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.

 

Render Unto God

Before the national election of 2008, Archbishop Chaput wrote an excellent book on the role of Catholics in American society called Render Unto Caesar. Since then he has shown precisely what it looks like to carry those principles out. His latest battle has to do with the decision of a Catholic school in Denver to refuse re-admittance to two children whose "parents" are a lesbian couple. The Archdiocese issued the following statement:

"To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of the wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment."

As you can imagine, there is no shortage of people lining up to accuse the Church of prejudice and discrimination. So the question then is whether these criticisms of the archdiocese are valid?

There appear to be three criticisms that pop up in one form or another.

1) "I just feel the Catholic Church is a church that should be teaching acceptance and tolerance. I just don't think this is an example of that… We're all sinners. Why discriminate against this end of sinners?"

The Catholic Church should teach tolerance and acceptance and does, but I think it would behoove all of us to understand what those words actually mean. Let's be clear right up from that we accept and tolerate people. We do not however have to accept and tolerate actions and ideas that are not good. This is precisely why we teach that we are to hate the sin and love the sinner.

This brings me to the next point. "Why do we seem to discriminate against this end of sinners?" This goes to the heart of why many gays will not go to church because they do not feel accepted. But this sin and these sinners are different. The difference is not in the sin so much as the fact that they do not see it as a sin. What they really want is acceptance of their sins and not the label of sinner. This the Church cannot offer. Christ came to heal the sick, not the ones who deny their sickness. The Church is not for someone who doesn't need healing.

2) "I don't think they interview to see what parents are divorced or what parents are using birth control or other things that are against the teaching of the Catholic Church"

This is actually a common way that we have come to argue despite being wrongheaded. My kids do it all the time. When one of them gets in trouble for something they did they immediately ask why their brother didn't get in trouble yesterday when they did something else that was wrong? Unfortunately, we never seem to grow out of this way of arguing.

This is actually a logical fallacy called the argument from silence. Just because the school doesn't test parents' catholicity doesn't mean that on this issue with these two children their handling of it is wrong or that it condones the other behaviors. You have to stick to the issue at hand.

There are two other problems with this approach. First, if someone was openly campaigning telling everyone that the Church was wrong on these two issues, I absolutely think the status of their children at the school would and should be in jeopardy. In essence, the two women that were guardians of these children are openly saying the Church is wrong by their actions.

Along the same lines, nobody says that divorce is a good thing (yet). I don't see "divorce pride" parades popping up throughout the country. But again, if someone were openly saying that the Church is wrong then the approach would be different.

By the way, I wish I could shout this to the rooftops. The Catholic Church is not against birth control. We are not called to a life of being the little old woman who lived in a shoe. We are called to responsible parenthood which means that we must be prudent in our decision to have children or postpone births. The Church however is against certain means (such as artificial contraception) that are used to postpone births. I know this sounds like semantics, but we need to be precise in our language.

I was talking to a guy who said to me that I "don't believe in birth control because I am Catholic." I told him that we did believe in birth control and that we were not all called to have as many children as possible. He said that what he meant was that we didn't believe in contraception. I told him again, that we did believe in it. Clearly it exists and we would be in denial not to believe in it. But we as Catholics think it is a very bad idea and ultimately damaging to marriage. Now he was interested in why it was a bad idea.

The point of this digression is that we need to make sure we frame the Catholic understanding in a positive light. Ultimately, that is how we should present the beauty of the Church's teachings. I could have simply told him that contraception was wrong, but instead I told him it was bad for marriages. This opened a dialogue that would have been immediately shut down had I chosen the "because the Church says so" response.

3) "Punishing a child for the "sin" of the parents is immoral, unethical, and flat-out childish, especially when the Vatican was recently hit with its own gay sex scandal less than a week ago."

This response came from a Catholic contributor at the Huffington Post. I am not sure if by placing the word sin inside quotation marks he is denying the reality of sin or this sin in particular, but nonetheless it is interesting perspective. I assume he is referring to this particular sin because he mentions the Vatican scandal.

I actually believe him when he says that he had twelve years of Catholic education because he clearly doesn't understand how the Church works. Is he saying that since the men who populate the positions in the Vatican are sinners that the Church should stop preaching against sin? That there are fallen human beings in the Vatican should surprise no one. That is precisely why we call it a scandal, but nevertheless our faith is not in the men who work in the Church, but on the Man who founded it.

Ever the faithful shepherd who cares for each individual soul, Archbishop Chaput said that ultimately the reason for removing the children is in their best interest. He said that, "(T)o allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student, in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home." You have to wonder why the two women didn't come to the same conclusion and not send their children there in the first place.