Aldo Maria Valli is properly worked up about one of those statements that the reigning pope made so cavalierly during his last inflight news conference.
A statement that has largely passed unnoticed among so many other statements flagged with more headline-grabbing red alerts...
Does the pope not realize that sex education
is already done in schools but does not work?
Translated from
February 1, 2019
“I think there ought to be sex education in schools,” Pope Francis said in answer to a journalist who asked him on the plane returning from Panamawhat could be done about the scourge of precocious pregnancies in Latin America.
Yet whoever has anything to do with education knows that so-called sex education provided in schools has been a failure, especially in places like South American where the problems resulting from rampant sex are the gravest. And this is not according to traditionalist Catholics whom seculars, progressivists and Catholics who are ‘in’ love to condemn as bigots and hypocrites. This is according to studies and investigations conducted by absolutely secular research institutions.
As, for instance, a major study by Cochrane, a global network of researchers in the health field, on more than 55,000 adolescents who underwent courses in “'exual and reproductive health' in various parts of the world- from Europe to sub-Saharan Africa to Latin America. They concluded that
those courses “had no effect whatsoever on the number of participating young people who were subsequently infected with HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases”. Nor on reducing the number of precocious pregnancies.
The study curiously notes that only when schools provide incentives (such as free uniforms or small cash payments) for remaining in school for the extra course – beyond usual school hours – is there some improvement, in terms of less STDs and unwanted pregnancies among the course participants.
A few years ago, the British Medical Journal reported that
“contrary to what one might think, sex education interventions, instead of improving sexual health, could merely worsen the situation”.
Serious and profound studies on this supject explain that
the best results come not from having sex education classes, but rather, moral education in the wider sense – transmitting to the young people essential principles about the value of each person, of the body and of abstinence, and when they are taught to protect themselves – in all aspects, including the sexual, from being exploited as consumers.
That what truly makes the difference is not teaching sexuality from a technical point of view [which seems to be the burden of most ‘sex education’ classes] but rather to educate young people in the value of waiting for the right time, of giving oneself, of sharing. But none of this is done in sex education classes today, because schools are focused on the functional view of sex, which in the end, simply promotes the use of condoms.
That is why
the Church has always maintained that because of the delicate nature of the subject matter, educating young people in affectivity [the ability to experience feelings, emotions, judgment, motivations] and sexuality should not be done in school, especially since such ‘teaching’ is often used to transmit a certain ideological view.
And that is why the pope’s words on sex education alarmed not a few Catholics. One reader wrote me:
"I am truly dismayed by Bergoglio’s initiative advocating sex education in schools. I am a doctor, now of advanced age, who never obscured sexual awareness and knowledge from my three children, and now as a grandfather, I have advised my children discreetly to do the same for their children.
I would never have accepted that a school gave my children sexual information superimposed on what I myself am capable of giving them. If only because only I as a parent understands the stage of maturation that my children and my grandchildren have reached.
T
Moreover, to teach all the children in a class in the same way can be more dangerous than it is educational. How can one think that children who grow up with parents who make an exhibition of their sexuality could be taught in the same way as children whose parents practice their sexuality in private as they should?
Also, it is not enough to teach them about using condoms [which are far from failproof] – all prostitutes use them, but they still end up being STD ‘samplers’. Obviously, because they continue to be infected by new customers. There must be a priority for educating young people in affectivity before sexuality."
From a female reader:
“As an elementary school teacher, I have had to accept the intervention in my classes of so-called experts in ‘affectivity training’ which is nothing but sexual education. Seeing the depressing results of their work, I am convinced that I would have done a much better job by myself: just providing honest scientific information would be enough."
With his usual language that says in effect, that A is true but also B, the pope in his inflight statement also stipulated,
“One must offer objective sexual education as is, without ideological colonization”, but the problem is that
in school today, even where there may not be a true and proper ‘ideological colonization’, nonetheless what prevails is a totally horizontal and profane vidw of life from which every supernatural dimension has been eliminated and which presume to resolve by ‘technical’ answers questions which deserve to be met through the teaching and application of moral virtues.
That the pope’s sally on sex education was at the very least ‘singular’ compared to
the line that the Catholic Church has always held – namely, that sex education of their children is the responsibility first of all of parents in the context of a child’s overall formation – is shown by
the enthusiasm with which his words were welcomed by those who most strongly oppose the Christian view of the individual and of sexuality.
Here, for example, was the immediately well-publicized comment from a representative of Italian Radicals:
“As a convinced anti-clerical, and precisely because of this, I cannot but highlight that the peremptory statement of Pope Francis, ‘sex is a gift of God”, is revolutionary, being the antithesis of 2000 years of sexophobic Catholic culture, according to which sexual practice is unutterable (one does it but never says so) if not diabolical, and always directed only towards the goal of procreation, which also barely hides a near-zero consideration of women.
Pope Francis did not just limit himselves to enunciating a new idea [for the Church, the person means] but rightly indicates a new goal to be achieved as a consequence of those words: offering courses in sexual education – we prefer to call it sexual information, but let us not nitpick the pope’s words – in the schools. I wish to underscore here that Pope Francis has broken a taboo which has been followed by all his predeccessors from Peter onwards”.
It’s hard to say in a few lines everything that is wrong with such a series of false statements which demonstrate either an abysmal ignorance or total bad faith or both.
- Francis has certainly not been the first pope to say sex is a gift from God. What else was St. John Paul II’s theology of the body which was at the heart of his teachings on sexuality and matrimony?
- As for the idea that before this pope, the Church had near-zero consideration for women, has anyone read the same pope’s
Mulieris dignitatem (On the dignity of women) which is a true and proper hymn to women?
[And, more importantly, what is the Church’s devotion to Mary but its apotheosis of womanhood?]
But why must we waste time with those who, instead of first informing themselves to know what they are talking about, prefer to wallow in their prejudices?
What is most disquieting – and saddening – is that the pope’s words, unfortunately, are such as to merit the enthusiastic support of those who have always advocated abortion and euthanasia, those who have always upheld the culture of death rather than the culture of life.
Edward Pentin blogged earlier on one of the pope's more striking
self-contradictory ambiguities on that inflight news conference:
Pope Francis says NO
then MAYBE to married priests
January 29, 2019
During his inflight press conference from Panama, Pope Francis gave conflicting signals about the ordination of married men in the Latin rite, on the one hand saying he was personally opposed to it while at the same time open to considering possible radical exceptions.
His comments come as an upcoming synod on the Amazon in October is expected to debate the possibility of ordaining married men in order to alleviate priest shortages — a move that some observers say is a means of allowing married priests universally through the back door.
Central to the Pope’s comments were his references to missionary Bishop Fritz Lobinger, emeritus of Aliwal, South Africa, known to be a pioneer of the idea of
viri probati — the ordination of older married men of proven virtue.
Although the Pope reiterated several times during the press conference that he could not see himself ordaining married men, he made it clear that it was “something to study, think, rethink, and pray about.”
Referring to areas suffering shortages of priests, he said “some possibility” exists for married clergy in “very far places,” adding that when there is a “pastoral necessity, the pastor should think of the faithful.”
But it was his emphasis on Bishop Lobinger’s ideas, contained in his 1998 book
Like his Brothers and Sisters — Ordaining Community Leaders, that drew most attention. The Pope described the book as “interesting” and warranting further study.
A native of Regensburg, Germany, 90-year-old Bishop Lobinger has long championed his proposal to ordain community elders, or a “team of elders,” who would carry out a special ministry. These men, selected from their communities, could be married and not have attended seminary. The theory, Bishop Lobinger says, is based on the early Church.
In a 2010 article in US Catholic, he outlined his proposal and firmly advocated the ordination of married men, saying if the Church “continues to admit only celibate, university-trained candidates to ordination, there will be no hope of ever overcoming the scarcity of the sacraments.”
He claimed hundreds of bishops agreed with his radical proposal while acknowledging that hundreds of others did not, fearing that it “might solve one problem” only to then create “bigger ones.” But in common with the Pope, he called for a greater discussion of the issue so that “it will become more apparent that certain proposals will not work while others will.”
He also predicted pressure to ordain women would increase if his proposal were accepted: “Because the majority of proven local leaders are women, it is unavoidable that the question of their inclusion among ordained elders will arise, though present Church law does not permit it,” he said.
The Pope’s reference to Bishop Lobinger comes as little surprise as Cardinal Reinhard Marx recommended he read the retired bishop’s works when the German bishops were on their ad limina visit in 2015.
It also comes after various statements in recent years advocating possible changes to allow married clergy, notably from Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, and the prefect of the Congregation for Clergy, Cardinal Beniamino Stella.
Bishop Lobinger’s theories are also backed by Bishop Erwin Kräutler, whom Francis appointed last March to a pre-synodal council which is preparing the Pan-Amazonian synod in October.
Bishop Kräutler, an Austrian missionary who ministered in the Brazilian rain forest from 1981-2015, has openly said
finding ways to address the priest shortage will be one of the main topics of the upcoming synod. As a result, he believes the synod will lead to the ordination of married men to the priesthood and women to the permanent diaconate.
In an interview with the Austrian Catholic news agency Kathpress soon after the announcement of the synod in December 2017, he said:
“Perhaps even Bishop Fritz Lobinger's suggestion will be taken up.”
In his comments to reporters, the Pope said Bishop Lobinger’s book “could help to think about the problem” and that “the theology should be studied.”
[Modificato da TERESA BENEDETTA 02/02/2019 15:52]