Are Catholic school closings linked to Sparks' Sex Ed Program? (Diocese loses 900 pupils in one yr)

The Wanderer, national Catholic weekly newspaper | January 31, 2002 | Rick Hevier

[passive1]

Syracuse, NY - The Diocese of Syracuse on January 16th announced that four more Catholic schools in the city of Syracuse would close, bringing to a total of nine schools that have closed since Bishop James Moynihan announced the diocese would implement Fr. Richard Sparks' pre-adolescent Growing in Love sexual catechesis series. 

Diocesan officials claimed the schools were closing because of demographic factors, rising costs, and declining parish income.  "The reality," said Bishop Moynihan, "is that we simply have too many school buildings for our shrinking population and we must be financially responsible to the whole diocese." 

"I'm grieving," added Auxiliary Bishop Thomas J. Costello, superintendent of diocesan schools from 1960 to 1975, who was a major promoter of sex education in Catholic schools, and who has seen enrollment slump from 35,000 student in 96 diocesan schools to 12,000 in 39 schools.  "Oh, for the good old days," he lamented. 

In addition to the four schools that will close in Syracuse, diocesan officials announced January 11 that two Catholic schools in Binghamton would close at the end of the year.  Since the start of the Growing in Love sex ed controversy, the diocese has announced the closings of nine schools (amounting to about 1/7th of closings nation-wide).  Before the school year began, the diocese lost 900 students from the previous school year, amounting to 1/18th of the entire national decline in enrollment in Catholic schools. 

From 1970 top 2000, the diocese has lost almost 65% of its enrollment, compared to 40% nationally (from 35,000 pupils to 12,000 pupils, even though the population has declined only 3%.  Do shifting urban-suburban demographics explain the meltdown?  Of course not.  Over the past three decades the enrollment crisis in the Diocese of Syracuse has been more severe than in the nation as a whole. 

In what must have surprised diocesan officials, the Growing in Love controversy received significant news coverage and much outrage in the Catholic community.  The diocese had always attempted to characterize the controversy as the concern of only a handful of Catholics.  It was reported that the communications director for the diocese stated that the bishop had received only a dozen or two letters of complaint, despite the fact that on December 19, 2000 parents in the Southern Region of the diocese alone hand-delivered to the bishop more than 150 letters from Catholics begging him to not proceed with the Growing in Love sex education curriculum. 

More than 600 signed the mandatum forms appointing this writer as their representative in the canonical appeals within the Catholic Church.  In the school this writer's son attends, nearly one-third of the entire school (outside of kindergarten and pre-kindergarten) opted out of the program with just 18 days of effort that was cut short when the school jump-started the program by several weeks, with the permission of the diocese. 

At the initial diocesan presentation on November 1, 2000, the 150 parents in attendance at Most Holy Rosary in Syracuse were in an uproar, while the principal of Blessed Sacrament fainted in mid-sentence.  About 120 Catholics attended a candlelight vigil on a Sunday night last winter in subzero weather. 

The furor over sex education in elementary schools resulted in cancellations to the bishop's Heritage Fund Campaign and led the diocese to prepare a form letter to send to contributors that defended the use of the sex ed program.  Then, the superintendent of Catholic schools sent a three-page letter to each pastor in each parish of the diocese admonishing the "small" group of parents opposed to pre-adolescent sex education.  This was followed by a similar three-page letter, sent home with all Catholic school children, along with a stepped-up marketing campaign. 

Further, the diocese added that it would not permit the use of two of the four Growing in Love texts (family text and teacher's program resource guide), and stated that teachers would not share the sex content from the teacher's manual (notwithstanding that the diocesan sex education guidelines do not spell this out).  [Many schools chose to implement the 7-day CCD model vs. the 7-week Catholic school model] 

In my belief, the U.S. bishops' commitment to sex education has caused a paradigm shift in the Catholic schools' monopoly as the prime supplier of Catholic education.  More and more of their customers (particularly devout Catholic parents) are abandoning them in favor of the growing Catholic home schooling movement, the new phenomenon of independent, private Catholic schools, or public schools while supplementing religious instruction with new home-school programs. 

In the fall of 1997, Catholic school enrollment in parish and diocesan schools was less than 2.2 million, or about two-fifths of the enrollment in 1964, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, table n. 267: http://www.census.gov/prod/2/gen/96statab/educ.pdf, using data derived from the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA), Washington, D.C.  By 1998, the U.S. Catholic population rose to about 62 million, an increase of about 38% in the same time period, again according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (June 4, 1999). 

In the 1997 school year, approximately 340,000 Catholic students attended about 850 private Catholic schools, according to the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education, August 1999 statistical analysis report of the Private School Universe Survey, 1997-1998.  By the fall of 1999, Catholic school enrollment in parish and diocesan schools fell another 32,000 students in two years.  But over 368,000 Catholic students attended nearly 900 private Catholic schools, an increase of about 28,000 students in two years, reported the National Center for Education Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education, August 2001, statistical analysis report of the Private School Universe Survey, 1999-2000. 

Private Catholic schools, a relatively new phenomenon, now comprise about 15% of overall Catholic school enrollment.  From the fall of 1997 to the fall of 1999 overall private school enrollment increased slightly.  In an article in The Washington Post, October 10, 2001, title, "Private Schools See Enrollment Surge," Catherine Gewertz report, "Catholic schools' share of the total (private school enrollment) had fallen from 54% in 1989 to 48% in 1999."  Clearly, parish and diocesan Catholic school enrollment is trending downward; private Catholic school enrollment is trending upward. 

Amazingly, independent private Catholic schools have obtained a market share of about 15% of all Catholic pupils, about 368,000 pupils.  Meanwhile, it is estimated in a recent study that about 5.4% of home-schooled families are Catholic. (Lawrence M. Rudner, ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, College of Library and Information Services, University of Maryland, College Park, 1999 "Scholastic Achievement and Demographic Characteristics of Home-School Students in 1998." Education Policy Analysis Archives.) 

Given current estimates of the home-schooling universe population, Margaret Hadderman wrote in Trends and Issues: School Choice - Home schooling, that the number of home-schoolers has reached 1.23 million, or 3.6% of the total number of school-age children.  By extrapolation, Catholic home-schooled pupils comprise another 66,000 to 91,000.  Further there is the unmeasured, but growing impact of the phenomenon of Catholic parents resorting to public schools and then home-schooling religious instruction using materials from the burgeoning Catholic home-schooling publication industry. 

Together, these three market alternatives combine for about 17-20% of Catholic students in the United States.  The hemorrhaging of the customer base through the loss of Catholic school enrollment inevitably leads to an increase in operational costs per student and an upward spiral of tuition rates - without addressing the fundamental question: Why would customers of any product or service pay more if their perception of its value dropped? 

As the Growing in Love sex education controversy continues, we should consider why devout Catholic families, the most loyal customer base of Catholic schooling would pay more for Catholic schooling that is bridled with a changed school environment as a result of classroom sex education?  Contrary to the current spin, devout Catholic families would willingly invest more in their children's education, if they perceived that it was truly Catholic and respect the rights of the family. 

The Ford Motor Company did not respond to the Edsel debacle by increasing the prices of the Edsel, but by retooling to respond to the marketplace.  More advertising, without a fundamental retooling, and a new respect for customers' concerns, will fail to stem the losses, and these schools will cease to serve the Catholic Church - a tragedy for the whole school community.

 

[passive1]

Catholic parents are silently fleeing Catholic schools, often motivated by aggressive pre-adolescent sex education programs such as Growing in Love.  New alternatives, such as private Catholic schools, homeschooling, and public schooling augmented with homeschooling religious instruction are breaking the monopoly hold of Dioceses and parishes.

[HamiltonJay]

I have never heard of this "Growing in Love" program, but believe me, if I found out they were dedicating time and energy to sex education to grade schoolers my kids would be out of the Catholic school in a heartbeat. Fortunately I don't live anywhere near Syracuse or NY.

I went to Catholic school and my children will likely attend it their entire schooling lives. The quality of education is just far superior and the idea that you should live your life without religion or spirituality (and lets face it parents, you children spend more time at school than anywhere else during their schooling years) while growing up, or at the very least in an environment that is openly hostile to spirituality and religion, is inexcusable and disasterous.

I guarantee you though if the Catholic schools around here tried to impliment such a program their attendance would drop through the floor overnight... I am not an overly spiritual man, and I am not a prude, I openly answer my childrens questions on this topic with candor and honesty, I know there are many others who do not, but I fail to see how sex education in primary grades is vital or neccessary. They will grow up fast enough, I for one am not in any hurry to rush children into sexual awareness... society is doing quite a good enough job of bombarding them with it from the day they are born... I don't need teachers helping or aiding the media in that destructive task.

[hsmomx3]

Another bump for homeschooling.

[Varda]

As a parent who abandoned the diocesan schools in favor of private Catholic education, I'm not surprized at this article. I looked up this " Growing in Love" (See review here) program and I certainly would have left over this alone.
I have no doubt that the same minds who approve this program would have no problems with other objectionable educational practices.

[sockmonkey]

I am in the Archdiocese of San Antonio. At the Catholic school associated with my former Parish, enrollment dropped from 319 to 245 after implementing the Growing in Love Program. The school denied Growing in Love was the reason, but the parents who yanked their kids out, some before the end of the school year, would certainly tell you a different story.

[I got the rope]

My sister pulled her two boys out of a catholic school in San Antonio. She told me she had some disagreement with some of the curriculum. She didn't go into detail. I wonder if this was part of it? Hmmm...They are attending private school somewhere else in San Antonio.

[supercat]

See review here

I haven't read the whole review, but if the curriculum is described it is despicable; while I am not a Catholic I find it unimaginable that any even remotely sincere Catholic would allow such materials in his school.

There are certain aspects of the Catholic teaching with which I don't agree; sex by unmarried persons, for example, is not regarded as a sin per se, but (1) Deuteronomy provides that a man who deflowers a virgin may be compelled to marry her [Biblical justification of shotgun weddings] and (2) Proverbs regards non-marital sexual pursuits as foolish and futile. These, combined with many pragmatic considerations, provide a sufficient argument against premarital coitis; when a sufficient argument can be had without trying to read into scripture more than is indisputably there, I think it better to use such an argument than one based on "reading between the lines".

BTW, I wonder what Catholics make of Deut. 22:13-19 [KJV cited]:

13 "If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and then spurns her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings an evil name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her the tokens of virginity,' 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the tokens of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate; 16 and the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter to this man to wife, and he spurns her; 17 and lo, he has made shameful charges against her, saying, "I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity." And yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity.' And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him; 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

To me, that suggests that if a bride's hymen is intact her premarital virtue shall be beyond question. While there are many reasons why promiscuous oral sex is a bad idea, the quote above seems to imply that it does not cause a woman to cease to be a virgin. Perhaps someone can offer some other interpretation of the above verses?

[Varda]

I haven't read the whole review, but if the curriculum is described it is despicable; while I am not a Catholic I find it unimaginable that any even remotely sincere Catholic would allow such materials in his school.
There are many who think that they can interpret doctrine for themselves. Some would lead the flock astray. I think for many of us, we simply choose not to follow.

There are certain aspects of the Catholic teaching with which I don't agree; sex by unmarried persons, for example, is not regarded as a sin per se,
Catechism of the Catholic church (1852, Different kinds of sins) Letter to the Galatians "Now works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sourcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, factions, envy, drunkeness, carousing, and the like..."
I think it is clear that Catholic teaching is that premarital sex is sinful. If you are interested in knowing what Catholic teaching is, it is necessary to get a Catechism.

(1) Deuteronomy provides that a man who deflowers a virgin may be compelled to marry her [Biblical justification of shotgun weddings] and (2) Proverbs regards non-marital sexual pursuits as foolish and futile. These, combined with many pragmatic considerations, provide a sufficient argument against premarital coitis; when a sufficient argument can be had without trying to read into scripture more than is indisputably there, I think it better to use such an argument than one based on "reading between the lines".

BTW, I wonder what Catholics make of Deut. 22:13-19 [KJV cited]: etc
To me, that suggests that if a bride's hymen is intact her premarital virtue shall be beyond question. While there are many reasons why promiscuous oral sex is a bad idea, the quote above seems to imply that it does not cause a woman to cease to be a virgin. Perhaps someone can offer some other interpretation of the above verses?
There are others on this board who are better versed in theology than I am but I will attempt to answer. I think that Mosaic law is interpreted as a law of love (brought to perfection by Jesus). In that spirit I can't agree with your interpretation. This passage is about a crime against marriage. Any form of premarital sex is a sin because all sex is prescribed for marriage both for procreation and for the marriage bond. While oral sex may not render a woman physically a non virgin, I think this is not the real issue. Jesus came and reinforced and radicalized the law. It seems to me that simulated sex would then be judged the same sin as actual sex. The sin on the mind and heart is as liable to judgement as the sin performed physically ( Matthew 5:27-28)

[supercat]

It seems to me that simulated sex would then be judged the same sin as actual sex. The sin on the mind and heart is as liable to judgement as the sin performed physically ( Matthew 5:27-28)

If one looks in the Old Testament, the directives can be divided into several categories: (1) those whose violation is a crime whose punishment should be punished on earth; (2) those whose violation is a sin, but whose punishment is reserved for God; (3) those which constitute sound advice, whose violation is not a sin but will in all likelihood work to the detriment of the violator. Most of the directives in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy fall into the first two categories; those in Proverbs mostly fall into the third.

The New Testament, however, introduces a new notion; that a person's 'heart' matters even independent of earthly acts. To me, this suggests that on the Day of Judgement, what will matter will not be the specific things we did or did not do on earth, but rather how they have shaped our character. With regard to the specific issue at hand, whether or not sexual promiscuity among unmarried persons is sinful, it is certainly detrimental to most who engage in it and will make the Day of Judgement much more difficult for them.

I'm not trying to by any stretch encourage people to engage in wonton promiscuous sex on the basis that if they're unmarried it's "okay". Rather, my point is simply to suggest that I think the issue of whether particular behaviors are "sinful" or not is an oversimplification since Jesus made clear that absolute avoidance of sin is neither necessary nor sufficient for one to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. What matters instead is whether behaviors are apt to influence a person's character in a manner favorable or unfavorable toward salvation.

[Varda]

Interesting reply and an off topic demonstration of a detail of difference between theologies.

Rather, my point is simply to suggest that I think the issue of whether particular behaviors are "sinful" or not is an oversimplification since Jesus made clear that absolute avoidance of sin is neither necessary nor sufficient for one to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is true or else he wouldn't have denigrated the Pharisees the way he did, however,once one calls oneself a Christian, avoidence of sin is evidence of true conversion. (The law is a problem for those who are grafted onto the vine of Israel. Once you know the law, you know what sin is by reason. That sin is slavery to self. Freedom is what Jesus died for. If we manifest sin, we manifest our enslavement)

What matters instead is whether behaviors are apt to influence a person's character in a manner favorable or unfavorable toward salvation.
Behaviors and intentions that take one away from God are sins. I think the great danger of sin is that it may lead to a reprobate mind which takes on itself the judgement of what is and isn't good. The sinner who is repentent accepts the law in his heart and demonstrates fear of the Lord and also love of the Lord.

[Palladin]

It makes me sick to think that the sexually disordered and promiscuous Father Sparks is leading educators in how to instruct our precious young people. I read through the series, and it is totally objectionable. The homosexual agenda is thinly disguised. It reads like a NAMBLA manual giving directions on how to groom young children for the sexual pleasure of adults.

No wonder the Church is in such a scandalous state!

Catholic mothers, homeschool your little ones and save them from this perversion!

[Bob J]

Radio Free Republic Presents

The Banana Republican Hour

With your host Luis Gonzalez

This week’s guest:

Brothers to the Rescue founder, José Basulto

---

On February 24, 1996, three light aircraft left Miami on a routine flight. Their missions, to search the waters off the Florida Coast for rafters trying to reach the US shores, and bring them help by guiding the US Coast Guard to their location. That day in February, only one plane would return to its home base in Miami.

Tune in to Radio FreeRepublic this Thursday, March 14, at 9 PM EST, and listen to the actual sounds of a terrorist in action, murdering unarmed American citizens.

Sr. José Basulto, founder of Brothers to the Rescue and pilot of the surviving Cessna, will shed light on the events of that day, and detail how the Clinton administration withheld advanced knowledge of the attack from the humanitarian volunteer group, helping seal the fate of these four courageous flyers.

Radio FreeRepublic, fearless talk radio.

Click on Banner to hear broadcast of Show Thursday, March 14, at 9PM EST/6PM PST


RadioFR Every Thursday at 9PM EST/6PM PST

RadioFR Archives, Hear the shows you missed