Further on our ongoing discussion on Reproductive Health.
Fr. Joaquin Bernas wrote an interesting opinion about the ongoing debate about the Reproductive Health Bill 5043. He talked about the definition of abortion, religious freedom, and notably, the issue of sex education:
I would make special mention of the requirement of sex education. Sex education is a matter closely related to religious morality. Our Constitution allows the teaching of religion to children in public schools, but it requires that it be done only with the written consent of parents. A similar respect for the desire of parents should be provided for in the law. Our Constitution says: “The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government.” As for sex education in private schools, any law on this should respect academic freedom which is also protected by the Constitution.
Fr. Bernas’ full article is here.
The way Fr. Bernas alludes to “academic freedom” and “consent” is to my mind an implicit argument that a child’s sex education ought to be optional, depending on the parents. His basis: sex education and religious morality are intertwined. His support: religion needs consent, so should sex education.
I personally wonder if parents who send their children to religious private schools in the Philippines (arguably for the superior education) can really opt out of theology class. Moot argument?
Interestingly, the faculty of the Ateneo de Manila (of which Fr. Bernas is also a part of) have a more definite opinion of sex education:
“In sum, although our youth are having their sexual debut at increasingly younger ages, they do so bereft of sufficient knowledge on reproductive health, particularly the consequences of early and unprotected sex. Curious and eager to know more about sex, they seek information from unreliable sources like their peers and pornographic materials, unable as they are to get that from socialization agents like their family or school,” the teachers said.
“Worse, some of them learn about sex from actual experience, without fully knowing how one could get pregnant or contract sexually transmitted diseases. Access to accurate and appropriate information and services on many aspects of sexual behavior, reproductive health, and sexuality is thus needed by our adolescents and youth, in light of increasingly risky sexual behavior among a significant number of them.”
The faculty’s full article here.
Between the two opinions above, it seems that the argument is to give parents the option to make their children ignorant of sex, or knowledgable of sex–but at risk of immorality?
Something doesn’t add up.
The Jesuits educated Rizal in his youth, thinking he would become like them. They didn’t realize he was learning how to think for himself. So they murdered him in 1896 and made up a story about him “retracting.”
It’s funny now how, when even their faculty rebels, they suddenly rediscover and demand “respect for academic freedom” for the child abuse that is called catechism class.
That is the Catholic Taliban for you.
Academic freedom is a misnomer–since the intention behind the message is to uphold the outdated and dangerous thinking that sex should be taboo, and any knowledge leads to immoral behaviour.
This not only results in children learning about sex by other (less appropriate) means, but also inadvertently results in poor population control.
The culprit: Moral codes are held as absolute by the Church, but inevitably these codes have changed over time–along with society, but many conservatives have trouble grapling with change, even necessary change. The value judgements surrounding this issue are piling up, but like any law it should be taken apart and smoothened to make it not just palatable to the tastes of many but still retain its essence and effectiveness.
Sexual curiosity starts to develop as early as 10-12 years old. If parents and schools are not open to teaching sex to young people, the kids will just look for another medium like internet, books, friends. This might be more dangerous if not properly guided by parents. Fathers should teach their sons to masturbate until they are ready for actual sex with protection. Mothers should do the same to daughters.
My grandmother got married at 14 and had been sexually active before she had her menstruation at 16. Is she any more moral than a single 25 year old girl who fucks her boyfriend now?
Yes. it is the parents responsibility to teach sex education to their children.
But how many of the parents now are doing their responsibility in teaching their children sex education?
Probably just a few! majority of them either don’t have time because they are busy with economic survival, there are many children to feed and other reasons or
they are not capable and feels awkward and uncomfortable to teach sexuality education to their children! I have a friend who is a doctor who told me, it was easy for her to teach other young people about Sex Education ( in her NGO) but not to her daughter. She was worried then because she was close to her boyfriend, and her husband who is also a doctor has been hesitant just like her!
just a reminder – it is AGE – APPROPRIATE comprehensive reproductive health education, it will include VALUES!
it would be very important for our young people to form those values earlier, including sexual values and to decide “intelligently and responsibly” they have to be accountable of the CONSEQUENCES of their decisions and actions!
so, formal sexuality education would be a lot better than just knowing from their barkada or thru the various media outlets, internet etc.
Please remember also that most of the teachers are parents themselves, who can be better trusted than the barkada of your children!