Amid objection of CBCP, DepEd is implementing on pilot basis sex education in 160 elementary and high schools starting this month. A few years ago the education department made a similar move but decided to shelve the project due to strong objections from various sectors. Will this initiative push through this time?
Sex education is a controversial initiative. It’s a regular feature in American and European schools but not in Asia. The reason could be that Asian culture is not as permissive as that of Western countries insofar as sex practices are concerned.
In our country the major source of objection to sex education comes from the Catholic Church. Through the CBCP, it has expressed its concern that teaching sex and sexuality is counter-productive to the teaching of values, particularly the values of modesty, chastity and morality as articulated in the Ten Commandments.
Among the many documents issued by Rome on sex education the TMHS (The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education with the Family) stands out as the most definitive and comprehensive in its pronouncements. Among others, TMHS declares that sexuality has been part of God’s plan from the beginning and that it is inextricably related to love and life and to lifelong self-giving, whether in marriage or in celibate chastity. Sin, however, makes a person misuse his sexuality for which reason he is called to a life of chastity whatever his state is. TMHS adds: “Every human person knows by experience that chastity requires rejecting certain thoughts, words, and sinful action”.
Considering the sensitivity of this subject matter, how should education in chastity be carried out? The Church believes that it should be done “in the heart of the family”. Parents are the best persons to impart to children wholesome concepts on sexuality because they are privy to the growth and “latency period” of the latter. Awareness of the appropriateness of informing children facts on sex and reproduction is critical because if given at the wrong period such learning is harmful to the young.
For this reason, the role of the teachers in this task is merely “supplementary”, and even under such arrangement they are to be subject to the close supervision of parents, particularly insofar as the content and methodology of the lessons are concerned. More emphatically, this papal issuance says that teachers must not “interfere with the child’s right to modesty and chastity”. If they do and if parents believe their children are learning concepts contrary to Christian morality, they should withdraw these young learners from the schools.
The following are the working principles of TMHS: “1) Human sexuality is a sacred mystery and must be presented according to the doctrinal and moral teaching of the Church, always bearing in mind the effects of original sin, 2) Only information proportionate to each phase of their individual development should be presented to children and young people, 3) No material of an erotic nature should be presented to children or young people of any age, individually or in a group, 4) No one should ever be invited, let alone obliged, to act in any way that could objectively offend against modesty or that could subjectively offend against his or her own delicacy or of privacy”.
These principles as well as the many encyclicals of the Church on the subject are the bases of CBCP’s objection to DepEd’s sex education program. Will DepEd listen? Lately, Malacañang advised the education office to consult the bishops before embarking on this project, but it seems this is not happening. In fact, the order has been issued to teach this subject starting the opening of classes this month. Consult the bishops, indeed. And consult the parents too. Parents have the right to know what stuff their children learn in school. If they believe that their kids are learning something harmful to the latter’s wholesome growth, they have the right to object. Sex education may seem okay for educators, but what about the parents, is it okay for them too?
From the point of view of sociologists and health officials, teaching children elements of reproduction and sexuality may be an urgent concern. But there are other aspects of this initiative that have to be considered and one of these is the learner’s spiritual welfare. This is a vital concern because every child is a composite of physical and spiritual attributes, and education to be effective must touch both. Were it to attend only to the individual’s secular interest, the process would be lopsided and incomplete.
Filipino educators are therefore called upon to be sensitive to the religious persuasions of their clients in schools. Without such sensitivity they would be embarking on a teaching-learning adventure which is anathema to the aspiration of the people.