings and the Councils?  I’m not a theological scholar and do not claim to get clarity 100% of the time.  But I get the sense of what is being spoken, step out in faith and the reasoning will follow.  And even if my reasoning does not follow, that is my inadequacies and not the writings.  You’ll have to be more specific in your question and I’m sorry I do not grasp your question.  I did not see those words you wrote in para. 60.  One thing to keep in mind is that so many of us have not been properly trained even in the most basic of theological terms and ways. Too many Catholics have been baffled by conciliar spin as seen in this discussion.  Never should this matter be given such a public spectacle especially when it is not hinged on sound Catholic morals, guidance and direction.  It is for families to teach their children by the grace of their Sacrament. We must remedy our deficiencies for the sake of our souls and those around us.

Joe:  [“the post Vatican II writings are ambiguous purposely]  Why is that?  If the church is to teach the people, why should the teaching and related aspects pertaining to faith be purposely ambiguous?  Regarding making this a public spectacle, is there a problem?  Shouldn’t the truth always be held up and be accountable for all to know and see?  We are to proclaim the gospel, not hide or camoflauge it.

Thank you Kathleen for grasping the fact.

In the pew,  The writings are ambiguous because they are of the church that ‘subsists in’ and not the Church that is.  This is written in Lumen gentium, V2 document.  The writings are ambiguous because they do not line up with Sacred Tradition.  They are ambiguous because they contradict Papal promulgations prior to V2 council such as the Syllabus of Errors or Modernism.  I believe there are 16 documents written by Popes to warn of these impending errors.  They are ambiguous to cause people to celebrate themselves and not worship the Creator……….
I’m not certain what your question is about “truth be held up….”  Holy Mother the Church does not teach in the manner proposed in this discussion.  Furthermore, none seem to know or even care what the Catholics Church has spoken in regards to these matters.

Create a clean heart in me, O God:  and renew a right spirit within.. Psalm 50:12

Joe, a cloak and dagger approach to church, post Vatican II leaders and heresey of those advocating Novus Ordo all pale in comparison to the gospel.  You may not like this blog topic of conversation but the gospel shows where Jesus met people of all walks and sinful ways.  The Vatican needs to take the stuffiness out of their edicts and meet people where they live.  If their message is so complicated then people will not even bother.  Not everyone on the blog is Catholic nor are many of those reading.  Some are new Catholics or still young in the faith.  Even half the blog authors on NCR are converts.  Piety is one thing and the pursuit of holiness is admirable.  However, the gospel clearly shows Jesus was highly engaged in street evangelism —that is, He met people as they were while calling them to be more.  It’s taking the gospel and learning how to make purposeful application to one’s life.  If the Vatican is more intent on hiding the truth under a bushel basket (as Jesus says in Matthew 5) and keeping it to themselves, then they have lost their way and abandoned the Great Commission.

In the pew,  Some discussions are not done on the street.  Jesus is the Great High Priest.  Simcha is not part of the teaching Church.  Also she did not even attempt to start this discussion pointing to the Catholic Church and the richness of our Faith that assists families in these matters beginning with the Catechism, having a prayer life, devotions to Our Blessed Mother, receiving the Sacraments as often as possible, going to Mass, reading the lives of the Saints, Martrys, and Virgins, doing corporal works of mercy……
  God did not leave us dangling and He did not intend that we find Truth without a Truth Provider.  Catholic theological teachings are necessary and since there is an absence of it here, the discussion has become destructive.  Holy Mother the Church has spoken on these matters and families who need further assistance must seek out a ‘credible’ person who collaborates with the Truth.  A credible bishop or priest would be my first choice and a lay person only if one has determined that person loves the Church Christ established and understands the need of a Catholic conscience and formation.

Joe, prior to someone coming to any understanding of the faith, he/she would need to be tapped by conviction of the Holy Spirit.  All the elements you mention come later via Christian growth and understanding.  Paul lays all this out in his letter to the church at Rome.  btw, though it has taken some time,  I do appreciate (now) where you are coming from as well as your sincerity.

In the pew, Even little children can pray these words,  as they ought to be taught and also each person should be wearing a Brown Scapula:

Our Lady of Mount Carmel, preserve me from the near occasion of sin, preserve me from sin, preserve me from Purgatory, preserve me from Hell.

and

My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, I love Thee.  I ask pardon for all those who do not believe, nor adore, nor trust, nor love Thee. (3 times)

I’m a middle school Theology teacher… so you can just imagine the questions I get from day to day relating to this topic. The kids I teach are right on the precipce of the time when they’ll be facing all sorts of decisions that will radically shape their lives. Great responsibility!!!
I’m glad that you pointed out the perversion of this type of sexual education. It’s a twisted lie to teach young people that sex is dirty and evil (unfortunately, this has been pounded into them by the media- because we have to shield them from so much that is plastered in front of them)
The examples that I’ve found to make the biggest impression have to do with analogies- but, beautiful, priceless examples. I gave one lesson asking them the question, “How much security does the Smithsonian guard the Hope Diamond with?” Obviously, tons. And then I ask them, “Can we price the hope diamond?” The answer is yes. There is a dollar value on the gem…. My next statement is: “The Hope Diamond, as beautiful as it is, is just a rock. You are priceless…Your soul will never pass away. You deserve to be treated and guarded as the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ ”
It may not be perfect, but I wholeheartedly believe that purity-chastity education has much more to do with revealing the beauty and holiness around the sexual act than a fear-motivated approach.
Thanks for the article.

Ashley,  Have you read the book, “Sex Education, The Final Plague” by Randy Engel?  She documents the incremental separation and denial of what the Roman Pontiffs have warned about teaching sexual information in the class room.  Teachers do not have the grace to teach sex education in the classroom.  Grace has been given to the parents in the Sacrament of Matrimony.  Furthermore, most teachers do not accept that practicing birth control is a mortal sin.  I pray you are not one of them.  Have you visited the website:  http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/12/6/ - Part 1
http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/15/6/ - Part 2

Thanks Joe.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that contraception is intrinsically evil and would never teach otherwise.
As for the “sex education”, I was speaking of teaching the meaning of the virtues of purity and chastity: the dignity of being created in the image & likeness of God as male and female. Definitely not a typical secular use of the term. I also agree, as does the Church, that the parents are the primary educators of their children. However, Catholic schools are comissioned to teach the Gospel as a main participant in the Chruch’s mission of evangelization. The archdiocese that I work in has Religious education standards which define the Religious education curriculum; the subject of human sexuality is outlined as an objective that must be taught. Trust me, when I teach my 6th grade class the 6th and 9th commandments, the students have already been all too well educated by our ‘brilliant’ society on things like adultery and cohabitation. They can name every offense against the dignity of marriage. It is shockingly apparent how desperately our children need to hear of the truth concerning the God-given dignity of their person. Frankly put, our children are being flooded with the culture of promiscuity, the culture of death. More than ever we are called to educate them on the beauty of chastity and the beauty of marriage. And let us not fail in that precious mission!

Ashley,  According to Randy Angel’s book, “Sex Education, the Final Plague” teachers are the first victims of this assault on our youth to teach ‘sex education’ in the classroom. Catechism has become sexualized.  If youth were taught to focus upon “Christ on the Cross” and the lives of the Saints, Virgins and Martyrs (I know I’m repeating) they would be much further ahead in understanding how much they are loved by God and how they ought to conduct their loves in order to return that amazing love.  Instead, this horizontal humanistic focus detracts from He who first loved us, and died an excrutiating painful death to free us from Satan.  The kind of sexualized teachings in the classrooms do not teach youth how to deny themselves, how to subdue energies, and the horror of Hell.  Actually, sin is too strong a word and instead youth are taught to avoid mistakes and make good decisions. 

Sin crucified Christ; sin nailed Him to the Cross and each sin committed harms individual souls and souls around us.  Sanctifiying grace is necessary to achieve Eternal Glory.  I’m still disturbed that you consider any kind of sex education as appropriate since Pontiffs have warned against it.    Yes, teachers are the first victims of mandated sexualized catechetics.  None can justify curriculums such as “Growing In Love”.  None to date have made corrections; none have made apologies to the countless souls put in jeopardy.  St. Joseph’s Foundation of Texas canon lawyers can do nothing to protect youth from being corrupted in the classrooms.  What a sexualized conspiracy targeting our precious possessions - our youth.  Sexual liberation is political control after all.

Ashley - Modesty in a major issue purposely left out of sex education:
Holy Mother the Church has handed on some important directives:

Pope Pius XI Instituted A Crusade Against Immodest Fashions August 23, 1928 Decades have gone by and these important directives are still buried. 

Standards of Modesty in Dress
Imprimatur dated Sept. 24, 1956
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper.”
The Cardinal Vicar of Pius XII
http://www.catholicmodesty.com/Popesonmodesty.html

Joe,

I do teach on the Cross, sin, the need for grace, modesty, and the reality of hell.
Yep, no watered down catechesis of the 60’s & 70’s here.
I would fail as a catechist if I did not teach on the virtues of purity & chastity.
 

God will richly bless you, Ashley, for using your talents wisely.  Thank you!!!  How do you account for your obedience?  Why isn’t this mandated for all? 

Studies show that graduates from ‘catholic’ colleges and universities have less faith than when they entered.  Tim Drake of this paper has reported on this.  Also, he and others have reported that females at ‘catholic’ colleges and universities are more promiscuous than their peers.  So who’s not defending our students?

Furthermore, can you account for the fact that 53% of lay religious (paid) teachers believe a Catholic can have an abortion and continue to teach our youth?  How is it possible that a mere 10% of lay religious teachers accept church teachings on contraception; 65% accept that Catholics may divorce and remarry and remain in good standing; 77% believe Sunday Mass is optional?  (Statistics taken from “Tumultuous Times”, page 496). 

Good for you, Ashley.  But as for Joe, a lot of women need to stay covered not out of modesty but rather due to (on many)—it’s just not attractive.  Prudence dictates women should not wear certain clothing if they don’t have the body type.  What does the Vatican say a man’s obligation is, Joe?  Can’t a man admire the female form without the mind immediately turning to lust?  Not all men should be typecast as those idiots on Two and Half Men.  The pope has lots of advice for women.  What did he say are the obligations of men?

In the piew,  I’m in contact with a priest who uncovering what has been hidden.  These are teachings desperately needed to assist the families in the raising of their children.  It is good to ask WHY are these valuable tools hidden?? 

Here is a short chapter from Cardinal Antoniano’s work on education. The book was written in the late 1500’s, but Pius XI called recommended it in his encyclical on education in 1929 and called it a “golden treatise”.
The chapter deals with introducing children gradually to fasting to teach them self-denial.
On the Manner of Accustoming Children to the Observation of the Fast
Cardinal Antoniano, Bk. 3, Ch. 19.
We should mention here the care that fathers of families ought to take to accustom their children little by little to the observance of the precept of fasting, for the faults which are committed in this regard almost always originate from the education one has received. I know that Holy Mother Church, a mother full of tenderness, does not oblige anyone to fast before attaining 21 years of age. Nevertheless, it would be highly advantageous if the ears of children would often hear the fast mentioned in the home and if the children could see the religious exactitude shown by their parents and by the servants in the fulfillment of this precept of penance imposed on Christians. It is good to teach them about the vigils of solemn feasts and the Ember Days, and to train them to hold in high esteem the holy season of Lent which Our Lord Himself taught us to observe by His example and by which we, in some way, give God a tenth part of the whole year.
The father or mother could sometimes gently invite their children to fast along with them, but without depriving them of the amount of nourishment which their age requires. The mere sight of a table set out more frugally than usual and which does not contain some of the accustomed items of food familiarize them little by little with the idea of fasting and prepares them, as they grow older, to observe these holy practices themselves one day.
It is so difficult today [writing in the 1500’s!!] to stir Christians from their habitual luke warmness to the fulfillment of the precepts of Holy Church, that I scarcely dare to recommend here the pious custom of fasting on Friday in memory of the cruel passion of Our Savior, and to encourage fathers to transmit this happy tradition to their offspring.
We can, without any inconvenience, impose some privations when the body has gained strength at about the fourteenth year. Moreover, since youth often put themselves to some trouble in skipping a meal out of pure caprice or in order not to interrupt their play, could they not sometimes do this for love of virtue and for the benefit of their souls? In addition to the satisfaction which comes from the fulfillment of a duty, it is certain that habit makes fasting much easier to bear. On the other hand, those who have failed to accustom themselves to the fast little by little find it very difficult regardless of the strength and vigor of their physical constitution.
A father must not forget that his children have no enemy more dangerous than their own body if it is too delicately nourished and supported, for then it rebels against the soul. Therefore, we must strive to disarm this domestic enemy. The Holy Scriptures and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church constantly urge us to this fight against the body. There is hardly one of them who has not written some discourse or treatise in praise of fasting; St. Basil, among others, has spoken of it in most divine terms. Holy Church herself calls it the medicine of body and soul.  Indeed, the duties of civil life and of various social conditions often require that we know how to bear fasting and abstinence, and that we not be like those who cannot bear it if the time set for their meal be delayed for even a moment. This arises not so much out of necessity as from impatience.
No one can appreciate how happy he will be in his older years if he has learned during his youth to endure hunger and thirst, the severity of the seasons and a thousand other inconveniences of life.

Joe, you are thus saying there are certain Catholic teachings which have been “hidden” from Catholics.  Whom (or what segments) in the Vatican stand to benefit from keeping such teachings hidden?  What’s at the root of all this secrecy?  What else are they not telling us that we should know?

In the pew,  What do you know about “Card. Joseph Mindszenty” of Hungary?

Vatican Ostpolitik
Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Thirty years ago, Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira published his Declaration of Resistance to the Vatican Ostpolitik with communist regimes.

“...During the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI, the Vatican adopted a tolerant approach toward communist regimes that denied Catholic principles of Faith and social doctrine. This was one of the scandals that marked the post-conciliar era. The last straw that gave rise to Prof. Plinio’s Declaration of Resistance was Archbishop Agostino Casaroli’s visit to Cuba in 1974, and the eulogies of the regime he made in an interview afterward…..........”
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bestof/bst004plinio.htm

Joe, you think you are in possession of more truth than Blessed John Paul II.  You know what that makes you?  Beyond proud.  That term is pretty charitable.  Evil operates from the right and from the left.

When a poster can not defend their position, they always smear the character of those whose view point they oppose.  Screwtape, you could at least make an attempt to prove why you are right and my position is wrong.

I was raised by parents who taught my brother and me to simply keep our pants on. No real sex education or guidance. So eventually, I’ve had 3 wives who ended up leaving me for other men.

Seems that the women don’t care much for abstenance. If we men are considered such animals, why is it that when we abstain from poking our wives, we are hated so much for it?

Tom Mithcell - run to a legitimate bishop or priest ASAP.  See clearly what I have spoken.  Do not stop at presbyters’ doors for they do not know how to prepare couples for marriage nor assist them to stay married based on the thousands of annulments given out annually like candy.  You need a solid Catholic priestly who will walk through the next steps to assist you.

Tom Mitchell - correction -You need a solid Catholic priest who will walk through the next steps to assist you.

@ Tom, no Catholic priest to can help Tom Mitchell.  You need to know the women you are dating and if they, too, accept sexual purity before marriage.  If the women you date are not on the same page as you—you’re going to have trouble.  And what’s this????? —Tom says he is abstaining from sexual relationships AFTER marriage?  That’s crazy.  The wife is entitled to “due benevolence” as is the husband.  How on God’s green earth can a celibate and unmarried Catholic priest offer counseling on this matter?  They cannot at all.  It’s ridiculous to think they can.  Now, if the parish has a marriage team of couples who can help with counseling that’s a good thing.  Priests and their offering guidance on sexual relations among married couples is one of the most ridiculous myths the church promotes.  And especially if the couple are not on the same page spiritually and biblically.

Okay, two things here:

.

First is that of COURSE a well-trained, experienced Catholic priest can offer advice.  Do you only take medical advice from doctors who’ve had cancer themselves?  Or do you understand that they’ve studied the matter for years and years, learning from the accumulated wisdom of generations of doctors before him;, and, more importantly, have spent years and years speaking to and healing the people who have had first-hand experience with it?  I’m going to assume that such a doctor would be acceptable to you, if you were looking for information about your disease.

.

In the same way, priests can give wise, objective advice about about sexual problems because they have to hear about it, constantly, from men and woman of every description, year after year after year.  Of course, not every priest is especially gifted in counselling; but a priest’s celibacy doesn’t make him naive!  Sheesh.  If anything, it gives him more objectivity than any sexually active man could probably have.
.

Second, nobody on this combox can help Tom Mitchell or anyone else who chooses to pop in and describe his marriage in three sentences.  We don’t know any details about what really went on, so it is 100% futile to try to give him advice.  He’s not looking for advice, anyway; he’s looking for sympathy.  Something tells me that, if you asked the three women who left him, they’d have more to say than, “It’s all because we didn’t have sex enough, period.”  Please.

.

I am truly sorry for people whose marriages have fallen apart; but my sympathy wanes when they try to induce perfect strangers to be angry at their ex-wives.

New Observer, since you are not Catholic you could not know the level and capacities of a priest as is taught in the book, “Dignity and Duties of the Priest or Selva” by St. Alphonsus De Liguori.  The kinds of issues raised by Tom Mitchell begin first with making a good confession (I’m not charging him with anything).Priests (not presbyters) carry the weight of the sins of the people they shepherd.  They are responsible for the sins of the people they shepherd and they will do their duty to teach their people how to save their souls.  Traditional bishops and priests are the best source in these matters because of the Sacrament of Holy Orders that gives them the grace to do so.  NEVER change course with lay people.  It is good to come along side of and get support from lay people who fear the loss of their souls.  The pop psychology of the day will convince Tom Mitchell he is merely a victim and never responsible. I’m not blaming Tom Mitchell.  We all have issues, Tom Mitchell, and we all need the graces from the true sacraments to assist us for the tests we encounter as we journey on earth.  Yes, find a priest – a traditional Catholic priest – make a good confession with the priest or bishop and begin today praying the Rosary every day.  Our Blessed Mother will lead you safely to her Son.

@Simcha:  Yours are fair comments but someone really needs to “seek” out such a priest.  He may not exist in one’s parish nor in a neighboring parish.  Typically, a Catholic ends up going to his/her own parish for help unless the perception is that the Pastor has no ability to help him or her.  You are likely correct in your final assessment, though, that Tom Mitchell has bigger problems if three women each left him in three successive failed marriages.  Something else is wrong there.  And @Joe:  Just because I disagree with your assessment doesn’t mean I am not Catholic (which I am).  You said NEVER change course with lay people?  Oh, so lay couples in marriage ministry are somehow *less* qualified than clergy to offer help and counseling to other couples who may have marital problems?  Receiving the Sacrament of Holy Orders does not mean someone is imputed with greater spiritual understanding any more than one who receives the Sacrament of Marriage.

  Simcha, spoken like a true protestant.  Because you opened the door and did not set good guidelines of Catholic teachings on this subject, the discussion went haywire.  You are over your head and out of order.  I don’t understand why the editors of this “Catholic” media allows you to create a combox of total unteachableness and contrariness to the Faith when the world is grappling desperately with these kinds of matters.  You add to the misery because you give no sensible direction which can only be based upon what Holy Mother the Church teaches.  Sex education in abstinence or otherwise, has been condemned by Pontiffs in classrooms, Simcha.  It is the duty of parents to pull their children out of these classes yet you open up the discussion on what it should contain.  You want to share some ideas of what should be taught in abstinence education in spite of the promulgations to not teach about sex in this kind of a setting!?.  Any talk of sex in classrooms entices youth towards the practices of vices and concupiscence no matter the expected or desired outcome for youth to refrain from it.  Youth are led to become enemies of God and trapped by vices because classroom time of abstinence education robbed the time to teach the necessary virtues to combat vices.  Misery is heaped upon youth with sex ed in classrooms.  Willing teachers are ruining youth’s minds with this information.  Teachers do NOT have the grace to educate others’ children in sexual matters.  Parents allowing their youth to be exposed to sex ed in classrooms are uncatechized.  It’s the catechized parents who plead for it to stop.  These issues are to be discussed one on one with the parent(s) or the parent’s choice of assistance.  I’m outraged by your discussions of these kind of matters, Simcha, and please forward this to the editors or whomever pays you for this kind of misleading information.  Please don’t ask me to stop reading your combox.  I’m a Catholic and as a Catholic I should be able to expect a Catholic media to be more responsible for how it is leading its readers.  This discussion needs to be led by a priest or bishop assisting the parents how they should instruct their children.

But what if the parents fail to educate their children regarding sex?  Whether it’s the parent’s fears, inhibitions, feelings of inadequacy, or whatever, there are parents who completely pass sex education of their own kids.

Maybe in my case, there were lots of things going on between me and wife #1.  But the next two - well, there simply wasn’t enough passion and there was no sex.  Which I learned to be comfortable with.  Not a big deal, especially as we get older.

True, God said to be fruitful and multiply.  But once the multiplying has been done, what’s the point?

@Tom, it is you who stated you withheld sex from you wives.  You were already married —not pre-married.  No husband or wife is allowed to withhold what the partner is biblically entitled to in marriage.  Were you withholding sex as a penalty or weapon?  That would be a sin.  And you did this 3x and your marriages each failed.  So what do you want from us?  Seems you should read Paul’s letters concerning marriage and due benevolence.  Did you consider your wives drives were stronger than yours?  Where is your sacrificial love to give her what she needed?

@Minty:  Please, get off Simcha’s case.  You’re still stuck in Catholic grammar school.  I hope you’re now an adult.  Life is complex with many issues.

@Minty/Joe/Joan:  waitaminute, saying “you should listen to the council of a good priest” makes me sound like a protestant? I’m starting to think you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Simcha, as a mother and now a grandmother I plead with you to not deceive the readers.  Did you know sex education in groups was condemned by Pontiffs?  Why are you encouraging a practice that is proven to corrupt youth - ?  If a parent has problems communicating this information to their children, THEY need to be advised by a priest or bishop on what steps to be taken.  NO other has authority to do so - nor the grace to do so.  It inflicts harm upon students and inpedes their education.  Students are undereducated who are supposedly being educated in sexual matters in classroom settings.  Go to those who have studied this issue and who have the courage to report the detrimental effects.  Randy Engel is a good source and www.motherswatch.net on the Growing In love series.  There are more.

@Minty:  [“Did you know sex education in groups was condemned by Pontiffs?  Why are you encouraging a practice that is proven to corrupt youth - ?”]  Oh, brother.  In what universe do you live, Minty?  My whole 7th grade class in Catholic grammar school received sex-ed.  Because something is condemned by “Pontiffs” does not make it wrong nor sinful.  BTW, where are your sources that Pontiffs condemned this?  One pope or many popes?  You also said if parents cannot instruct, then priests or bishops can take the necessary steps.  Have you bothered to check into the calendars of priests and bishops today?  You said you are a grandmother.  Your grandmotherly ideas don’t fit reality.

New Observer, you said, “Because something is condemned by “Pontiffs” does not make it wrong nor sinful”.

PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT. 

New Observer, I absolutely did NOT SAY:  “ if parents cannot instruct, then priests or bishops can take the necessary steps”. 
Priests nor bishops have the mandate to impose upon the Sacrament of Matrimony that dispenses the graces for parents to educate their children.  IF the parents need assistance, It is for the parents to decide what steps are to be taken.  No other authority on earth can replace the parental duties.

@Minty, you’ll have to EXPLAIN exactly what the Pontiffs or one (Pontiff) said in which *YOU SAY* this topic was condemned.  Then I will let you know whether or not I am serious.  First, you’re complaining the Pontiffs have issued a condemnation and then you say parents have the obligation to do as they see it.  Please make your point more clearly.

Decree of March 21, 1931, Congregation of the Holy office forbidding sex education:  Question:  May the method called ‘sex education’ or even ‘sex initiation’ be approved?
Answer:  “No.  In the education of youth the method to be followed is that hitherto observed by the Church and the Saints as recommended by His Holiness the Pope in the Encyclical dealing with the Christian Education of Youth, (Divini Illius Magistri)  promulgated December 31, 1929…” 

Bishops of the U S issued a Statement of November 17, 1950 regarding the role of parents in the instruction of children on matters relating to sex……”We protest in the strongest possible terms against the introduction of sex instruction into the school!!!”  (their emphasis not mine)

Pope Pius XII, Address to the French Fathers and Families on September 18, 1951 on the matter of sex initiation and propaganda, “……..procreation and education of children are the serious duties of married couples……Fathers of families.. Unite and to stop and curtail these movements…..”

Pope Pius XII in his address of April 13, 1953, states that personal sex instruction of children and youth in the home should place special stress “upon self mastery and religious training.”

http://www.motherswatch.net/content/view/4/6/

@Minty:  Thank you for the source documentation.  That’s good information to have and it’s historically accurate but not accurate in terms of doctrine.  Such being the case, how do you account for a local diocese approving classroom training for sex-ed in parish schools?  Surely the local bishop is not committing a sin.  Furthermore, the references you cite are not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra whereby his statements are infallible.  For example, Pius XI in 1927 issued a statement re “There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.”  John Paul II and Benedict have both disavowed that statement of Pius XI.  It seems we have Popes issuing private interpretations of Catholic belief and then people accept the belief of said pope as “gospel”  whereby it’s only his personal opinion.  I can, however, understand how you have come to your way of thinking.

@Minty - you do realize that the point of this post and the follow-up one (“So what do we teach our kids about sex”) was to help parents figure out how to teach their kids, right?  I agree with you that parents need to be very vigilant about what their kids hear at school, whether it’s Catholic, private or public school, and I agree that it’s the parents’ responsibility to teach kids about sex.  I can’t figure out why you think I’m the enemy. 

.

It’s possible that I might have written about this motherswatch thing you keep posting, but your behavior here has completely ruined those chances.  You’ve been nothing but insulting and hysterical, making your argument seem crazy and invalid.  Please understand that you are working against yourself when you act this way.

Simcha,  If I’ve shown you disrespect, for this I apologize for there can never be a good result in such unkindly action.  I mean this sincerely, Simcha.  I grieve for the disrespect of collaborating teachers in the classrooms invading the natural rights of the parents to teach their own children on these tenders matters.  ONLY parents are to teach their own children because of the graces given to them by the Sacrament of Matrimony.  If parents want outside help, they make the individual decision, not teachers, priests or bishops for they do not have divine authority.  Holy Mother the Church has spoken against others superseding parental authority.  Even if the parents acquiesce to classroom sex ed,  it is because the parents have not formed a proper Catholic conscience.  These parents will suffer the consequences in God’s economy unfortunately and no matter how innocent their approval might be.  I refer often to motherswatch all though I do not know who does the site.  They have done a majorly good work to expose the pornography placed before the innocent eyes of youth that is so dangerous.  The “Growing In Love” series teaches the approval of everything that honorable Catholic parents want their children to avoid for the sake of their souls.  That’s the bottom line.  It’s about the Final End of souls.  Can’t we focus upon what will protect youth?  If Pontiffs have warned against sex education in classrooms, we as Catholic have an obligation to accept it.  In matters of Faith and Morals, these infallible pronouncements are not private, but they are meant for the protection of God’s people if they are to have life everlasting.  Popes do not correct their predecessors.  Because of this media I did not post more of what the Popes have said but I would try time permitting.  This is a fiery issue to be certain.  The relaxation of virtues is rampant.  Sex ed in schools removes the natural barriers of blush and shame, hence the raising of barbarians, the raising of people who do not know how to gain mastery over their bodies.  Our youth deserve that parents stop quarreling about what they are to be taught, but to be obedient to what has been handed on in regards to what will assist in their children’s salvation.

@Simcha, thank you for your rational and common sense approach.  I have no idea where Minty is coming from except that her views are Catholicism on steroids.  If she is a grandmother, then she comes from an older generation perspective whereby most Catholic parents DID NOT teach their children about sex because they were too embarrassed to talk about it. CATHOLIC SCHOOLS have included this topic for decades now.  And even for public schools, parents can opt out in many districts—or even if you cannot opt out, Catholic parents of today can circumvent public school class training by teaching their children AHEAD of school curriclum so their child is wise to values taught by their parents as opposed to the secular worldview which is totally unbiblical.  The idea that abstinence is unrealistic is bogus and fraudulent.  What annoys me is that Minty wants to toss in all these Vatican pronouncements from the past as hold these up as “gospel” which they are not.  Her position that the “Pontiff’s” said this or that in the past was not ex-cathedra.  @Minty:  Pontiff’s said Galielo was wrong when he said the Earth’s axis rotatation revolves around the sun.  I am sure you no longer accept the Pontiff’s opinion about astronomy.  So why would you accept the view that ONLY PARENTS can train their child in sex-ed?  Where should a Catholic orphan obtain his or her training in sex-ed?

“The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when acting in the office of Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the universal Church, possesses through the divine assistance promised to him in the person of St. Peter, the infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.”  Vatican Council I

New Observer:    Truth is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow OR there is no truth.  When the Pontiffs speak the issue is settled and not up for discussion for one’s own interpretation or for one to reject.  To deny one doctrine promulgated by Pontiffs is to deny the Catholic Faith, is to deny Christ and His Church.  Holy Mother the Church is not a deceiver.

“Now this charism of truth and never-failing faith was conferred upon St. Peter and his successors in this Chair, in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all; that by the whole flock of Christ might be kept away from the poison of error and nourished by the food of heavenly doctrine….”  Vatican Council I

Minty, the point is, not everything a pope says is ex cathedra. There are very specific guidelines which define which statements are and are not infallible.  I do not think that any of the quotes you gave us are infallible teaching.  They may or may not be TRUE, but it’s not right to tell someone “A pope said such-and-such, and if you disagree, or interpret it differently, you’re denying Christ.”

“..by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as divinely revealed.”  Vatican I, Session III

Thank you, Simcha.  Minty is just another Catholic on steroids.  The Lord does require us to use reason and judgment which are His gifts.  Disagreement or having an opinion is not denying Christ.  You’ll notice that Minty had nothing to say about John Paul II and Benedict both disagreeing with Pius XI’s statement from 1927.

Simcha, the pope is Christ’s personal representative on earth to safeguard the Total Deposit of Faith and who is endowed with the infallible Spirit.  He alone is the principal Guardian of this deposit of faith and he alone has the reason of the Divine assistance promised to him.  No human talent can improve upon the Pope’s infallibility.  The Catholic Church and its chief teacher are infallible.

New Observer - Popes do not correct their predecessors and truth never changes.

That’s not quite true, unless I’m misunderstanding you.  I think you’re implying that the Pope is inspired by the Holy Spirit to teach the truth.  In face, the doctrine of infallibility teaches that the Pope is merely preserved from error when he speaks—and then only in certain very particular circumstances:

.

When the Pope (1) intends to teach (2) by virtue of his supreme authority (3) on a matter of faith and morals (4) to the whole Church, he is preserved by the Holy Spirit from error. His teaching act is therefore called “infallible” and the teaching which he articulates is termed “irreformable”.

.

quote from here:  http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/papac2.htm

.

I don’t think the passages you quoted, in reference to schools teaching sex education, fall into those categories of teaching.  Again, I’m not saying you’re WRONG; I’m just saying that the Popes who said those things were not teaching infallibly at that time, as far as I can tell.  Someone correct me if I’m wrong, though.

@Smicha.  Again, you are correct.  One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is “Discernment” in knowing how to apply biblical and gospel application to our lives and to understand doctrinal teachings.  Minty’s view is monolithical which focuses totally on legalism.  @Minty, you are confused in your understanding and practical application of opinion and viewpoint versus doctrine.  Benedict and JP2 do not agree with Pius XI—nor are they required to toe that line.  The Pope said Galileo was wrong.  History proves the Pope was in error.  Are we required to agree with the Pope?  We are NOT required to agree with everything a pope says.  Let me ask you this:  What do you say to my local Archbishop who allowed sex-ed in my parish school against what the Pontiff’s say?  Furthermore, how is my eternal salvation in Christ Jesus in any way affected by this?  It’s not.

“Benedict and JP2 do not agree with Pius XI—nor are they required
to toe that line”.

Could you at least try to prove your point, New Observer, according to the mind of Holy Mother Church?

Minty,—Pius XI said “there is no salvation outside the Catholic church.”  JP2 and Benedict have ofter referred to Protestants as “our separated bretheren in Christ.”  Minty, you clearly must believe Pius XI that all Protestants go to Hell,—is that correct?  Is my Archbishop going to Hell also because he allowed sex-ed in Catholic schools?  What a great way to live the Christian life you have, Minty,—in total legalism.
Jesus condemned all this.  You are a modern day Pharisee.

Minty, you clearly must believe Pius XI that all Protestants go to Hell,—is that correct?

Casting Crowns, Why would you post something that is not true?  Why would you cast dung upon this Pontiff who abided by the doctrines of the Catholic Church?

New Observer, what makes you different than a Protestant or what makes you different than Martin Luther who said I will not serve?

Ah, Minty.  You are still at it.  Why don’t you ask Benedict that question?  John Paul is dead but Benedict does not agree with Pius XI.
Since you (Minty) also do not agree with Pius XI—then why are you casting “dung” on Pius XI?

@Minty—the topic is sex-ed.  Your comments are going nowhere and you refuse to to respond to any questions which clearly put you at odds with current Pontiffs.  Serving has nothing to do with non ex-cathedra statements.  Your view (in a nutshell) is that Catholics must live comatose to any thinking at all.  Sex-ed is not RC doctrine.

new observer - why do you misconstrue my statements?

New Observer, You asked what should you say to your Archbishop and I cannot give you a success story of my own in spite of my diligent efforts.  One thing I’ve recently concluded and that is not to support any pro-life group organization financially or otherwise any longer.  For Many years I followed and supported Priests For Life who gave me so much courage to battle for the unborn. When I discovered 6 years ago that sexualized catechetics is the norm in parochial schools I took action to a different level.  According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute abortion is secured by sex education in classrooms.  It made no difference with the organizations I pleaded with to combat dehumanizing of our youth and the preparing of little girls in parochial schools for their later abortions.  More later

@Minty:  At this point no one knows what the hell your point is.  It IS possible to teach on the sanctify of life and at the same time explain to young ladies changes occurring inside their bodies.  If parents (mothers) are uncomfortable, where would you have these girls seek help?  Priests and Bishops have zero experience and Planned Parenthood is out of the question. So why not as part of Parish instruction? —unless you’d rather these girl get their information on the streets or at a free clinic.  One more thing.  The idea that little girls in parochial schools are being prepared for having abortions is both nutty and insane.  What does your Pastor say about your thoughts?  Have you complained to your Parish Council and Parish School board?  Surely you can find some moms who are professionals who can speak to sex-ed for young girls.  You are way too far out there, Minty.

New Observer, You asked what should you say to your Archbishop and I cannot give you a success story in spite of my diligent efforts.  I wrote to a bishop in regards to the series “Growing In Love” (to my knowledge the latest in a list of sex ed curriculums) for his evaluation and he wrote back stating he and his predecessor find no errors.  Have you seen this curriculum?  Respectfully, you might ask your Archbishop about the example of obedience.  He is to line up his conscience and actions with the Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church as all Catholics.  He is responsible for what is taught in his schools, and does he understand that he has the indelible mark of Holy Orders (??) on his soul and will stand before God on judgment day with the sins of the people he was assigned to shepherd?  Their sins will decide his place in eternity according to St. Alphonsus De Liguouri, Doctor of the Church who states in “The Dignity and Duties of a Priest and Selva” that has a Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.

The problem, Minty - and possibly one reason why you’re not taken as seriously as you would like - is that you’re mooshing together all sorts of things and calling them all “sex education.”  The one program you describe does sound pretty awful; but why the heck would you put pornography and masturbation training in with things like teaching kids about menstrual cycles, or teaching Catholic kids about concepts like “unitive and procreative?”  These are all things that might carelessly be called “sex education,” but some are good and necessary (if preferably taught at home—which is not always possible), and some are terrible. 

,

I can’t agree that nothing whatsoever can be taught in the schools.  I think you are mistaken when you believe that the Church teaches that it’s a sin to teach kids about sex in school.  I saw your quotes from various popes; but I hope you now understand that not everything that a pope says holds the weight of Official Catholic Teaching Forever and Ever.  It just doesn’t (couldn’t)work that way.  It’s not a matter of being faithful or being unfaithful to the truth; it’s a matter of the Church, in her wisdom, understanding that different ages require different types of formation.

from writing in a Catholic column.  “I saw your quotes from various popes; but I hope you now understand that not everything that a pope says holds the weight of Official Catholic Teaching Forever and Ever”.
Simcha,—- Do you know the authority of a pope?  Have you inquired what is a pope?  You know it and your readers must be warned you are out of line.  That’s not an insult that is a fact.  Catholics must develop their consciences with Holy Mother the Church and her teachings.  When a pope makes a pronouncement on matters of faith and morals it is to be followed in perpetuity – until the end of time will these promulgations hold true OR there is no truth.  Your reasoning states that Christ’s personal representative – His voice, His mouthpiece guided by the Holy Spirit can make mistakes as if Christ can err or Christ’s Church can err.  Simcha, Holy Mother the Church NEVER deceives.  The voice of the Pope is the voice of the Church.  I beg of you,————you are not prepared to be speaking in a Catholic setting and you are doing the readers a major disservice.  Please, once again, bow out of Catholic settings.

@Minty, you need to get over yourself because you are definitely not getting over on us.  The pope is the pope —he is not God.  Where does common sense enter in or do you also check with the Vatican regarding which toothpaste you should use also?  Christianity is not centered on legalism even though you are.

Minty, did you even read Simcha’s comment to you explaining the doctrine of papal infallibility? (Psst, she used real Church teachings to explain it.) It’s not whenever “a pope makes a pronouncement on matters of faith and morals it is to be followed in perpetuity.”

You don’t seem interested in actual Catholic teaching, Minty. In fact, you only seem interested in your own interpretation of Catholic teaching, and you reject all teaching that goes against you.

So let me ask you; When did you join the Protestant Church, Minty?

Casting Crowns, you’ve made a statement of opinion in regards to the pope obviously or you would have substantiated it.  A pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth – Christ’s personal representative.  Christ is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity—the Godhead.  Casting Crowns, that is why it is most important that people who lead these discussions be a Catholic with a good grasp of the Faith in order to assist the readers.  Once again, Papal pronouncements are as God speaking personally to the Mystical Body of Christ, all Christians and the world.  The pope does not err in matters of faith and morals.  He has the infallible protection of the Holy Spirit that was promised.  Truth is not adapted to the new generation(s).  Truth never becomes obsolete nor is it given new and changed definitions.

Drago Dragov - No, I did not see where Simcha made any references to papal pronouncements.  Show me, please.

Nice try “Minty.” Why don’t you interpretive dance your way back to your Protestant Church and leave the discussion of Catholic Doctrine to the rest of us REAL Catholics. I bet you don’t even care about sex education.

@Drago - Oh, mean mean mean.  You keep provoking Minty that way, and she’s going to get mad and nail some theses to your door - you wait and see!

,

But seriously, Minty, please do go back and read my comments where I explain the difference between infallible, ex cathedra statements, and just plain old statements.  If everything that came out of a Pope’s mouth were infallible, we’d be in a pickle!

Simcha and et al, please don’t add words to what I have said.  Catholics are bound to believe everything the Pontiffs speak on matters of Faith and Morals.

I thought you might like this quote from St. John Vianney, patron saint of parish priests:

”If a priest determined not to lose his soul, so soon as any disorder arises in the parish, he must trample underfoot all human considerations as well as the fear of the contempt and hatred of his people. He must not allow anything to bar his way in the discharge of duty, even were he certain of being murdered on coming down from the pulpit. A pastor who wants to do his duty must keep his sword in hand at all times. Did not St. Paul himself write to the faithful of Corinth: ‘I most gladly will spend and be spent myself for your souls, although loving you more, I beloved less.’ ”

@ “Minty” - Whatever, Luther.

When did you stop wearing a Clown Suit to Mass?

Have you seen the clown masses, the balloon masses, the cheese head masses, the dancing girl masses, the circus the basketball, using doritos for hosts, the rock n’ roll masses?

Sounds like you’re the expert. And you didn’t answer my question: When did you stop wearing your Clown Suit to Mass?

@Drago:  Don’t be so quick to assume Minty is Protestant.  I have met enough Catholics who think as she does.  They are often rooted only in what they learned in Catholic elementary school from nuns back in the 50’s or 60’s.  It’s all legalism.  Catholicism for them only means toeing the line without any thinking or spiritual discernment.

@Minty:  [“A pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth – Christ’s personal representative.”]  Sorry, Minty.  That title is what the Vatican affixed to the position.  Jesus never bestowed that title.  Furthermore, YOU and I—and all who believe—are Christ’s **personal representatives.**  The pope is not the ONLY personal representative of Jesus.

So Casting Crowns is his OWN pope who obviously hates nuns. Nice faith you have there, do you go to the same invalid Mass as Minty?

@Drago:  I do not “hate” nuns.  However, I am not longer in the 4th grade at my parish elementary school.  And your hostility is ill advised.  Do you not use common sense in the instruction of your own children or do you consult your diocese regarding what time your son should be home from a high school dance?  Maturity in Christ is that you advance and develop in the faith to understand the application of your Catholic faith.  Minty confuses church guidelines as mandates.  Guidelines are . . . guidelines.

Listen, Counting Crows, you can send your children into the den of iniquity that is the typical high school dance, with the bumpa-bumpa music, and the grinderino dancing, for however long you want. I’ll stick to the Archbishops and the pontiffs who NEVER DANCE!

@Drago:  Are you really Catholic?  You sound like you are Baptist.  Baptists do not allow dancing.  Catholic High Schools have Homecoming Dances, Junior Proms and Senior Ball dances too.

Well, Countwad, you can send your children to these “Catholic” “schools” if you want. I guess YOU can do whatever YOU want since you’re obviously a Protestant who hates the Church and wants to give sex education to children.

@Drago—What is obvious is that you are a troll and a fraud.  This conversation is over.

Posted by Minty on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 3:35 PM (EST):“Benedict and JP2 do not agree with Pius XI—nor are they required
to toe that line”.

Could you at least try to prove your point, New Observer, according to the mind of Holy Mother Church?

New Observer——the previous post is a mess.  Can you prove your point that popes can correct their predecessors?

This converstion is over when I say it is over, Count Chocula!

You are obviously a jaywalker and a nincompoop! And secretly Mason!

There. Now it is over.

Casting Crown said, “The pope is not the ONLY personal representative of Jesus.” The Pope maintains the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians.  Only He can define new doctrine on faith and morals to be held by the universal church, and only he has the protection of infallibility. Only he makes condemnations. He does all these things in mind of the Total Deposit of Faith handed on.  The laity do not possess the ability nor the power to do any of these things.  Bishops cannot act separated from the Vicar of Christ’s authority.

Simcha,  I did not notice this post by you yesterday:  Posted by Simcha Fisher on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 12:30 PM (EST):

I have somethings to share with you on this,if you might be interested?

  I consider, that you are not right. I am assured. I suggest it to discuss. Write to me in PM, we will communicate.

P.S. What do you think about Windows 2012?

teach the purity laws according to orthodox judaism: sex is holy, sex is pleasurable, the husband must approach the wife with RESPECT [and vice versa] and it is the husband’s obligation and joy for his wife to experience joy. i think this is one of the reasons so many christian sects hate jews: we love our spouses and we love sex. scary, isn’t it?

I resent both of the quotes that the first post by Chris mentioned. I’m a male in his early twenties and I was raped by my girlfriend at the age of 17. She was looking to “get it in” without regard for my personal decision to stay abstinent until marriage, and didn’t realize that an erect penis was not necessarily consent. She assumed that, since I was aroused and male, my consent was IMPLIED. My story is not a common one, but should not be ignored in conversations about the problems with abstinence-only sex ed., and comments that perpetuate the stereotypes that took part in the violation and degradation of my person should be left out.

I find that the pain and guilt that my religious convictions caused me were unhealthy, and I can no longer call myself a Christian if I am to follow what I now see to be unnatural restrictions.

What does scripture say. Live as children of light.

Common sense tells us that the discussion of these kinds of matters does NOT belong in a public forum.  See MothersWatch.net
  A claimed ‘Catholic’ forum should not allow this to go on.
These matters being discussed are between parent and child and/or a credible priest or bishop.

as a not religious person I am blown away by the number of comments that pre-marital sex somehow ruined their marriage and relationship. How so exactly? I wouldn’t buy a car before test driving it, so why would I want to marry someone without sleeping with them first? You don’t buy a house un-seen but marrying someone un-slept with is advisable? I understand the relationship between sex and babies and other less-good stuff like STIs, and I haven’t decided how I feel about sex outside of committed & loving (unmarried) relationships, but I call BULLSHIT on all this “I didn’t wait, but everyone else should” let alone blaming your relationship problems on whether or not you have sex. sex is only a problem when you let it be. being so hung up and obsessed with blaming it for all your problems is the problem in itself.

A car is an object.  Human beings are meant for relationships, not to be used as objects.  They are not for “test driving”. 

And no, Robyn Weinbaum, the concept of loving one’s spouse and loving sex is not scary, or is it unique to Judaism, nor is it anti-Christian.

bibliothecaire - “Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery” - God said it and that settles it I know this media fails over and over to reference the Ten Commandments and the Magisterial Teachings of the Catholic Church as if they are opposed to what will lead people to safety and happiness. 
  It is the responsibility of Catholics to bring this country to Catholicism.