https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4436-4039
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Through the recent history of sexuality education as a field of its own, there have not been many strong, positive rhetorical connections between comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) and Catholicism. While other Christian denominations see value in CSE, Catholic opponents of CSE see it as harmful despite the magisterial teachings that support the same core tenants. Current Catholic sexuality curricula fail to address many important components relevant to the sexual lives of the faithful. In this article we discuss the sufficient magisterial and theological support for robust and relevant Holistic Catholic Sexuality Education. We also offer guidelines for holistic sexuality education curricula rooted in Catholic moral theology, using the guiding principles of anthropological justice, moral justice, and social justice.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Francoeur, “Challenging Collective Religious/Social Beliefs,” noted that one can find religious erotophobia beneath the surface of debates on sex education, 298; See also Sellers, Sex, God, and the Conservative Church, and Van Vliet and Raby, “Too Little, Too Late,” 248. The authors discuss the opposition to rights-based comprehensive sex ed from ‘religious groups who favour abstinence-only programs.’ See also Whitehead, “Sex Education.” Whitehead takes the liberty of situating the ‘real aim’ of sexuality education as not avoiding harmful sexual experiences, but ‘train the kids to get with today’s sexual revolution’ (para. 11).
2 See Whitehead, Agenda for the “Sexual Revolution.” See also, Persona Humana henceforth PH, Part I, about a corruption of morals that is ‘invading the field of education.’
3 Levand, “Sexual Science, Catholic Church.”
4 Gravissimum Educationis, henceforth GE, 1.
5 Amoris Laetitia henceforth AL, 153.
6 GE, 1; Pacem in Terris, 13.
7 AL, 280.
8 GE, 10; Populorum Progressio henceforth PP, 17.
9 Ross, “Future of Catholic Sexual Pedagogy.” In Catholic sex ed curricula, ‘the family’ is specifically referring to heterosexual marriages whose union is always open to procreation, according to natural law theory.
10 Advocates for Youth, “Sexuality Education, Healthy Decision-Making,” 3.
11 See Santelli et al., “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage.”
12 Kirby, Emerging Answers, 15.
13 Santelli et al., “Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage,” 274.
14 Wiley, “Ethics of Abstinence-Only.”
15 Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States [SIECUS], Guidelines, 13.
16 See Hedgepeth and Helmich, Teaching about Sexuality, 1; Guttmacher Institute, “Demystifying Data Toolkit”, 1.
17 This definition is based on definitions of CSE from Guttmacher Institute, “Demystifying Data Toolkit,” 1, Hedgepeth and Helmich, Teaching about Sexuality, 1–2, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States [SIECUS], Guidelines, 13, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Technical Guidance, 16.
18 Information based on goals found in Hedgepeth and Helmich, Teaching about Sexuality, 2, United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Technical Guidance, 16.
19 Religious Institute, “Sexuality Education.”
20 United Church of Christ, “Sexuality and Our Faith.”
21 Ott, “Re-Thinking Adolescent Sexual Ethics: A Social Justice Obligation to Adolescent Sexual Health,” 1.
22 PH, 1.
23 Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Educational Guidance in Human Love, 4.
24 Familiaris Consortio, 11.
25 Ibid., 32.
26 GE., 32.
27 Ibid., 1.
28 Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 20.
29 Ibid., 7.
30 United States Catholic Conference, Human Sexuality.
31 Ibid., 19.
32 Ibid., 153.
33 Ibid., 162.
34 AL, 280.
35 Ibid., 281.
36 For a discussion on how the Catholic Church and secular sex educators agree on this point, see Levand, “Sexual Science, Catholic Church.”
37 AL, 281.
38 Ibid., 280. The authors note that dissonance between current pedagogical sciences and magisterial teaching on topics pertaining to sexuality have yet to be reconciled. While acknowledging these areas of dissonance, for the purpose of this article we will emphasize the existing magisterial support for HSE.
39 For example, points of contention can be seen in themes of premarital sexual activity and contraception as taught in both secular comprehensive sexuality education and Catholic teaching. While these points of contention exist, we contend that one can teach about the Church’s position while also addressing information important for informed decision-making. We recognize there is tension here that needs to be further discussed in the field of sexual theology and ethics.
40 Freitas, Sex and the Soul, 54. Freitas discuss the apathy and hostility participants have to how they were taught about sex.
41 Nelson, Embodiment, 18.
42 Farley, Just Love, 126. See also, Catechism of the Catholic Church henceforth CCC, 362–7.
43 See, Ex Corde Ecclesiae, 20 for ‘ … so that the entire educative process be directed towards the whole development of the person.’
44 Salzman and Lawler, The Sexual Person, 94–5.
45 Ibid., 95.
46 Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, 83–7.
47 Mattison, Introducing Moral Theology, 96.
48 Dale and Keller, Advancing Sexual Health, 52–72.
49 Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, 130.
50 Ibid., 8.
51 Hilkert, “Experience and Tradition,” 63 (emphasis added).
52 Ibid., 64. Dei verbum henceforth DV, 6 (emphasis added).
53 Hilkert, “Experience and Tradition,” 64.
54 DV, 8 (emphasis added).
55 Curran, Living Tradition, ix.
56 Regnerus, Forbidden Fruit, 72.
57 Ibid., 73.
58 Ibid., 121.
59 Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality.
60 Ibid., 238.
61 Farley, Just Love, 215.
62 See CCC, 2331–400.
63 Jung, Sex on Earth, 13 (emphasis added).
64 Ibid., 13.
65 1 Cor. 6:19-20 (NRSV): here Paul asks ‘Do you not know that your body is a temple (or sanctuary) of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God and that you are not your own? For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.’
66 Copeland, Enfleshing Freedom, 24. In Copeland’s analysis of racism as a structural injustice, she identifies it as ‘lethal to bodies’ and thus ‘to the body of Christ.’ To borrow from Copeland’s argument, in the way racism ‘spoils the spirit and insults the holy’ (p. 109), so too does sexism and somatophobia spoil the spirit, insult the holy, and discredit the loving, kenotic, creative power of God in our own sexual bodies and the bodies of others.
67 Genesis 2:18-25 (NRSV).
68 AL, 13.
69 Ibid., 150.
70 Ibid., 280.
71 In her book Sex on Earth as it is in Heaven, Patricia Beattie Jung notes that Thomas Aquinas mentions this vice of deficiency in the Summa Theologica, naming it ‘insensibility.’ However, he doesn’t seem to believe that this vice is of moral concern, since he presumed it was ‘not found in many, since men [sic] are more inclined to pleasure.’ (II-II, Q. 153, art. 3.3).
72 Jung, Sex on Earth as it is in Heaven, 142.
73 Gudorf, Body, Sex and Pleasure, 157.
74 Solomon and Solomon, Syphilis of the Innocent, 224. In this historic work on syphilis, the authors describe the need for venereal diseases to be ‘freed of the idea of moral taint and just punishment for sin.’
75 See Gula, Reason Informed by Faith, 83–87.
76 PP, 15.
77 For a discussion on vincible ignorance, see Mattison, Introducing Moral Theology, 108.
78 Farley, “Respect for Persons,” 186.
79 Providing relevant information can include information about sexually transmitted infections (STIs) or information about birth control, as well as a person’s intentions for the relationship.
80 Farley, “Respect for Persons,” 195.
81 Ibid.
82 Theriault, “It’s Never Too Early.”
83 De La Torre, Lily Among the Thorns, xiii.
84 Bathurst Gilson, Eros Breaking Free, 7.
85 Catholic feminist theologian Susan A. Ross uncovered the ways in which pre-Vatican II marriage manuals portrayed body and gender in a benevolently sexist way. Ross, “The Bride of Christ.”
86 Gudorf, Body, Sex and Pleasure, 157. Christian ethicist Miguel De La Torre identifies the ‘acts-centered’ rhetoric of the U.S. Religious Right in the late 20th century. He states, ‘In its campaign against sexual immorality, the U.S. Religious Right reduces sex to an act involving nothing more than the genitals, with emphasis placed on who you have sex with and the sexual act itself, rather than defining relationships in which sex can and should occur.’ De La Torre, Lily Among the Thorns, xi.
87 Lebacqz, “Appropriate Vulnerability,” 436.
88 Farley, Just Love, 223.
89 One Love Foundation, “10 Signs of an Unhealthy Relationship.”
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Mark A. Levand
Mark Levand is an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University as well as an adjunct faculty member in the Center for Human Sexuality Studies at Widener University.
Karen Ross
Karen Ross is a Visiting Assistant Professor and Program Director of the MA in Christine Doctrine in the Department of Theology at Marquette University.