|
Benziger Family Life: 3rd Edition (1995)
Issue: Does Catholics United for the Faith (CUF) recommend the use of the Benziger Family Life (BFL) sex education program in Catholic grade schools?
Response: No, CUF does not recommend Benziger Family Life (BFL) because it violates several principles of Catholic chastity education. These principles were stated in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (TMHS), which the Pontifical Council for the Family published in 1995.
To determine whether such a program is faithfully and effectively assisting parents, there are several principles, based on a wealth of Church teaching on the subject, to which any such program should be faithful. Benziger Family Life is not faithful to these principles.
(1) Benziger Family Life is designed for use in a coeducational setting. Trying to teach chastity in such a setting violates the child’s privacy and modesty, and simply is counterproductive (cf. TMHS, no. 127).
(2) Benziger Family Life does not ensure a respect for the different phases of childhood development. In particular, the program runs the risk of violating the child’s “years of innocence,” i.e., “latency” or prepuberty stage (TMHS, nos. 64, 65, 75, 78, 83), presenting explicit, biological information prematurely and providing other materials that offend modesty. The Church unambiguously teaches that such explicit, immodest presentations can never be tolerated (TMHS, nos. 126, 127, 133, 139, 143). Even during puberty and adolescence, moral education “must not include the more intimate aspects of sexual information, whether biological or affective, which belong to individual formation within the family” (no. 133; emphasis added).
(3) Benziger Family Life possesses a flawed view that the primary cause of impurity is ignorance, not sin. This is seen by a continual focus on information, rather than formation. The program tends to inform sinners rather than form saints (TMHS, nos. 122-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 407). BFL is also deficient in its presentation of Catholic doctrine, such as an inadequate treatment of original sin; failing to even mention, let alone distinguish between, mortal and venial sin; and making an inaccurate presentation on the human soul.
(4) Benziger Family Life ambiguously presents official Church teaching on marriage and family, specifically regarding contraception. In addition, the program recommends the works of others who dissent from Catholic teaching on marriage and family. Because of such referrals, and because of the program’s inadequate presentation on sin, the program does not have in place safeguards to help ensure that teachers faithfully communicate Church teaching on sensitive marriage and family issues (TMHS, nos. 116, 117, 120, 135, 145, 146).
In light of TMHS, CUF recommends that schools work with parents so that they can form their children regarding the intimate details of chastity within their homes (nos. 145, 150). In addition, general discussions of chastity should take place within already existing religion classes. As the Catechism conveys, these discussions should be framed by the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (Catechism, nos. 2331-2400, especially 2331-56, and 2514-33).
Benziger has recently produced a new version of its Family Life program, making explicit sections on sexual anatomy and the marital act detachable. Although they market this as a “less offensive” program, it remains one that we cannot endorse. If the publisher recognizes the program as “offensive,” requiring a “less offensive” option, we find it disappointing that Benziger offers this new edition as a marketing option, rather than out of moral conviction.
Discussion: Due to the delicacy of the subject matter, this review should be utilized by mature adults only.
This Faith Fact should be used in tandem with CUF’s Effective Chastity Education Faith Fact. The Effective Chastity Education Faith Fact is a general overview of how—according to Church teaching—dioceses, schools, and parents should approach the delicate and morally crucial area of the chastity formation of our young people. The implementation of sex education programs in Catholic schools throughout the country is a complex, divisive issue in the Church in our time. Since parents are the first and most important educators of their children, it is essential that they understand the teachings of Christ and His Church as they bear on this difficult issue.
Our country’s significant moral decline in the last 35 years only heightens the need for parents to form their children properly regarding chastity. It is therefore important to state at the outset that “explicit and premature sex education can never be justified in the name of a prevailing secularized culture” (TMHS, no. 143), as if schools must make educational concessions to our morally troubled culture and also compensate for lack of parental involvement, perceived or real. No society or school should institutionalize parents’ noninvolvement in this crucial area of moral formation. Rather, great care should be taken to provide Christ-centered support for the family (TMHS, nos. 145-146).
Whatever good intention its authors may have, the Benziger Family Life program undermines the role of parents, offends against the chastity of young people, and inappropriately presents the sacred mystery of marital love. Despite improvements from previous editions regarding the presentation of moral doctrine, CUF cannot recommend the Benziger Family Life program for the above reasons, on which we will now elaborate, beginning with treatment of parents as the primary educators of their children and then an examination of the aforementioned principles. This analysis is based on an examination of:
BFL Student Texts, K-8 (ST)
The Teacher’s Wraparound Texts, K-8 (TWA)
The BFL Parish Implementation Manual
BFL Training the Teachers Video
BFL Just for Parents Video
Family Connection Brochures for Parents, K-8
BFL Teacher’s Resource Books, K-8 (TRB)
Key: ST 3/57 = Student Text, grade three, page 57
Whose Responsibility Is It?
It is imperative to give suitable and timely instruction to young people, above all in the heart of their own families, about the dignity of married love, its role and its exercise; in this way they will be able to engage in honorable courtship and enter upon marriage of their own (Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), no. 49, emphasis added).
The clear, unambiguous position of Vatican II, therefore, is that chastity education should take place in the home. This is in keeping with the consistent teaching of the Church in this area, most recently reaffirmed in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality.
Conversely, the Church recognizes that parents may call upon the Church, and especially the Catholic school, to assist in the work of chastity education. However, this assistance cannot in any way usurp the primary role of the parents:
Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents (Pope John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio, no. 37; see also 1994 Letter to Families from Pope John Paul II, no. 16).
In The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, the Pontifical Council for the Family affirms the primary and fundamental role of parents in chastity education (see especially TMHS, nos. 41, 47, 145, 146, 148; cf. Catechism, nos. 2221-31). “Other educators can assist in this task, but they can only take the place of parents for serious reasons of physical or moral incapacity” (TMHS, no. 23).
On the one hand, Catholic educators are too frequently faced with children whose parents have wrongly abdicated their personal responsibility for their children’s education (cf. Sacred Congregation of Catholic Education, Catholic Schools, no. 73). On the other hand, Catholic parents who take seriously their duties feel as though their “basic right” to educate their children is trampled upon by the way many sex education programs are implemented. This latter difficulty is admittedly worsened by insufficiencies, sometimes grave in nature, regarding the appropriateness of the program’s subject matter and teaching methods. However, regardless of the merits of a particular program, the parents’ primary role must be accepted by parents and respected by educators. This perspective assuredly points to a proactive, parent-based approach. Parents may need assistance, but not replacement.
God designed marriage and the marital act as a wonderful way a husband and wife can emulate and participate in the sacred mystery of Christ’s union with the Church (Eph. 5:21-33). The marital act is a sacred, private mystery, not to be discussed in a clinical, matter-of-fact way with adults, let alone vulnerable young children. Forming children in chastity in the intimate, sacred details of marriage and family is therefore something that should be reserved to parents at their discretion. They have been gifted by God with the sacramental grace and obligation to judge best what and when their children should learn about the sacred mystery of marital love. Schools should help parents in this process, not usurp their role (TMHS, no. 145).
BFL Usurps Parents’ Rights
By virtue of having such a comprehensive, K-8 coeducational program that imparts explicit sexual information, Benziger Family Life does not respect but effectively undermines parents as the primary educators of their children (see also Principle 1 treatment below). Instead of working to assist parents in the home, BFL’s “Just for Parents Video” implies to parents that they and their children need Benziger Family Life: “If children do not learn the information provided by the Benziger Family Program in school,” says Laura Martinez in the video, “they will learn elsewhere.”
In TMHS, the Pontifical Council for the Family throughout emphasizes that parents are the primary educators; that schools should first and foremost offer a supportive and subsidiary role (nos. 64, 145); that “the family ‘is, in fact, the best environment to accomplish the obligation of securing a gradual education in sexual life’” (no. 64); that “each child should receive individualized formation” (no. 77; cf. no. 65); and that “parents should provide this information with great delicacy” (no. 75; emphasis original).
Unfortunately, BFL encourages teachers to take the place of parents on these intimate matters. Those children whose modesty has been most protected will suffer the most, as the following citation and subsequent citations—especially those in Principle 2—illustrate:
The use of the word “sexual” as in “sexual parts of a flower” may be unsettling or even disturbing to some children. That may stem from their uneven and perhaps unexplained exposure to commonly used words as “sexy,” “sexual harassment” and “homosexual.” Children sense the emotional responses these words cause in others. Also, your students may have been taught, quite appropriately, that the sexual parts of their body are private; therefore the students may be uncomfortable with these discussions. . . . Proceed with a matter-of-fact attitude toward the lesson. If you still sense uneasiness in a student, try to have a one-on-one confidential talk to lessen the confusion or embarrassment” (TWA 3/50; emphasis added).
Principle 1: The Benziger Family Life program is designed for a coeducational setting. This feature becomes strikingly imprudent given the explicit sexual information imparted, which systematically starts in grade five. Yet explicit discussions actually begin in earlier grades, and teachers are encouraged to address these issues in a “straightforward” manner as they come up:
Your students may ask: “How does the baby get inside the mother? And how does it get out?” . . . Teachers sometimes express concern about handling the reactions of their students to discussions of babies and birth. The best motto is: Be prepared. You will probably deal with some giggling as well as some candid questions. The giggling indicates nervous; the children are depending on you to keep them on the right track. Don’t be reproachful. If you respond in a natural, straightforward way, you’ll help your students do the same. . . . Families of students sometimes express concern that the children will share private information in class. It is important to keep your students’ contributions within appropriate bounds. They should know that they are free to express their ideas and share feelings, but some matters are private and not for sharing. Assure the families that classroom discussions are prudently controlled (TWA 2/41 and TWA 2/42; emphasis added).
Many third-graders know the basis of human reproduction. They may be trying to find out if it works the same way in animals, or they may be looking for verification or clarification. This curiosity is good. Answer legitimate questions as honestly and simply as you can (TWA 3/58). You should suggest that students discuss the subject more fully with their parents, or other adult family members (TWA 3/58; emphasis added).
Your students may giggle at the word “breasts.” Say matter-of-factly that breasts are very important (TWA 3/56 on discussion of mammals feeding their young).
Note: The Teachers’ Resource book contains optional lessons on human reproduction, for classes that may be ready to handle this information earlier than fifth grade (TWA 4/34; emphasis added).
In TMHS, the Pontifical Council for the Family teaches that the family environment is “the normal and usual place for forming children and young people to consolidate and exercise the virtues of charity, temperance, fortitude and chastity” (no. 48, emphasis original). “[C]onvinced that their own chaste life and the daily effort of bearing witness are the premise and condition for their educational task, parents should also consider any attack on the virtue and chastity of their children as an offense against the life of faith itself that threatens and impoverishes their own communion of life and grace (cf. Eph. 6:12)” (no. 21, emphasis original). “[T]hrough this document, the Church holds that it is her duty to give parents back confidence in their own capabilities and help them to carry out their task” (no. 47).
Principle 2: Benziger Family Life cannot respect the different phases of childhood development. In particular, the program’s classroom approach violates the child’s “years of innocence” (i.e., “latency” or prepuberty stage) by presenting explicit, biological information prematurely and providing other information that offends modesty. As early as third grade, teachers are told to suggest to students that they discuss the subject of human reproduction “more fully with their parents” (TWA 3/58).
Indeed, such intimate details should be “more fully” discussed by parents, though not when their children are in third grade. Pope John Paul II has discussed the “years of innocence” or the latency period, a “period of tranquility and serenity” from ages five to puberty that “must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex” (TMHS, no. 78). Violations of the “years of innocence” can gravely harm the moral formation of young people:
In some societies today, there are planned and determined attempts to impose premature sex information on children. But, at this stage of development, children are still not capable of fully understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children’s innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral, and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence (TMHS, no. 83; italicized emphasis original; bolded emphases added).
Nevertheless, only two years later in grade five, at ages 10-11, BFL systematically presents explicit sexual information to young students (ST 5/34 to 61). The program gives explicit drawings of male and female anatomy, with the following vocabulary for the children:
penis foreskin testicles epididymis menstruation
erection ejaculation nocturnal emission semen scrotum
vagina uterus ovaries fallopian tubes orgasm
As adults, the aforementioned vocabulary list would likely disturb our sense of modesty if it were read aloud in a public setting. How much more it would be disturbing, then, for our children to have such terms presented in a coeducational, classroom setting. The term “sexual intercourse” is used throughout the fifth-grade student text, and later in the book the children are introduced to “sexual climax” and “orgasm” in an explicit discussion of the marital act (ST 5/56). “In order for the sperm cells to leave the male’s body, the penis must be erect. Semen is ejaculated through the penis in a series of spurts called ejaculation” (ST 5/46).
Recall, too, that such explicit presentations may occur at “earlier than fifth grade” at a teacher’s discretion (TWA 4/34; emphasis added). Such presentations clearly violate TMHS, which says that “no material of an erotic nature should be presented to children or young people of any age, individually or in a group” (no. 126, emphasis original). Article no. 127 affirms that BFL violates Church chastity norms for teaching:
This principle of respect for the child excludes all improper forms of involving children and young people. In this regard, among other things, this can include the following methods that abuse sex education: (a) every “dramatized” representation, mime or “role playing” which depict genital or erotic matters, (b) making drawings charts or models, etc., of this nature, (c) seeking personal information about sexual questions or asking that family information be divulged, (d) oral or written exams about genital or erotic questions (italicized emphases original; bolded emphases added).
“Sexual intercourse is a very personal, very private way for husband and wife to express their love and share in God’s power to create new life,” says BFL (ST 5/60), but the very private character of the marital act is no longer “very private” in Benziger’s pages.
Subsequent grades also include presentations on sexual activity, yet important theological topics receive little or no attention. Given the foundation of sexually explicit vocabulary taught in fifth grade and earlier, such presentations on sexual activity in an open, coeducational atmosphere can be an occasion of sin for students, particularly boys as they progress into adolescence:
During puberty, the psychological and emotional development of boys can make them vulnerable to erotic fantasies and they may be tempted to try sexual experiences. . . . The parents’ task of informing and instructing is necessary, not because their sons would not know about sexual reality in other ways, but so that they will know about it in the right light. . . . In this way sons will also learn the respect due to women (TMHS, no. 93; cf. no. 133; italicized emphasis original; other emphases added).
Principle 3: BFL fails to recognize adequately that the primary obstacle to chastity is not ignorance of the mind, but rather our weakness resulting from our fallen nature and personal sins. The program tends to inform sinners rather than help form saints: “Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action, and morals” (Catechism, no. 407; emphasis added). Benziger acknowledges the existence of original sin, yet reveals a poor understanding of this crucial moral concept in its explicit sexual discussions for children.
The 1978 BFL program was declared unfit because it did not “place the mystery of human sexuality in the Mystery of Christ and His redemptive deeds” (Report of the Committee For Doctrine of the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.).
The treatment of original and personal sin remains lacking in BFL’s 3rd edition. The result is a naturalistic perspective that permeates the entire series, despite the “God language” that makes the material appear harmless. BFL weakly defines original sin as “selfishness, the tendency to reject the responsibilities of love” (ST 7/54). The teacher’s manual has a better treatment, but it too is inadequate:
Original sin refers to the personal sin of Adam and Eve and to the effects of that sin on all other beings. Because of their sin, the first humans lost the choice to pass on to us the life of personal harmony, love, and justice that God instituted for us (TWA 7/54).
In an important, related doctrinal matter, BFL misdefines the human soul, teaching that “God created humans with a body and a soul. A soul is God’s everlasting life within us” (ST 4/60 and 4/76; emphasis added). The authors confuse the possession of an immortal, spiritual soul with sanctifying grace. It is sanctifying grace that is God’s own divine life within us (cf. Catechism, nos. 362-67).
This treatment fails to teach the revealed truth that the condition of original sin involves being conceived without sanctifying grace in the soul. Catholic teaching is clear in affirming that:
it is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin (Pope Paul VI, Credo of the People of God, no. 16; Catechism, no. 419).
The concept of spiritual battle is unfortunately greatly downplayed in BFL. “The world, the flesh, and the devil” receive a single mention in TWA 7/45—not in any of the student’s texts—and such minimal treatment is tangential to the overall naturalistic, Pelagian (lack of emphasis on God’s gracious assistance in salvation) character of the series.
A naturalistic, this-worldly perspective undermines the Catholic doctrine of the fall and redemption, which teaches that children too are sinners who need sanctifying grace and the benefit of other salvific aids which the Church dispenses. BFL’s deficient presentations on original sin and the seriousness of sin, combined with its explicit sexual information, physiological and otherwise, have caused great concern among parents. There is an understandable fear that weakened wills and disordered passions might be adversely affected. Furthermore, sin is devalued when mortal sin is not stressed as something leading to damnation. Hell and purgatory are not even addressed, as affirmed by the terms’ absence in the Teacher’s Resource Book Glossary, which “defines the important terms in the Benziger Family Life Program,” and which appears in each grade’s TRB (see, for example, TRB 7/92).
Typical of BFL’s inadequate response to the spiritual danger of “impurity”—the word never appears in BFL—is the comment found in the seventh-grade TWA: “Sexual desire is a yearning to be sexually active. . . . A young person struggling with sexual desire can keep himself or herself busy. He or she can also pray for strength to remain chaste” (TWA 7/48; emphasis added). Note the word “can” rather than “must.”
BFL’s imprudent treatment of sexual matters extends to its classroom activities. Teachers are directed to “show material that is good and wholesome and some that you would consider sleazy or provocative (but not pornographic). Include Catholic family magazines, supermarket tabloids, and jackets of popular videos and CDs” (TWA 5/38; emphases added). This exercise is designed to “remind” students that the media are “not neutral” in giving messages. Yet, material need not be pornographic to be an “occasion of sin,” another important term not treated in BFL. And one need not examine sleazy and provocative photos of scantily clad men and women—e.g., from Cosmopolitan, Sport’s Illustrated’s “swimsuit issue,” and Calvin Klein ads—to learn about modesty in dress and the perils of imprudent media consumption.
Another classroom activity advises teachers to bring in “four of five magazines that are directed to teenagers.” Groups of students are then asked “if any of the advertising seems to present males as sex objects.” Students are also asked “to discuss what they think the attitude in these ads is toward the human reproductive system. Let groups share the ads they find and explain their conclusions.” Students are also assigned “to interview a parent, or other adult they feel close to, on how the adult first learned the facts of the human reproductive system. Schedule a time for the students to share what they have learned” (TWA 5/38; emphases added).
The words of eminent theologian Father John Hardon, S.J., are insightful:
It can be said that instead of educating the young in Christian chastity, many are being trained in the practice of non-Christian sexuality. . . . Venereal terms must be learned and their meanings memorized. Pictures and sketches, examples and illustrations, physiological details—preoccupied with sexual activity—are the staple diet of young children being re-educated. What is missing is the prudence that characterizes true Catholic instruction. What is obvious is indifference to the moral effects of imprudent sexual stimulation” (The Catholic Faith, November-December 1995; emphasis added).
Principle 4: Benziger Family Life ambiguously presents official Church teaching on marriage and family, specifically regarding contraception. Despite noting the Church’s opposition to contraception (ST 8/57), BFL merely says “the Church teaches” that contraception is “morally wrong,” while other sexual sins like adultery, pornography, rape, and incest are unambiguously presented as “sins” and “sinful” (ST 8/56, ST 7/54-57).
In addition, the program recommends the works of others who dissent from Catholic teaching on marriage and family. For example, BFL specifically recommends Fr. Kenneth Overberg, S.J.’s “Birth Control and the Conscientious Catholic” (TRB 8/110), which says contraception is morally justifiable for married couples (Catholic Update, St. Anthony Messenger Press, 1983). In contrast, the Church teaches that contraception is an intrinsic moral evil, a violation of the intimately bound love-giving and life-giving aspects that God inscribed in the marital act (cf. Catechism, no. 2366, and Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, especially nos. 12, 14, 15, 17, 18). Pope Paul VI noted that contraception and a contraceptive mentality would have grave societal consequences in his prophetic 1968 encyclical (Humanae Vitae, no. 17).
BFL also contains a troubling reference to children, whom Scripture refers to as an unmitigated blessing and occasion of hope: “We are going to have a new baby. How do you feel?” The listed responses are: “A little glad. A little sad. A little mad” (ST 1/37). BFL fails to form children properly about the God-given gift of children (Catechism, nos. 1652, 2373). This statement reflects the world’s attitude of fear concerning children, rather than Christ’s message of hope.
Parents, in sending their children to Catholic schools, have the right to insist that the teachers, particularly those involved in moral formation, are “outstanding for their correct doctrine and integrity of life” (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 803.2; see also Vatican II, Declaration on Christian Education, no. 8). Unfortunately, that has not been the recent experience of many faithful, concerned parents. Conversely, many faithful religious educators have not had the support of parents who are likewise committed to sound Catholic doctrine.
Surveys report that at least 50% of American Catholics reject some aspect of the Church’s teaching on sexual morality. Even assuming the average Catholic school teacher is twice as likely to be faithful, that still leaves one-fourth of all Catholic school teachers with a serious problem when it comes to education in chastity. Why would a youth, driven by so many different voices and impulses, look to the Church as the one, sure guide to faith and morals, when the teacher is not convinced of that fact? Particularly if the authors of the program have taken public positions opposing Church teaching?
This brings us back to the central role of the parents. Even the best of programs are limited. The most critical element of a child’s spiritual formation, including chastity education, takes place at home, in the “domestic Church.” This is the place where the child not only receives instruction, but experiences firsthand how Christian love manifests itself in the family. Therefore, the primary focus must be on the formation and education of parents. That way, parents are placed in a positive, active role in their children’s education, and are not marginalized or left with the role of “critic” or “censor” of a school program. This empowerment of parents is not only best for their children, but it frequently will lead to a deepening of their own chaste commitment to Jesus Christ and His Church.
Recommended Reading:
The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality; Pontifical Council for the Family
Educational Guidance in Human Love; Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Veritatis Splendor; Pope John Paul II
Familiaris Consortio; Pope John Paul II
Evangelium Vitae; Pope John Paul II
Letter to Families; Pope John Paul II
Faith and Life grade school catechism series
Building on Solid Ground; Rev. Thomas Williams, L.C.
Why Humanae Vitae was Right: A Reader; Janet E. Smith, ed.
Marriage: The Rock on Which the Family Is Built; William E. May
Catholic Education: Homeward Bound; Kimberly Hahn and Mary Hasson
Becoming a Catholic Family; Scott and Kimberly Hahn; audiotape series
To order, call Benedictus Books toll-free: (888) 316-2640. CUF members receive a 10% discount.
Related Faith Facts:
• Chastity Begins At Home: Parental Rights and Chastity Education
• “Pure Biology”: Effective Chastity Education
• Following Our Bishops
• The Theological Virtue of Faith
© 2004 Catholics United for the Faith
Date created: 4/22/2004
Date edited: 9/26/2007
Associated PDF File: Download Here
You may need to obtain a free copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader to use this PDF file.
|
