Home » Sex Education Information » The Complete Letters of Alice Grayson to Cardinal Law » August 12, 1991 - Cardinal Law's action

August 12, 1991 - Cardinal Law's action.

He appointed Father Michael Steele of the Education Office and Monsignor William Murphy (then the Cardinal's Secretary for Communications) to sift through the June 24th material and letters and draft a response in the Cardinal's name. Included in the reply was a draft of "Suggested Guidelines for Sexuality Education in Catholic Schools” from the office of Superintendent of the Archdiocese of Boston. After all the letters and conversations, I was never asked to participate in the draft, nor did I even know of the existence of the "Guidelines." This affirms the status quo.

 

August 12, 1991

 

Mrs. Alice Grayson
33 Audubon Lane
Belmont, MA 02178

 

Dear Alice:

Subsequent to the Cardinal's letter to you regarding the material which you had sent him, I had the opportunity both to talk with you and to set up an appointment with Father Michael Steele, who as you know is charged with Religious Education in our Catholic Schools Office for the Archdiocese. On August 5th, Father Steele and I spent a morning reviewing the materials which you had provided and discussing in particular the policies and practices of the School Office in regard to sexuality education.

In accordance with the directives of the Holy See and of the U.S. Bishop's Conference, the Archdiocese of Boston in its School Office is committed to providing sexuality education integrated into the curriculum on religious education in the schools. This is not only legitimate but it is necessary in the world in which we live today.

The question which you raise beyond that is quite germane and was the focus of a great deal of our discussion this past Tuesday. I would like to share with you the conclusion Father Steele and I reached at the end of that discussion.

First, we are quite satisfied that the process which is used by the Archdiocese of Boston School System to interview applicants for the teaching of religion is a sound and quite thorough one. There also are a number of programs in place and reviews which take place, all of which give us every reason for confidence in the quality and in the content of the teaching which goes on by the teachers in the Archdiocesan School System.

Second, the question of resources is a very difficult one. The ten dioceses with the largest school systems (which include Boston) have instituted a means by which the competent persons in each of those dioceses works with their colleagues in reviewing materials. That review is a thorough one. That review has the confidence of all of us as the best way we have to ensure the tests and other resources that are used conform to and reflect sound Catholic teaching. It is unfortunate that publishers are not as responsive to this on their own volition. However, given the fact that a single series will have editions for public and private schools different from those of Catholic schools I believe that the current process of having qualified persons in our school systems review the text is the best one that we can devise. I have full confidence that this leads to sound judgments and good recommendations.

Third is the whole question of values clarification as a process or a means to teach religion and morality in our school system. If values clarification is simply a matter of helping young people decide what things they wish to do or what things they consider to be good then this would be a very flawed and unacceptable process. However, values clarification in our school system means teaching the students what is objectively right and what is objectively wrong. Therefore, as a process with a specific Catholic content, it seems to me to be quite acceptable.

The Cardinal very much appreciates the care and constancy with which you have followed these questions and has asked me to assure you that he appreciates what you've done and that you and Ed and your family are very much in his prayers. To that I add my own prayers and my every best wish.

Yours sincerely,

 

Rev. Monsignor William Murphy
Secretary for Community Relations

 

Guidelines sent to Alice Grayson by the Archdiocese of Boston and enclosed with Monsignor Murphy's August 12, 1991 letter above.

 

1. The first and primary educators of children are their parents. The school is aware of this fact, but, unfortunately, the same is not always true of the families themselves; it is the school's responsibility to give them this awareness. Every school should initiate meetings and other programs which will make the parents more conscious of their role, and help to establish a partnership; it is impossible to do too much along these lines. It often happens that a meeting called to talk about the children becomes an opportunity to raise the consciousness of the parents. In addition, the school should try to involve the family as much as possible in the educational aims of the school—both in helping to plan these goals and in helping to achieve them. Experience shows that parents who were once totally unaware of their role can be transformed into excellent partners. (The Religious Dimension of Education in a Catholic School #43 The Congregation for Catholic Education Rome 1988)

2. The church proclaims the value of the life-giving meaning of marital intercourse. It rejects the ideology of artificial contraception. The church forbids methods of family limitation directed against the life-giving meaning of sexual intercourse. It condemns the view that sterilization and artificial contraception are morally legitimate means of family limitation. (Sharing the Light of Faith, #105b).

3. The Catholic Church teaches us that human sexuality is to be understood in a threefold manner. . .

Gender Sexuality — personal identity as male and female

Affective Sexuality — the ability to express intimacy, affection and warmth in our interpersonal relationships

Genital Sexuality — the act of human intercourse

In teaching sexuality education one should encourage young people to enter into responsible interpersonal relationships which are rooted and grounded in a well developed affectivity. (Sex education: Information or Formation? Massachusetts Catholic Conference November 1987)

4. Teachers, counselors, chaplains and campus ministers should make every effort to help students develop a healthy self-image, solid friendships with members of both sexes and the ability to relate to others as sexual human beings.

5. Human sexuality is essentially related to permanent commitment in love and openness to new life. Human sexuality, as we understand this gift from God, is to be genitally expressed only in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship of lasting fidelity in marriage. Sexual restraint is to be constantly upheld and highly valued so that the precious gift of sexuality may be reverenced and cherished. At no time is a teacher to encourage the use of condoms for there is no such thing as safe sex. Every genital act must be within the framework of marriage.

6. In teaching AIDS education, irrational fear should be dispelled especially by the medical judgment that one cannot become infected with AIDS virus by casual contact. On the other hand, the Surgeon General's Report makes it clear that fear can be useful when it helps people avoid behavior that puts them at risk for AIDS. And so, avoidance of illicit us of drugs, sexual abstinence before marriage and monogamous fidelity within marriage recommend themselves as medically necessary as well as morally responsible. The recovery of the virtue of chastity may be one of the most urgent needs of contemporary society. (A Call to Compassion, #14)

7. Homosexual behavior, cannot be viewed as an acceptable form of behavior morally or socially. At the same time persons who are homosexual must be treated with respect as human persons and they have a right to sound pastoral care.

It is the place of the Church and her ministers to speak the whole moral teaching of the Gospel with clarity. The members of the Church have the right to this even when the moral teaching is difficult. But the ministers of the Church must present that moral teaching in a way that also encourages homosexual men and women to begin or to continue the journey toward the fulfillment of the law of Christ.

On the other hand, when homosexual men and women claim that their way of life is a morally healthy one, insist on their intention to affirm and promote it publicly and ask that it be in some way approved by the Church, they are clearly in contempt of the Christian conscience and in conflict with the teaching of the Scriptures. (Pastoral Letter on Homosexuality Archbishop John R. Quinn p. 20)

8. The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self (“ipsation”), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.

This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the magisterium of the Church — in the course of a constant tradition — and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting in this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely, the relationship which realizes “the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.” (Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics #9 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith)

9. The inviolability of the innocent human being's right to life “from the moment of conception until death” is a sign and requirement of the very inviolability of the person to whom the Creator has given the gift of life. (Respect for Human Life in Origin and the Dignity of Procreation, #4)

10. Thus the fruit of human generation from the first moment of its existence, that is to say, from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception, and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. (Respect for Human Life in Origin and the Dignity of Procreation, #I.1)

11. Artists, writers and all those who use the means of social communication should exercise their profession in accordance with their Christian faith and with a clear awareness of the enormous influence which they can have. They should remember that “the primacy of the objective moral order must be regarded as absolute by all,” and that it is wrong for them to give priority above it to any so-called aesthetic purpose, or to material advantage or to success. Whether it be a question of artistic or literacy works, public entertainment or providing information, each individual in his or her own domain must show tact, discretion, moderation and a true sense of values. (Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics #13 Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith)

As we await final Archdiocesan Sexuality Guidelines perhaps these guidelines could assist you in teaching sexuality education. If you have any questions concerning these guidelines taken from Church Documents, please contact us at any time — Rev. Michael L. Steele, Director of Religious Education for Catholic Schools or, Sr. Mary Joan Lofgren, CSJ, Assistant Director of Religious Education for Catholic Schools at The Catholic School Office — (617) 536-5417.