No Child Left Behind

A recent study in the February 2010 Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that long-term "abstinence-only interventions may have an important role in preventing adolescent sexual involvement." Interestingly enough, despite a commitment to "health care", the Obama administration completely eliminated funding for abstinence education from the 2010 budget. The reason was simply that the programs do not work. Despite the statistical data from this study to the contrary, I actually agree with them that in their current format they will not work long term. You only need to look at the four treatment groups in the study to see exactly why I think this is the case.

The study was based on dividing the teens into four groups which represent the culture as a whole—(1) a group that received instruction solely in abstinence; (2) a safe-sex group instructed in contraceptive use; (3) a comprehensive, or mixed message, group taught both abstinence and contraceptive use; (4)and a control group that received health education unrelated to sex. I want to focus on the first mainly and briefly touch on the third. I talked a lot about "safe-sex" in my entry last spring when the Holy Father came under fire for his comments on condom use.

Instruction Solely in Abstinence

Here I am going to take exception to the way the instruction group received "instruction". The classes didn't preach saving sex until marriage or disparage condom use. Instead, they involved assignments to help students see the drawbacks to sexual activity. In fact the authors of the study said there was no moralistic tone to the instruction at all. It included having them list the pros and cons themselves, and it found their "cons" far outnumbered the "pros." This is now the way that any "moral" issue is taught in our culture.

What is the problem with this? Two words. Values Clarification. These are two words that almost nobody knows about, but could ultimately lead to the moral demise of our country. In 1972, Sydney Simon wrote a seemingly innocuous book called Values Clarification: A Handbook of Practical Strategies for Teachers and Students. This book was based on two simple premises:

If children are left to their own inclinations their innate attraction to goodness would allow a fully developed mature system to emerge

Values are wholly personal and teachers should not impose values upon students

It does not take much to see that both of these premises are false. The first is a denial of original sin. Christian or not, everyone subscribes to the theory of original sin. They recognize that something is not right about man. They know that left to themselves, people cannot be trusted. Why else would we have oaths of office or contracts or even the checks and balances of government? As Chesterton said, original sin "is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved."

There is also the issue of the innate attraction to goodness. This assumes an absolute standard of goodness that is then contradicted in the second premise in saying that goodness is wholly subjective. In essence, Values clarification is built upon the foundation that a child left to himself will be attracted to things that he likes. It is hard to argue that one.

Of course any system that is based on a faulty foundation such as this inevitably leads to serious problems. This is especially true when the overwhelming majority of teachers (yes, even in Catholic schools) now use this in the teaching and disciplining of their students. You can immediately recognize it in your own children when rather than saying something is right or wrong, they merely say it is a good or bad choice. This is because they are taught that the gift of free will is the same thing as freedom of choice. What this does in the long run is completely destroy a child's conscience. This is why the Vatican even condemned it the 1995 document issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family
(TMHS). This is a must read for every parent. Here is what they say about Values Clarification. It is worth quoting in its entirety:

One widely-used, but possibly harmful, approach goes by the name of "values clarification". Young people are encouraged to reflect upon, to clarify and to decide upon moral issues with the greatest degree of "autonomy", ignoring the objective reality of the moral law in general and disregarding the formation of consciences on the specific Christian moral precepts, as affirmed by the Magisterium of the Church. Young people are given the idea that a moral code is something which they create themselves, as if man were the source and norm of morality.

However, the values clarification method impedes the true freedom and autonomy of young people at an insecure stage of their development. In practice, not only is the opinion of the majority favored, but complex moral situations are put before young people, far removed from the normal moral choices they face each day, in which good or evil are easily recognizable. This unacceptable method tends to be closely linked with moral relativism, and thus encourages indifference to moral law and permissiveness.

My point is this, without any absolute moral values, you might as well just give each child a rose and play "He loves me, he loves me not". When you give children no solid moral foundation on which to build and recognize their values they are doomed to slavery. Human freedom is not intellectual or physical freedom but freedom of the will. It finds its full expression in the choice between good and evil.

Rather than teaching that sex outside of marriage is wrong because of a set of consequences, we must show them why it is only right within marriage. We need to help them see what the marital embrace really means. This is why Theology of the Body once it is presented in a digestible format is the cure for our problem with sex education. If you don't know about Theology of the Body, you need to learn it. Grab one of the many introduction books (Christopher West or Steve Kellmeyer has a pdf version of his book here) and it will change the way you look at everyone. You'll realize that the problem is not that the culture thinks too much about sex, but too little.

The Mixed Message Group

I think we all realize how ridiculous this approach is in that we basically say to kids "don't do this, but if you're going to here is how you protect yourself". Most rational people would not take this approach. However I think more of us actually do this than we think.

A report from the Kaiser foundation found that in 1300 shows they analyzed 50% of them showed sexual content and only 11% of those showed the risks or responsibilities associated with promiscuity. 76% of the teens surveyed said that one of the reasons young people have sex is because "television shows and movies make it seem more normal for teens." It is very difficult to instill in young people that sex outside of marriage is not good when the culture tells them it is. The power of Hollywood is that they can help to normalize behavior. When kids see repeatedly on TV and in movies that it is perfectly normal for teens to have sex, they begin to believe it. We also see this also playing out in spades with respect to the homosexual agenda. It is hard to find a single show on TV that doesn't have a happy, well adjusted gay character.

I do not agree with the approach that because of this, we should swear off TV and movies. Instead we must teach our children to be discriminating consumers of TV. As parents we have to take an active role in what our children watch on TV. We have to watch the movies they watch. If you do come across something objectionable, ask them questions about what they saw. Dr. Meg Meeker, in her book Boys Should Be Boys, says that a "healthy sexuality is not exercised too young, it is not artificially aroused and diverted, and it is not promiscuous." Deep down, despite what the culture says teens know this to be true.