Pope Pius XI condemned coeducation in his Encyclical DIVINI ILLIUS MAGISTRI (1929) saying:

68- False also and harmful to Catholic education is the so-called method of "coeducation".

If coeducation was false and harmful in 1929 why is it permitted today in Catholic countries , in Catholic Schools and Universities?

Is there a posterior document that suppresses this teaching of Pius XI?

Enrique

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 25, 2002

Answers

--@--

-- Enrique Ortiz (eaortiz@yahoo.com), August 25, 2002.

Enrique --

This site has documents many of the changes in Roman Catholic teaching in recent years:

http://www.greatfacade.com

http://www.greatfacade.com/Sample%20Chapter.html

-- Steve Jackson (SteveJ100@hotmail.com), August 25, 2002.

Enrique,

Do you know in what subject Pius XI was refering to? If it was sex- ed, I totally and unconditionaly agree. But it is hard to imagine he would make such a statement about general subjects, etc. Let me know what you find. And I will look too, now that you got me interested.

Thanks for the question.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), August 25, 2002.

Hey, Steve, where were you when they handed out the brains?

You've been lurking (and occasionally invading) here for three or four years, but you still are ignorant of the distinction between discipline and doctrine? You are as dumb as they come, I guess.

You wrote: "This site documents many of the changes in Roman Catholic teaching in recent years ..."

First of all, this forum discusses the Catholic Church. I am not a "Roman Catholic," as I've told you many times.

Second, your filthy schismatic site has nothing about "changes" in "Catholic teaching." It mentions changes in Catholic disciplinary law and things pertaining to the new rite of the Mass. There is nothing about changes to Catholic teaching, because Catholic doctrine never "changes." It has been correct from "day one," and always will be, so it is not subject to "change."

You left us for months (thanks be to God). Now go back into hibernation, or I will ask the Moderator to ban you along with Jake, Regina, and Isabel.

John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 25, 2002.

Jmj

Here is at least a bit of context for your quotation, Enrique, for Jake. If this is not enough, the whole document can be read here.

"67. In this extremely delicate matter [sexual morality], if, all things considered, some private instruction is found necessary and opportune, from those who hold from God the commission to teach and who have the grace of state, every precaution must be taken. Such precautions are well known in traditional Christian education, and are adequately described by Antoniano cited above, when he says: Such is our misery and inclination to sin, that often in the very things considered to be remedies against sin, we find occasions for and inducements to sin itself. Hence it is of the highest importance that a good father, while discussing with his son a matter so delicate, should be well on his guard and not descend to details, nor refer to the various ways in which this infernal hydra destroys with its poison so large a portion of the world; otherwise it may happen that instead of extinguishing this fire, he unwittingly stirs or kindles it in the simple and tender heart of the child. Speaking generally, during the period of childhood it suffices to employ those remedies which produce the double effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon vice.

"68. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of 'coeducation.' This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

"69. Recalling the terrible words of the Divine Master: "Woe to the world because of scandals!" We most earnestly appeal to your solicitude and your watchfulness, Venerable Brethren, against these pernicious errors, which, to the immense harm of youth, are spreading far and wide among Christian peoples."
-------------------- end quotation -----------------

At the beginning of #68, note the word "also" [omitted by you, Enrique] which seems to point back to the error that a parent can make, mentioned in #67. Unless something further can show me to be mistaken, I take the pope's criticism of co-education to refer to a discussion of sexuality with both boys and girls present. I'm sure that he was well aware of the millions of Catholic boys and girls, in 1929, who were sharing classrooms in Catholic parochial schools.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 25, 2002.

I beg your pardon, Enrique. You did NOT omit the word "also." My eyes played a trick on me. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 25, 2002.

John I disagree with your interpretation. The Pope refers to sex education in 65. 66. 67. but clearly moves onto co-education in 68.

65. "Another very grave danger is that naturalism which nowadays invades the field of education in that most delicate matter of purity of morals. Far too common is the error of those who with dangerous assurance and under an ugly term propagate a so-called sex- education, falsely imagining they can forearm youths against the dangers of sensuality by means purely natural, such as a foolhardy initiation and precautionary instruction for all indiscriminately, even in public; and, worse still, by exposing them at an early age to the occasions, in order to accustom them, so it is argued, and as it were to harden them against such dangers."

Having outlined his position on sex education he then moves onto co- education in 68.

"False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of coeducation..."

When he says "false also and harmful" it makes it clear he finds co education just as dangerous as sex education. To me it is that straightforward.

Why do you believe 68. refers to sex education? I cannot see the word mentioned, nor implied. Just my opinion, based on no other reading. Ill await with interest your reply.

God Bless

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 26, 2002.

Hello, Kiwi.
The reason is what I see in #67. Beginning about midway, you can see where the pope speaks of the possibility of a parent making a mistake in the way he teaches about sexuality to his child. Immediately after this comes #68, with the word "also." I just thought it made more sense to couple that word with the previous warning in #67, rather than pointing all the way back to #65.

I grant that you may be right. But if you are right, then you are saying that the pope was expressing an opinion (if not a binding discipline) against ALL co-education. If you are going to hold that position, then can you respond to the point I made -- about his awareness of co-ed classrooms in Catholic schools (primary and secondary) in 1929. He did not move to have all Catholic kids separated by sex then, did he? Doesn't it make more sense, then, to think that he was speaking only against co-educational sexual education?

By the way, I recall seeing a much more recent Vatican document to which parents and teachers ought to turn for guidance on the subject of education in chastity and sexuality. I don't have the URL handy, though. I'll see if I can find it.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 26, 2002.

Actually, there were two fairly recent documents:

--- from 1983
--- from 1995

And here are some comments on the 1995 guidelines by a usually reliable author.
I haven't read these fully myself.

JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 26, 2002.

"then can you respond to the point I made -- about his awareness of co-ed classrooms in Catholic schools (primary and secondary) in 1929."

John thanks, again be patient with me... Im not so sure it matters whether or not he was aware of co-education classes in Catholic schools in 1929. Just because a Pope speaks about an evil or harm it doesnt mean he refuses to acknowledge its existance amongst Cathoilcs. Do you follow my logic? Im sure Pope John Paul knows that a majority of the laity in Western countries favour contraception as opposed to NFP. Does he therefore not talk out about it? No of course not. Ive probably missed something, but thats how I see it.

Blessings

-- Kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), August 26, 2002.

Kiwi, what I meant was this:
If Pope Pius XI was really against all co-education, and if he was aware of its widespread existence in the U.S. and (I presume) Europe, why do we not see evidence that he called upon bishops to separate the sexes in these schools or to convert them into single-sex schools?

We do see evidence of frequent talks and writings against contraception by Pope John Paul II, since he knows of the widespread sinning of this kind. Why not something similar (or even more forceful) from Pius XI? Couldn't it be that he really was not against all co-education and therefore did not strive to end it?

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 27, 2002.