Health education is to visit Polish schools. The programme of the fresh subject raises concerns that, in fact, classes will service as an excuse to fix “secedification” in public schools. Her enthusiasts consider themselves friends of freedom and education. Only the naivety of modern liberalism allows them to see themselves in specified colours. In fact, exposing erotica to young people without a veil of good taste and without a moral lecture does not service full maturity – alternatively it threatens it. Why? A valuable explanation of this problem has for us Pius XI.
On the threshold of ‘seceducation’?
Contrary to the Ministry's assurances, there is no reason to believe that within the framework of "health education" schools there will be "seduction" in an erotic edition. The programme basis already outlined opens up a number of opportunities for teachers to make the subjects aware of the different ways in which they usage sexuality, both healthy and risky. With the ideological “anti-discriminatory” nature of the class, it should not be assumed that cognition of the wellness consequences of homosexuality and “sex change” will be required of students.
The fact that open conversations about intimacy are more prone to people who deviate from sexual behavior, only increases the bias of this “education”. Abraham Maslow, among others, observed this problem during the survey of sexuality. Those who usage sexuality socially acceptable, within the limits of faithfulness and heterosexual family, are little likely to talk about it than deviants and people affected by erotic obsessions.
The profiled nature of the information that young people receive is just the first of the dangers of sexual education. But is this truly entering the national system? It is no secret that supporters of specified teaching participated in the preparation of the concept of activities by the ministry. Suffice to mention the participation of Antonina Kopyt from “WEDZ for the interested”. This activist – if not activists – (it is not possible to justice pronouns so boldly in an anti-discrimination day) Education!) promotes online the slogan “sexual education is education” ...
Although this conviction sounds like a truism, it is actually false. It has the same value as the statement: ‘artificial skin is skin’ or ‘ministerial equality is ministry’. Languageally these are facts, but cognitively – already controversy. In serious, not mocking manner, the dangerous nature of “sexual education” was revealed in the encyclical “Divini Illius Magistri” by Pope Pius XI. Today, in the Holy Father's remarks, we can find many valuable guidelines. Not only do they brand “seduce”, but they besides let us to see a sneaky spirit that inspires her advocates.
"It is simply a very widespread mistake for those who, in destructive simplification, dirty words, practice alleged sexual upbringing, falsely reasoning that they will be able to prevent young people from being in danger of their senses by purely natural means, specified as reckless awareness and preventive instruction for all without distinction, even publicly, and worse, by exposing young people for any time to opportunities to get utilized to them, as they say, and as if they had hardened souls against specified dangers. They are very erring, not wanting to admit the natural flaws of human nature and the law which the Apostle spoke of in opposition to the law of the mind, and even knowing the very experience of life, from which it is in the youth that transgressions against morality are not so much a consequence of the deficiency of cognition of things as, above all, the weakness of the will, exposed to danger and unsupported by means of grace," the Holy Father pointed out.
"In this very delicate matter, if, given all the circumstances, any individual instruction in due time, on the part of those to whom God gave the educational message and grace of the state, it would prove necessary, all caution, well known to conventional Christian education, should be kept," he added.
Mature?
Today, in the words of the Holy Father, we can find a reminder of the actual meaning of maturity and freedom. What is incorrect with them is that the supporters of “sexual education”. Contrary to their own statements, they do not favour either. This "weakness of will" alternatively than "lack of cognition of things" is the origin of the top errors and misfortunes that distort life by disorderly eroticism, Pius XI noted. The thought of educating young people in the usage of sexuality, not by developing virtues and controlling bad tendencies, but by stimulating sensual curiosity and flooding of priceless details, can only consequence in youth harm.
It contributes to treating the veil of good taste and modesty as impairing sexual development. deficiency of openness to all adventures, experience, or sexual stories would prove retrograde. A akin approach was promoted by nobody another than the main “seceducator” of the planet – pseudo-researcher Alfred Kinsey. The past of his mistakes and crimes teaches the consequences of accepting a akin conviction.
This American self-proclaimed sexologist thought that the reluctance to deviate or cultural norms prohibiting obscenity was an expression of Victorian pruderia—a destructive fear of sexuality. Kinsey's aversion to openness to the “full” allegedly a scope of erotic experiences was considered negative. Hence, his investigation squad had homosexual relations, and his wife did not avoid adventures with another men. Kinsey led to genital inflammation by masochistic practices and chronic masturbation... Finally, he collaborated with pedophiles hurting children from whom criminals obtained descriptions of their disgusting practices. On this basis, he stated that the victims, before puberty, derive erotic satisfaction from their exploitation, and that the signals they sent about the harm they suffered are simply a game of appearances, under which they hide pleasure.
Can Kinsey's sexuality be considered healthy? Is this a image of liberation and maturity? Inability to separate a profession from a individual erotic life, contempt for boundaries protecting the child's welfare – it's all a consequence of accepting a distorted Kinsey logic. And it is at the heart of “sexual education”. Convincing that erotica must be "freed" from restrictions on speaking about it and practicing it...
Freedom?
But does Kinsey’s life, completely in subjection to sexual obsessions, show a free man? Sex education enthusiasts here enjoy a mediocre and naive imagination of freedom. "I do what I want, so I am free" is an highly ignorant thought. It is based on wishfulness and the halting of further, little convenient questions: “Why do I want what I want?”; “what motivates my desire?”; “Is it free?”; “Should I want what I want?”...
A more convincing imagination of freedom is 1 that, with akin questions, counts and has answers for them. I am free – due to the fact that I am moving towards good, whose value I have come to know with reason. I decide which ones to follow and which to ignore. I decide whether to submit to my desires or oppose. He organizes my will and submits it to a higher purpose. In a word – I am free due to the fact that I control myself. I myself am master of my senses, not servant of the supply of dopamine.
This more reasonable imagination of freedom demands reasonable restrictions on the experience and content it deals with. In a natural way, strong incentives – and specified are all sexually motivated ones – stimulate the pursuit of them. If it threatens to distance us from the goal, a reasonable individual will defender the consistency of his conduct and avoid being tempted. That's what a mature individual will do. The hazard of good for the hedonistic charge of the minute is the norm for those who deficiency both specified qualities.
Enslavement of Sex Education
Thus, educating young people to usage their sexuality freely is not about breaking the veil of decency and opposition to frivolous conversations about eroticism. They are protecting freedom and maturity – they are guarding the regulation of man over their own tendencies. Naturally, as long as the “seceducator” does not want to “enlighten” them and effectively encourages them to overcome these supposedly “cultural restrictions”.
Such activities are labored with painful effects. Its cost is simply a increasing population of “Kinseys”. However, people who are truly "sexually educated" are the opposite. The cognition and sexual awareness they are curious in is the 1 that allows you to best have yourself in order to build an open and educational task, a unchangeable family. It's a task to which the erotic side of our nature refers... Promoting “sexual liberation” that threatens or discourages him is not education. He's depraved.
Philip Adamus
