Report on Father Richard Sparks' Human Sexuality Presentation
On Wednesday evening, August 8, 2001, I attended a presentation about human sexuality delivered by Father Richard C. Sparks, C.S.P., as part of a week long pastoral institute sponsored by Wadhams Hall Seminary College in Ogdensburg, New York. Considering the controversy regarding comments made by Father Sparks during a similar lecture in Los Angeles, California this past February, I thought that my observations might prove helpful.
Listening to his presentation, I found many of Father Sparks’ statements to be highly objectionable. First, many of his remarks (taken in context) were extremely sexually graphic and explicit. I saw no reason for him to descend to such base terminology and detail. Secondly, some of his comments about Church teachings can only be described as ambiguous, confusing, misleading and even heretical. Thirdly, and for the sake of our children, I cannot help but denounce Father Sparks’ obvious approval of classroom sex education and his vociferous criticism of parents who oppose such programs. This final point is especially pertinent, because Father Sparks is one of the primary consultants of Growing in Love, a graphically explicit K-8 classroom sex education program, published by Harcourt Religion.
The paragraphs that follow will chronicle my objections with sufficient detail to demonstrate that they are not taken out of context, a concern voiced by local diocesan clergy. The explicit and vulgar language utilized by Father Sparks was the most noticeable defect of his August 8 lecture, so I have chosen to address this issue first. I must contend, however, that the errors in theology were by far the most serious problem in his presentation.
Before sharing my observations, I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not opposed to discussions about human sexuality among adults who wish to explore the subject. Indeed, as Father Sparks points out, human sexuality is a far broader topic than sex; human sexuality effects “how I look at myself, others, the world, and even God from the vantage of this male (female) body…how we look at things is colored by our gender.” Human sexuality is, however, a singularly delicate, personal and private subject, even though clinical facts about maleness and femaleness are common to the human family. As Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand points out, each person possesses a unique ‘sexual secret’ that must be veiled in holy bashfulness. The subject of human sexuality transcends other human concerns because it is the very source of God’s creative power in the human race. Due to the holiness of the creature created in the Divine Image and the mystery of the human act through which God continues to create new souls to inhabit His heavenly kingdom, the subject of human sexuality can only be approached correctly with the utmost of reverence. Yes, adults can licitly discuss human sexuality, but only in such a way as to protect the private and personal nature of each man’s and of each woman’s inherit ‘sexual secret’. The terminology in such discussions must uphold decency, must be gentlemanly, refined and delicate, and must, most of all, be reverent. The prudent Christian will, in such discussions, take care to utilize terms that tend not to conjure sensuous images or sexual fantasies in the minds of the listeners; terms that will not place the listener in the occasion of sin.
Unfortunately, many of Father Sparks’ comments were brazenly explicit and graphic; indeed, sexually picturesque. I was especially outraged by the crude freeness of his remarks in the presence of seminarians, religious sisters and fellow priests. As a married woman striving to answer God’s call to holiness and purity, I was very much offended to hear Father Sparks, an ordained priest and moral theologian, subject his Catholic audience to the kind of talk one might anticipate hearing in a men’s locker room! Although I loath repeating such talk, for the sake of defending authentic Catholic Church teachings, I am compelled by conscience to present some of Father Sparks’ more objectionable comments, while carefully preserving their context in an accurate fashion with the aid of an audiotape recording.
Objection I
Many of Father Sparks’ remarks (taken in context) were extremely sexually graphic and explicit.
(A.) Pondering the topic “Specific sexual actions – an adult moral look” and exploring the questions “Do sex acts speak a language? Do sex acts have inherent meaning?” Father Sparks posed a provocative question to his audience: “If you saw a couple making love, what would you see?” Here, Father Sparks clarified he was looking for objective observations that could be seen if watching a couple making love. Some members of the audience assisted in compiling a list of the kinds of things that would be observed in such a situation: pleasure, pain, smile on face, skin gets flushed, enjoying each other, touching, physical intimacy, nakedness…The reader should note that Father Sparks prolonged this exercise in sexual imagery by lingering on each point; by discussing each point in some detail.
Further developing this topic, Father Sparks explained that physical nakedness can symbolize other ‘nakedness’ in the relationship (fear, ambitions, insecurity, “financial nakedness” etc.). He explained that in a healthy relationship, the degree of physical nakedness should balance somewhat equivalently with the degree of emotional nakedness. Father Sparks clarified that this balance, this consistency exists in relationships, thus giving his approval to intimate touching outside of marriage! His words contrast with Catholic Church teachings regarding the virtue of chastity.
In any context, it is absolutely indecent to ask the audience to imagine watching, and then to describe a couple making love. In any context, magnifying a person’s perception of physical nakedness can lead to impure thoughts and desires. Surely this exercise in imagination could easily have been an occasion of sin: for priests sworn to live a life of celibacy; for the young seminarians in the prime of their youthful manhood; for the brides of Christ – our fine Catholic sisters who should not be provoked to temptation by such graphic images; for lay people who on a daily basis must dodge the sexual images flung upon them by secular society. Must they endure more of the same from a Catholic priest? Christ asks us to avoid sexual lust (Matthew 5: 27-28). Certainly Father Sparks’ discourse and exercise in imagination may have opened the minds of some of his listeners to sinful sexual fantasies.
(B.) After ‘nakedness’, Father Sparks discussed the fact that “Genital touching is ‘risky’: pregnancy, STDs, AIDS, potential rupture or internal damage.” I could not help but notice that, like Catholic and secular classroom sex education programs (including the so-called abstinence and chastity materials), Father Sparks described pregnancy as a ‘risk’ and in the same category as disease and injury. While I do not presume it to be intentional on the part of Father Sparks, this type of reference to pregnancy is anti-life in nature, as the meaning of the word ‘risk’ denotes something bad or dangerous, in this case that pregnancy is undesirable and even harmful. While pregnancy is a natural result of “genital touching” it would seem more prudent to describe pregnancy as a blessing rather than as a risk.
We should also note that within the sphere of licit, physically intimate acts between husband and wife, there is generally no danger of rupture or internal damage. The possibility of rupture or internal damage is usually associated with sodomy or other unnatural, disordered acts. Unfortunately, Father Sparks did not clarify what type of rupture or internal damage he was referring to. He did not explain which specific acts might cause such damage. We cannot ignore the likelihood that an objective listener would logically conclude that Father Sparks was referring to sodomy or other homosexual acts.
Father Sparks continued by describing a specific type of “genital touching” – that which one encounters in a physical exam. He spoke of men enduring a physician’s gloved finger and coughing. He pointed out that women tend to consider a gynecological exam, “the stirrup experience,” as unpleasant. (How would Father Sparks know this? Is he accustomed to speaking to women about such things?) Father Sparks went so far as to describe a genital exam he himself experienced, for the first time by a woman doctor. In Father Sparks’ experience, male doctors did not examine him as thoroughly as woman doctors because of this ‘risk of touching’. Referring to the exam by the woman doctor, and raising his voice in emphasis, Father Sparks said, “I had a genital exam like I’d never had in my life! She squeezed and ….”
Again, there is no reason for Father Sparks’ words to be so crass, vulgar and lewd to make the point that “genital touching is risky”. In fact, Father Sparks could have effectively made his point by simply saying that “touching is risky.” Certainly it is true in our vast human experience that even less intimate forms of touch — a kiss, an embrace, taking another’s hand — can be (emotionally) risky as well. The fact that “genital touching is risky” is self-evident and certainly requires no expounding upon by Father Sparks.
(C.) Father Sparks proceeded to his next topic, “one person inside another person: profound two-in-one experience, plus powerfully potential/life-producing fluids.” Father Sparks pointedly explained what he meant by “one person inside another person…vaginally, rectally, in the mouth, or in the ear, or in the nose.” Father Sparks never so much as suggested that sodomy or other deviant forms of sexual expression are morally wrong; rather, he stressed these acts can constitute a profound emotional experience. He went on to speak of orgasm, an outcome of “the friction of things,” a 15 second experience he called “the best physical feeling a person can have.”
It should be noted that from the time Father Sparks initiated the exercise in sexual imagery until this topic, his language was excessively sexually explicit. We must consider that individuals afflicted with a weakness for sexual fantasies may have experienced pornographic images throughout this portion of the presentation, and perhaps even longer. It is inexcusable for a priest, a moral theologian no-less, to put anyone in this position. It is also inexcusable for local diocesan officials to allow this, especially after publicly promising to stop Father Sparks from continuing if his comments were out of line. Having allowed Father Sparks to speak in this fashion is paramount to saying that orthodoxy affirms filling the mind with sexual images and that orthodoxy encourages sexual fantasies. In light of these events, it would not be surprising to find printed pornography included in our weekly church bulletins or in our local diocesan newspaper!
Any individual who has not been completely desensitized to the sublime nature of the marital embrace will be offended by such talk. Adults understand what constitutes an act of physical love and have no need for such explicit (not to mention crude and vulgar) descriptions, including mention of sodomy and other unnatural acts, which, by the way, Father Sparks did not define as sins. Certainly all that can be accomplished by hearing such filth is a mind preoccupied by lewd images and further loss of one’s sense of the sacred – especially after hearing such language from the lips of a priest – God’s own anointed one.
(D.) Near the end of his presentation, offering “prudent insights” and “Christian common sense,” Father Sparks posed the question, “We all need love, affection, and touch, but are we willing to settle for ‘getting laid’?” Discussing this point he rather abruptly added, “When men are ready for sex, it’s six or eight inches out there; for women it’s six or eight inches inside.” He continued that a feminist might say that the woman “gobbled up” the man. He explained how a woman “spreads her legs and lets the man inside,” while for a man, the act is external.
We cannot say that this commentary enriches our faith nor that it broadens our understanding of Jesus Christ. These details do not enhance our own understanding of who we are as Christian men and women. No, these remarks only fill our minds with explicit imagery – the very type of imagery that constitutes sexual fantasies; the very type of imagery that fuels lust. How can officials in the Diocese of Ogdensburg claim that this kind of talk is orthodox because of the context?
At this point in my review, I hope I have succeeded in communicating to my reader that the context of Father Sparks’ dialogue does in no way justify his explicit, crude, irreverent, and vulgar remarks. Assuming I have been successful in my endeavor, it would seem superfluous to discuss his additional sexually inappropriate comments. Potty talk, in any context, is still potty talk.
Objection II
Some of Father Sparks’ comments about Church teachings can only be described as ambiguous, confusing, misleading and even heretical.
The theological error embraced by some of Father Sparks’ statements is far more critical than the vulgarity I have already discussed. While vulgarity can desensitize a person and damage reverence, it will not necessarily pose a direct threat to a matter of faith. In journalistic fairness regarding this controversy, I would also like to note that some of my remarks in the next few paragraphs, (which may not seem pertinent to some readers), are meant to firmly establish the context for those who may argue that ‘orthodox’ context justifies sexually explicit and lewd remarks.
(A.) Father Sparks discussed that “embodiment – including sexuality and sex – is good, the way God intended us to be not an afterthought.” God “created male and female.” Father Sparks explained that embodiment and sexuality are good, that things of the flesh are not all bad, and that sexuality is more than genital, more than about having babies, all points we can agree with. He reminded us that we will have our bodies after they are resurrected and that some people wonder if they will have their sexual parts.
Developing his remarks about embodiment, Father Sparks progressed to his next topic: “Sexuality: the bodiliness of my sense of self; how I look at myself, others, the world, and even God…” Father Sparks noted that at some point during puberty, a youth will discover that he or she is more attracted to the opposite gender, while one’s own gender will not disgust that person. He explained that some people are more attracted to people of their own gender. He remarked that a person’s understanding of God also involves gender perceptions. He correctly explained that many of the human perceptions and responses that differ between men and women are hormonal, social and cultural. He beautifully illustrated this point by demonstrating that people are likely to coo at and caress a baby dressed in pink, while, on the other hand, people tend to gently nudge the same baby dressed in blue with a affectionate fist and call him ‘Tiger’.
Because embodiment and sexuality are good, continued Father Sparks, we should deny “dualism…false asceticism” and heresies such as “gnosticism, stoicism, manicheanism, jansenism, puritanism, fundamentalism…victorianism.” While these heresies are not the same, he explained, some of them embrace the false concept that anything having to do with the body is dirty or evil.
He continued, “This is where I got in trouble in LA [Los Angeles]. I used some humor…I wanted to make a point…It’s not heresy, it’s mainstream Catholic Faith.”
He also said that he was offended when people call him a “heretic, blasphemer or sacrilegious” without engaging in face-to-face conversation with him. It should be noted that Mr. Rick Hevier of Syracuse, New York was in Ogdensburg on August 8. Several weeks earlier Mr. Hevier had written to Father Sparks, inviting him to meet on August 8 for the specific purpose of debating the controversial points made in Los Angeles. Father Sparks declined Mr. Hevier’s invitation. Also, it should be noted that Father Sparks made no mention of Mr. Hevier’s invitation during his August 8 presentation.
Father Sparks then discussed “Jesus as fully incarnate; Mary as a sexual being vs. every form of creeping Docetism.” Father Sparks described Jesus Christ as an “embodied sexual being.”
Informed Christians cannot help but note a serious error in the above comments. Jesus and Mary are not “sexual beings”. In fact, no person reading this report is a sexual being. Humans are rational, spiritual beings created male and female ‘embodied’ in physical bodies. We have sexual characteristics. The term sexual being was coined by Planned Parenthood and serves to cloud a proper understanding of human sexuality in favor of an unbalanced and unhealthy focus on erotic acts, sexual organs, arousal and self-gratification.
Father Sparks continued, saying that Jesus was fully human and fully divine, but that some people “tilt too far in one direction…”
Some say, if you tilt toward the divine part, you have high Christology; if you tilt toward the human part, you have low Christology. You can go so low that He is just a nice man that God liked. That’s heresy. If you go too high, He’s divine but not truly human…As a baby, was He [Jesus] a real baby, or did he look just like a real baby?.. He really did not know language. As an infant born in Bethlehem, He went ‘goo-goo’ and ‘gaa-gaa’ and did not know Arabic or Aramaic… In a sense, God entrusted Himself to human form… He had to be potty trained, he had to learn how to spell, how to read, how to read the Torah, all of that…
He continued:
What about the sexual realm? I don’t mean physically He had sex, because He didn’t. I’ve experienced that people who are very ill at ease with their bodies, very ill at ease with sexuality education, very hostile towards it, often also have very high Christology, and have trouble saying, ‘Well, Jesus was human’, or, ‘Jesus would have gone through puberty’… If somebody gets incensed, outraged, can’t even hear that Jesus might have gone through puberty or might have had a date, then I worry that their Christology borders on heresy.
He explained that some people misunderstood his remarks from the Los Angeles conference; that they “overreacted” and “went crazy”. He apologized for this upset and admitted that he had provoked his audience. He spoke of the “brouhaha” that followed. It is important to note that Father Sparks did not admit to saying anything incorrect, irreverent or unorthodox in Los Angeles. In reality, by declaring that the Christology of the people upset by his remarks “borders on heresy,” he turned the blame back on them. He explained that some people “think whenever you mention touch or embodiment, you’re talking sex.” Though he apologized that a controversy developed from his remarks, he admitted to no wrong doing.
Objective analysis of Father Sparks’ comments leads us to some very thought-provoking conclusions. Father Sparks said that Jesus was “fully human, like us in everything but sin.” While this statement is true, it should be noted that many Catholics misunderstand it to mean that Jesus suffered all the emotional and physical frailties the human family is subject to, but that He did not commit any sins of thought, word or deed. This concept is partially correct, and partially in error. Jesus never sinned. This we can be sure of. Though he mentioned Jesus’ divine nature, Father Sparks described Christ as though He were subject to the consequences of original sin. We can also be sure that as a minimum, as a human conceived without original sin, that rather than suffer human weakness, Jesus (as well as His mother) enjoyed the same preternatural gifts that Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall:
1. Immortality – possessing a body and a soul that would never die.
2. Impassibility—physical perfection without aging beyond the prime of youthful adulthood, no suffering of illness, no pain at childbirth, no cramps or spasms, etc.
3. Integrity—a complete absence of concupiscence, absolutely no tendency or desire to sin: no lust, no selfishness, no dishonesty, no disorders that lead to temptation or sin.
4. Infused Knowledge—Adam and Eve knew things without being taught or having to learn, for example, they spoke to each other and to God using a common language which they did not have to learn.
5. Sanctifying Grace—in a measure far beyond our comprehension.
Jesus, fully human, had all these gifts, because it is these precise gifts that make man fully human – as fully human as God created Adam and Eve. Jesus, fully divine, was already God for all eternity, and He never ceased knowing He was God, and He never lost those abilities that God rightfully possesses. Yes, we agree with Father Sparks that Jesus was a real baby. Jesus experienced nine months of gestation in the womb of a woman and He experienced a real (though non-traumatic) birth. If Jesus drooled, and we don’t know that He did, it was only because His divine nature in humility, willfully submitted to experience this aspect of human nature. If Jesus was potty trained, and we don’t know if He was, it wasn’t because he lacked the knowledge or control, but because His divine nature willfully submitted to experience this aspect of human nature. Jesus did not have to learn Aramaic, as Father Sparks suggested, because God knows everything, yet, Jesus submitted Himself to appear to learn language as any baby does. Didn’t he have to conceal his Divine Identity until His public life? Yes, Jesus went through puberty – His body blossomed from boyhood into manhood, but his hormones never raged, because that is an effect of original sin that Jesus, as fully human with impassability, was not subject to. Raging hormones are to blame for a loss of emotional serenity: to arguments with parents, to selfishness, to sexual fantasies – all of which are sin. Did Father Sparks expect his audience to believe that Jesus exhibited the same rebellious characteristics of many teenagers, or does his own Christology “tilt too far in one direction”?
We can also be sure that Jesus never dated or handled Mary Magdalene or any other woman. How can we be sure of this? Because Jesus always knew that His spouse was the Holy Catholic Church. His numerous parables about the Bridegroom and the Bride are proof of this. By insisting that Jesus might have dated, Father Sparks inferred that Christ had to discern or discover His earthly vocation. We can be quite sure that this was never the case. Jesus never had to discern marriage. It is preposterous to even suggest that Jesus had to discern His vocation as the rest of the human family must. This is paramount to suggesting that Jesus didn’t know He was God; that Jesus lost sight of His divine mission on earth. Scripture, fortunately, assures us this was never the case. When the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph found the 12 year-old Child Jesus teaching in the temple in Jerusalem, Jesus made it very clear that He understood His vocation on earth (Luke 2:48-50). Though Father Sparks alludes to Christ’s divine nature, in all these examples he speaks of a man without any divine characteristics. Father Sparks speaks of Jesus as though he were a common man bearing all the human flaws that accompany original sin.
Father Sparks continued by speaking about the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph in a similar fashion. Did Mary and Joseph ever kiss, hug, touch, sleep in each other’s arms? While Father Sparks acknowledged that the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph never partook in the marital embrace, he also stated that by today’s standards, their marriage would be “annullable”. This entire discourse suggests that Mary and Joseph did not understand who they were and what God wanted them to do. Surely, the Blessed Mother enjoyed her share of divinely infused knowledge. She knew enough to pledge her virginity to God. She somehow knew that her marriage to Joseph would not threaten that vow. Surely, God would not entrust Mary to Joseph without revealing to Joseph that Mary was actually the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Scriptures make it perfectly clear that any of Joseph’s questions about his role as husband of the Virgin Mary and fosters-father of Jesus were all answered by an angel (Matthew 1:18-21).
Father Sparks again referred to his Los Angeles presentation and defended similar comments he made there in reference to Mary and Joseph engaging in intimate touch. His statements about Jesus, the Blessed Mother and Saint Joseph have been called blasphemous and heretical by some critics. Yes, people were upset by the sexual connotations of Father Sparks’ remarks, yet we must take care not to ignore the more serious theological dimensions of his error.
(B.) Discussing the “Official Catholic Church Tradition” regarding the “procreative potential” of physical intimacy, Father Sparks rightly pointed out that the Church recognizes that “not all coitus/copulation is procreative; it is not wrong to make love during nonfertile times.” During this dialogue, Father Sparks defined concupiscence as “horniness.” In contrast, the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines concupiscence man’s inclination to any type of sin (n. 1426). Father Sparks continued by stating that cuddling and snuggling can be a “remedy for concupiscence”, that cuddling and snuggling “take the edge off [relieves] horniness.” Human experience, however, dictates that the opposite is more frequently true. Cuddling and snuggling can be a source of sexual arousal, which, if not satisfied will increase, rather than “take the edge off” horniness. We must hope that Father Sparks would not make a similar remark to teens, who might be grateful to have a priest approve of foreplay, thus giving teens an excuse for accidentally ‘going all the way.’ For unmarried people, cuddling and snuggling can be an occasion of sin that should be avoided. By encouraging such affection, Father Sparks spoke in direct contrast to Catholic Church teaching regarding chastity.
(C.) As noted, Father Sparks indicated that in a healthy relationship there exists a balance between the “level of relational depth and commitment” and the “level of physical expression.” In his opinion, the more committed a couple is, the more they are touching. The wedding night should be the next “natural step.” How much love, what depth of commitment is “enough”? Father Sparks asked. Prior to marriage, he explained, determining what boundaries to set is different for different people.
This suggests, of course, that the Church has not spoken on this matter, when in fact the Church has always taught that unmarried people are to treat each other like brothers and sisters; that intimate touching is reserved exclusively for husband and wife. While Father Sparks clarified that he would not tell teens that the third date, for example, is sufficient commitment for intimacy, it should be noted that he did not mention any types of intimate touch that are off-limits outside of marriage. His words, the license Father Sparks offered his audience, are very much opposed to what the Church teaches regarding the virtue of chastity.
(D.) Father Sparks said, “Touch, including sex, can be holy, sacramental, a wonderful gift.” To suggest that touch can be sacramental is paramount to saying that this holy touch was actually instituted by Jesus! After all, the other seven sacraments were all instituted by Christ. Father Sparks had already made it very clear that he believes that Jesus might have dated, and if He did date, and if touch is actually holy and sacramental, what might Jesus have done on a date? The inference here is obvious.
Since many Catholics are not particularly well versed in the actual teachings of the Catholic Church, we must acknowledge the very real possibility that some of Father Sparks’ listeners may be led to committing sexual sin after hearing this talk. For some members of the audience, Father Sparks’ audacious remarks may affirm what they have wanted to believe all along – that petting by unmarried persons is licit! What will the priests and seminarians in the audience think about their commitment to chastity after learning that Jesus Himself, the Great High Priest, went on dates and perhaps engaged in holy, sacramental touch with a woman? Doesn’t this give our priests and seminarians license to do the same? Thanks to Father Sparks, our priests and future priests can feel-up women with a clear conscience under the guise of imitating Christ! What about our Catholic sisters who heard Father Sparks? What about single lay people? Will his listeners think they are now free to engage in intimate touch? And how much intimacy are listeners free to engage in? Father Sparks said that Jesus did not “physically have sex” but he never said that premarital or extramarital sex is wrong. Keep in mind that “touch, including sex, can be holy.”
Near the end of his talk, Father Sparks said that the teachings of the Church “at times, may be too BLACK & WHITE,” which to some listeners may suggest that Church teachings are unreasonable and too rigid. He continued by saying that “society’s reverse applications have too often been equally WHITE & BLACK….In the grey in between, BE CAREFUL (full of care), BE PATIENT (don’t rush to bed), BE RESPECTFUL, and BE HONEST (w/ self and w/others).” While he did tell his audience not to hurry to bed, he did not tell them not to go to bed at all if they are not married. He did not reinforce the Church’s teachings about chastity.
Despite the many diverse points discussed by Father Sparks, a critical listener may find himself unsure of the fundamental message of this presentation. As noted, Father Sparks communicated both directly and by inference. Though he had a number of closing remarks, he did not conclude by summarizing his message. It stands to reason that listeners could sift through Father Sparks’ many statements and conclude they are free to enjoy any degree of sexual license they desire, including sodomy and other unnatural acts.
Objection III
Father Sparks approves of classroom sex education and vociferously criticized parents who oppose these programs.
The Catholic Church forbids classroom sex education (see Christian Education of Youth by Pope Pius XI, December 1929; and The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family, December 1995). Father Sparks’ approval of classroom sex education is of particular concern to parents and to other individuals who are obedient to the Church’s official ban on classroom sex education and who are concerned about the moral and spiritual welfare of our children. Father Sparks himself is one of the co-designers of the extremely explicit K-8 Growing in Love. This ‘Catholic’ so-called ‘family life’ program explains even sexually perverse acts to very young children.
At his Wadhams Hall Seminary College presentation, Father Sparks stated that the Christology of people who criticize classroom sex education “borders on heresy.” In addition, in his book Contemporary Christian Morality published by Crossroad Publishing Company, Father Sparks wrote, “There is nothing inherently wrong with formal sexuality education, despite the rather vocal protests of some on the far right of various Christian denominations” ( p. 86; bold emphasis added).
The mere fact that officials of the Diocese of Ogdensburg allowed Father Sparks to speak at the local seminary, suggests approval of Father Sparks’ book and of his heinous Growing in Love. Most of the Catholic elementary schools within this diocese already expose innocent, prepubescent children to explicit “Catholic” sex education programs. It should be a concern to local Catholic parents and educators, that Growing in Love could conceivably appear in local classrooms very soon only to confuse and pervert our children.
© Copyright 2001 Aletheia Press
This document may not be published in print media or by electronic means without express written permission of the publisher. To contact the publisher, for additional copies of this article, and also for chastity education critiques and for pamphlets suitable for Catholic teens and young adults regarding chastity, peer pressure, dating, marriage, contraception, abortion other topics, please visit www.aletheiapress.com.
This item 6164 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
