Escándalo: En la JMJ, el Vaticano presenta un programa de educación sexual que deja de lado los padres y el pecado mortal
ROME, July 27, 2016 (LifeSiteNews)
En la exhortación Amoris Laetitia, el Papa habló de la "necesidad de que la educación sexual”fuera abordada por "instituciones educativas", cosa que alarmó a los líderes mundiales pro Familia y Vida ya que la Iglesia Católica siempre ha reconocido y enseñado - a menudo con la oposición de las potencias mundiales - que la educación sexual es "derecho y deber fundamental de los padres.”
Este programa de educación sexual del Vaticano se divide en seis unidades que han de ser enseñados en un período de cuatro años (grados 9-12) a los estudiantes masculinos y femeninos en clases mixtas.
Ver todas las lecciones y guías para los profesores en el: program's website here.
El nuevo programa que está siendo presentado por el Consejo pontificio para la familia parece ser una desviación de lo que el Magisterio de la Iglesia ha enseñado largamente sobre la educación sexual. Por ejemplo:
- El Papa Pío XI, en su encíclica sobre la educación cristiana, Divini Illius Magistri, habla de la instrucción sexual en un ambiente privado elegido por los padres, no en las aulas, que establece que si "se considera necesario y oportuno dar alguna instrucción privada, por parte de los que tienen de Dios el encargo de enseñar y tienen la gracia de estado, todas las precauciones deben tomarse. Tales precauciones son bien conocidos en la educación cristiana tradicional. ... Por lo tanto, es de la mayor importancia que un buen padre, mientras discute con su hijo de un asunto tan delicado, debe estar bien en guardia para no descender a los detalles "Y añade:". En términos generales, durante el período de la infancia , es suficiente con emplear esos remedios, que producen el doble efecto de abrir la puerta a la virtud de la pureza y el cierre de la puerta del vicio ".
El Papa Pío XII, en su discurso de 1951 a los padres de familia, advierte contra la propaganda, incluso de "fuentes católicas", que "exagera fuera de toda proporción la importancia y significación del elemento sexual. ... Su forma de explicar la vida sexual es tal que se adquiere en la mente y la conciencia del lector medio la idea de que (el sexo) es un fin en sí mismo, haciéndole perder de vista el verdadero propósito primordial del matrimonio, es la generación y educación de los niños,
".
Papa San Juan Pablo II, en su exhortación apostólica de 1981 Familiaris consortio, llama a la educación sexual "derecho y deber fundamental de los padres", que "siempre debe llevarse a cabo bajo su dirección solícita, tanto en casa como en los centros educativos elegidos y controlados por ellos ". y añade:" los padres cristianos, discerniendo los signos de la voluntad de Dios, dedicarán especial atención y cuidado en educar sobre la virginidad y el celibato, como formas supremas de entrega y dan sentido a la sexualidad humana ".
La Sagrada Congregación para la Educación Católica, en sus Directrices de 1983 educativas sobre el amor humano, escribe que: permanece siempre válido que, en lo que se refiere a los aspectos más íntimos [de la educación sexual], biológicos o afectivos, una educación individual debe ser dada, preferentemente en el ámbito de la familia “.
Mientras que el nuevo programa del Vaticano tiene muchas cualidades positivas, sus defectos no puede ser subestimados. Éstos incluyen:
Entregar la formación sexual de los hijos a los educadores, dejando fuera a los padres
El no nombrar y condenar los comportamientos sexuales, como la fornicación, la prostitución, el adulterio, la contracepción, la actividad homosexual, y la masturbación, como acciones objetivamente pecaminosas que destruyen la caridad en el corazón y alejan de Dios.
No advertir a los jóvenes sobre la posibilidad de la separación eterna de Dios (condenación) por cometer pecados sexuales graves. El infierno no se menciona ni una vez.
No distinguir entre el pecado mortal y venial.
El no hablar del 6 al 9 de mandamiento, ni de cualquier otro mandamiento.
El no enseñar sobre el sacramento de la confesión como una manera de restaurar la relación con Dios después de haber cometido pecado grave.
No mencionar un sano sentido de la vergüenza cuando se trata del cuerpo y la sexualidad.
La enseñanza a los niños y niñas juntos en la misma clase.
Tener niños y niñas compartiendo juntos en clase la comprensión de frases como: "¿Qué significa la palabra sexo, qué te sugiere"
Hablar sobre el "proceso de excitación."
El uso de imágenes sexualmente explícitas y sugerentes en los libros de actividad (here, here, and here).
Recomendar varias películas sexualmente explícitas como trampolín para la discusión (ver más abajo los enlaces).
El no hablar sobre el aborto como un grave mal, sino sólo que provoca un "fuerte daño psicológico."
Confundir a los jóvenes por el uso de frases tales como "relación sexual" para indicar no el acto sexual, sino una relación centrada en la persona.
Hablando de "heterosexualidad" como algo que hay que descubrir
Utilizando el icono gay Elton John (sin mencionar su activismo) como un ejemplo de una persona dotada y famosa.
No haciendo hincapié en el celibato como forma suprema del don de sí que constituye el sentido de la sexualidad humana.
No mencionan la enseñanza de Cristo sobre el matrimonio.
El tratamiento de la sexualidad como un tema separado en lugar de como algo integrado en las enseñanzas doctrinales y morales de la Iglesia.
***************
El resto está en inglés, lo traduciré mañana si Dios quiere:
View Slide Show: What’s in the Vatican’s new sex-ed program? (CAUTION: Sexually explicit images.)
Positive qualities include:
- Drawing from Saint John Paul II’s teachings in Theology of the Body and Love and Responsibility for an understanding of personhood, the language of the body, the spousal dimension of the body, and the body/soul unity of the person.
- Teaching that the human person is either male or female. No gender theory here.
- Teaching that men and women complement each other through sexual difference.
- Teaching that men and woman are equal in dignity, but are different physically and emotionally. No radical feminism here.
- Teaching about modesty and chastity as virtues, but not until later units. Chastity is defined as the “light which guides us to give an inviolate love.”
- Teaching the importance of freedom in the moral life. Freedom is defined as the “capacity to do what is good.”
- Speaking about “concupiscence” as a “darkness prevent[ing] us from seeing the fullness of the person in a proper and complete way.”
- Briefly mentioning how love can be separated from procreation, but not explaining the specific evil.
- Teaching about the importance of “self-control” and “self-mastery” in order to truly give yourself to another person.
- Speaking about “misplaced love” which manifests itself as “narcissism” and “masturbation,” but no mention of sin.
- Speaking about purity as the “virtue that disposes us to treat our body with ‘holiness and honor.’”
- Briefly mentioning the “sanctity of life.”
- Speaking about virginity as a way to “respond to the call to love.”
- Promoting chastity before marriage.
Of urgent concern with the program is the number of films recommended by the program as a springboard for discussion that cannot be construed as anything but sexually immoral. For example:
- Unit 4 recommends the 2013 R-rated film “To the Wonder” to discuss the “call to the donation of oneself.” Focus on the Family describes the sexual content in this way [WARNING–EXPLICIT]: “So while love is the primary focus of To the Wonder, sex becomes an integral part of its expression. Both Neil and Jane, and Neil and Marina, engage in explicitly rendered intercourse. Nudity stops just short of full; motions and sounds are passionate, erotic, titillating and extended—the blending of bodies to suggest complete intimacy. There's the visual suggestion that Neil and Marina have sex in the coach compartment on a train. An (almost) oral sex scene is used to express distance and dissatisfaction.”
- Unit 6 recommends the 2010 R-rated film “Love & other Drugs” to “reflect[] on the part of the formula with which a man and a woman express their mutual consent to contract marriage.” Focus on the Family describes the sexual content in this way [WARNING–EXPLICIT]: "For a good chunk of the film, Jamie and Maggie seem to be in a constant state of lovemaking. They smash into cabinets, writhe on the floor, pant and moan, engage in oral sex and loudly express their orgasmic responses. Audiences see both of them completely naked. (Only their pubic regions escape the frame.) It's pretty explicit stuff…Later, after Maggie and Jamie tape one of their sexual escapades, Josh finds it and watches it. It's implied that he masturbates while doing so. And he spends the rest of the film making crude comments about his brother's anatomy.”
- Unit 2 recommends the 2013 film "Stockholm" to raise the question, “Is it really worth it to give myself to the first person that approaches me?” Hollywood Reporter describes the film as a “cat-and-mouse” game where the man “expertly dresses up his desire for sex with her as real feeling” while “quizzes him about his real motives for his interest in her.” After the “commitment of sex has happened,” which appears to be graphically depicted based on previews, the couple starts to find out “who they really are and that they’re seeking entirely different things.”
The film selection reveals a startling lack of moral compass in the program creators, something that should alarm any parent thinking of allowing their child to be formed by this program.
One pro-family campaigner against Planned Parenthood’s explicit version of sex-ed gave this comment, under condition of anonymity, about the Vatican’s sex-ed program: “I had a hard time deciding if the authors were trying to cleverly disguise a bad program or if they were just thoroughly incompetent. They tried to interweave modern day movies to support the vague concepts they were trying to get across, but, how they did that was not very effective. Why the erotic pictures that bordered on porn? I thought the whole thing would be confusing to youth and frankly a large waste of time.”
In one activity, youths are asked to look at a picture of an older couple who are sitting in front of an image of a “young man and woman, joining their half-naked bodies in a hug.” They are asked: “Which of the two couples is having a sexual relationship?” The teaching guide states: “The objective is for the young person to feel ‘provoked’ in front of these two images, or even confused by the title of the topic and the image presented.” And that is the essential problem with this program: Young people will simply be confused by the conflicting messages, the explicit images and films, and the lack of moral directives.
In the end, the Vatican’s sex-ed program might at best be described as a mixed bag and at worst as a misguided effort that falls very much short of the mark. While the casual reader can point to various texts that suggest that the program is aimed at promoting modesty, abstinence, and saving sexual relations for marriage, there is nevertheless something quite disturbing happening between the lines.
Because of the program's failure to honor the God-given role of parents as primary educator, its utter failure to name and condemn various sexual sins, and its use of sexual explicit materials and films, the program not only fails to achieve its goal, but it could arguably have the opposite effect of awakening in youths disordered sexual desire and giving them the impetus to act out sexual fantasies. The program attempts to instruct young people about the importance of modesty, chastity, and intimacy and does so by violating the very values it is trying to instill. In this way it is self-defeating. In short, the program could lead youths not closer to God, but further away from him.
One might go as far as conjecturing that had the sainted Maria Goretti been formed by the Vatican’s sex-ed program, it is unlikely that she would have had any heroic words of virtue to say to her sexual attacker. She would not have been formed to say: “No! It is a sin! God does not want it!" She would not have learned that what her attacker wanted was an offense against God. Nor would have Saint Dominic Savio, in the same vein, been able to say: “Death rather than sin,” because he would not have learned about the horror of sin. A program in sexual morality that fails to teach young people to live the Gospel without compromise is unworthy of being taught.
Pete Baklinski has a B.A. in Liberal Arts and a Masters in Theology with a Specialization on Marriage and the Family (STM). He is married to Erin. Together they have six children.