The pediatric medical office was bright, if sterile and antiseptic looking. A fish tank stood in the center of the waiting room, drawing attention from young patients. The walls were decorated with a lone poster, depicting laughing teens socializing. Block letters blared out the message. “HEY TEENS -- KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!” In fine print, the poster proclaimed “Once you reach age 13, you have certain privacy rights when talking to your doctor. Any questions? Ask your provider.” Before routine check-ups, teenagers are handed an iPad with a digital form designed to elicit information about the teenager’s sexual activity, drug use, and mental health. Teens are told to fill the questionnaire out on their own. Parents are not told how their child answered these sensitive questions—nor is there a sign informing parents of their rights to direct the upbringing of their children.
Why would a physician even consider cutting parents out of important conversations about these matters, which have significant spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences? Recently a group of scholars focused on this question, concluding that the justification for limiting parental rights was founded on the belief that children possess sexual and reproductive rights and therefore have autonomy in any matter related to sex and “gender identity.”
While this is a legal and political claim, it is first and foremost an anthropological claim, one that arose at the very beginning of the sexual revolution and now animates the transgender revolution. It is the claim that children are putative adults, possessed of “sexual rights” and “privacy rights,” whose highest good is to fulfill (“express”) their desires related to sexual activity and identity (“gender”). At the same time, parents are cast as antagonists to the child’s right to sexual expression. The youth “sexual rights” movement frames efforts to block parents’ involvement as benevolent, righteous, and necessary to ensure the child’s autonomous decision-making, and individual “expression.” Through norms and policies, which purport to respect the child’s “rights,” then, the sexual and transgender revolutions drive a wedge between child and parents.
It is time for the Vatican to “take its gloves off.” The Church must oppose not only the beliefs underpinning gender ideology, but all initiatives to promote sexual and reproductive rights of children.
Children’s “rights” are front and center not only in pediatricians’ offices, but also in schools, where administrators and staff routinely hide information from parents. For over a decade, many schools have used “gender support plans” that spell out how school personnel will “affirm” a student’s asserted “gender identity” and facilitate the child’s desired social transition. Many schools openly admit that they will hide these developments from the student’s parents, insisting that parents not only have no right to know what is happening in their own child’s life, but also pose a likely safety risk to their own child. As one policy notes “in the interest of safety, school officials should not use a student’s preferred name or gender marker on communications sent home unless expressly authorized by the student.” In some schools, children are coached to become allies or adopt a transgender identity through seemingly innocuous means, such as school guidance counseling, school clubs and activities. Some schools are more blatant in blocking parents’ influence over their own children (at least regarding sex and identity) by refusing to give parents notice when those topics are integrated into the curriculum or refusing to permit parents to exercise an “opt out” of objectionable content. Although the Supreme Court recently upheld the rights of parents to opt their child out of lessons that undermine the parents’ right to direct the religious upbringing of their children, schools continue to secretly transition children and insert objectionable “gender” instruction in sex education classes without notice to parents, in some states with open support from state government.
Despite the growing rhetoric around “parents’ rights,” the norm across child-serving institutions still is to deny parents’ rights, at least regarding “sensitive” topics, or to subordinate parents’ rights to the purported “rights” of the child. For decades, under laws and judicial opinions that treat minors as mini-adults with “privacy” or “autonomy” rights, parents have been sidelined from their minor child’s decisions and care regarding contraceptives, STI and HIV testing, diagnosis and treatment, drug testing, counseling (with some restrictions), abortion, and now “gender transitions” in states that permit judicial bypass to parental consent laws. Schools, physicians and courts displace parents and function as substitute gatekeepers, deciding if, when, and how the child may transition, regardless of parents’ wishes. States have deemed parents “unsafe” for a “transgender”-identifying child, and removed the child from the family home because parents have refused to use the child’s chosen pronouns or to permit the child’s desired “gender” transition.
Apart from these “sensitive” issues, Western culture generally does recognize that children are not miniature adults—that they need special protection precisely because they are dependent on adults and have not reached maturity. Child labor laws, for example, exist because children need protection from exploitation by predatory or indifferent adults. Contract law generally does not treat contracts entered into by a minor as binding, recognizing the child’s lack of maturity. Similarly, protective laws prohibit sales of alcohol to minors. Yet, on issues of sex and “gender identity,” all such recognition disappears. Children are left to the influence of unscrupulous or manipulative adults. Corporations and social media giants manipulate children with relentless pro-LGBT messaging and fearmongering about threats to sexual autonomy, thereby creating a youth market for the sex and gender industries. Stripped of their parents’ protection, children are defenseless against exploitation and corruption—and fall victim to their own immature, unwise decisions.
All of this is done in the name of maximizing the freedom of the autonomous “expressive” child. But at the end of the day, the child’s purported autonomy is illusory. At every step in the process, in online spaces, schools, counselors’ and physicians’ offices, the child always is nudged in one direction—toward the state-favored moral framework. So called “conversion therapy” bans, that prohibit counselors from talk therapy that seeks to help the child feel at home in his or her body even when the child seeks it out, illustrate that autonomy is only allowed if it affirms the anthropology of gender ideology. An honest observer must ask: to whom do these children belong? The parents? or the state? As for the consequences, gender idealogues minimize the permanent harm, both psychic and physiological, that so-called “gender affirming care” causes. The sexual and gender revolutions provide numerous, tragic examples of how the state-sponsored anthropology of youth sexual rights proves to be catastrophic for the physical and emotional well-being of youth.
The Catholic Church’s response
In this environment, the Catholic Church stands out as a constant and strong supporter of parental authority over children, defending it from the standpoint of the parent’s obligation to nurture, protect and form the child. The Church recognizes the natural inclination of parents to preserve the species in a way that is genuinely appropriate to human beings. Parents are not just to ensure that children are fed and sheltered, but are to nurture and love their children, protecting them from physical and spiritual harm. The Church’s description of parents as the primary educators of the child emphasizes the obligation that they form their children morally and intellectually, that they have the responsibility to care for the state of their children’s souls and help them learn to love God and order their lives accordingly. Recent popes have warmly praised the importance of family life, in which the domestic Church functions as a remote preparation for marriage and caring for one’s own children.
In recent years, as transgender ideology swept through the West, the Catholic church steadfastly has warned about its dangers. In their critiques of gender ideology, both Popes Francis and Benedict called attention to the anthropological error contained therein. Gender ideology rejects the unity of body and soul and denies the importance of sexual difference, proposing instead a view of the person as desire and will, with a body that has no intrinsic meaning but serves as a blank slate on which to project a chosen identity to others. Gender ideology redefines marriage and family, substituting instead chosen relationships where sex and sexual difference are fluid and interchangeable. Instead of freedom ordered toward the good, gender ideology proposes a directionless autonomy that inevitably turns inward to destroy the person.
The Congregation for Catholic Education’s document Male and Female He Created Them critiques the anthropological errors of gender ideology, and offers a thoughtful description of the importance of complementarity for the child’s development. It calls for a sound education of the child, based on Christian anthropology, accompanied by formation in virtue.
But this is not enough. The Church must identify the aggressiveness of gender ideology: its promotion in school clinics, comprehensive sex education programs, and media campaigns. Male and Female He Created Them calls for creating “the right conditions for a constructive encounter” and “an atmosphere of transparency,” between parents and school, while “facilitating maximum involvement” (presumably by the family?) to avoid the “the unnecessary tensions that arise through misunderstandings caused by lack of clarity, information or competency.” Perhaps in some countries it is just a matter of “misunderstanding” or incompetence. But in the US, Canada, the UK, and other Western countries, schools deliberately have transitioned children without informing parents and intentionally have hidden information from parents. Secular schools, and even some faith-based schools, are suffused with LGBT propaganda, where “gender identities” are suggested to the child, the child is supplied a vocabulary for expressing these identities, encouraged to keep secrets from their parents—until the school determines that the parents will support the child’s chosen “gender identity,” or sexual activity—and then is celebrated for “coming out.” Dignitas Infinita also addresses the anthropological errors of gender ideology but fails to discuss how children are targeted by gender ideology. In its discussion of “sex change” procedures, it never raises the fact that since the publication of the Dutch protocol in the 1990’s, children have been the main target of these destructive interventions. Nor does it address how children confused about their sexual identity (so-called “trans-kids”) have been exploited by the LGBT movement to promote LGBT rights.
In short, Vatican documents don’t address the aggressive targeting of children, by gender propagandists. Nor, as it happens, do they discuss the destructive practical implications of gender ideology for children, nor do these documents seem to grasp the corrosive effect of youth sexual rights on families.
Why are these critical topics not addressed by the Vatican?
Several explanations come to mind, including the fact that relatively few children are under Vatican governance. More likely, those writing the documents simply don’t realize the scope of the issue. As theologians, they focus on how gender ideology affects catechesis and Church institutions, rather than how gender ideology affects school culture and practice, how it has fractured families, or the extent to which children have been subjected to these grueling, destructive sex-rejecting interventions.
Recent developments in Europe may change this, however. The European Union (EU) is considering policies that “support the development of legal gender recognition procedures based on self-determination that are free from age restrictions.” In other words, the EU is planning to compel member states to remove all age limits for changing a child’s identity. The EU also has endorsed a ban on “conversion therapies,” defining conversion therapy not only as including attempts to change sexual orientation and “gender identity,” but also encompassing attempts to regulate “gender expression.” These policies have direct implications for Catholic schools, as well as for Catholic parents. A Catholic school uniform policy that designates skirts for girls and pants for boys would violate the EU conversion therapy ban, as it would limit “gender expression.” As Italy is a member of the EU, these policies will be right on the doorstep of the Vatican.
It is time for the Vatican to “take its gloves off.” The Church must oppose not only the beliefs underpinning gender ideology, but all initiatives to promote sexual and reproductive rights of children.
The Church must oppose health care systems that shut all parents out of health care records, and schools that hide information from parents. This requires serious self-examination. How many Catholic hospitals participate in hiding medical records from parents because of the “sexual and reproductive rights” of the child? It is not clear, but nothing in the USCCB Ethical and Religious Directives warns against this practice. How many Catholic physicians and hospitals are providing pediatric gender transitions? Again, it is not clear, but Catholic hospitals are included in a recent survey of insurance data that identifies hospitals that have provided medical and surgical sex-rejecting interventions for minors. In countries where Catholic schools are publicly funded, are Catholic schools hiding information about a child’s sexual activity and “gender identity” claims from parents? Evidence suggests that some schools are. For example, one Canadian family was shocked to discover that their Catholic school district secretly was transitioning their 10-year-old daughter. When the parents questioned this, the Children’s Aid Society of Canada launched an investigation of the parents.
Deconstructing the family in the name of children’s rights harms children. Children deserve a tranquil and innocent childhood and an adolescence that allows them to mature in accordance with their given sex. Children deserve education free from ideological attempts to categorize their behavior, likes or preferences as an identity, or orientation dissociated from their bodies. Children deserve to be protected from attempts to sexualize them or to separate them from their parents’ loving guidance.
Puberty is a normal and healthy part of a child’s development, not a threat to the developing child. No child should be told that he or she might experience the “wrong puberty.” Children should not be given “how to” guides for sexual practices, or roadmaps for gender transitions, or lessons in risk calculation about sexual practices. Children should not be encouraged to make health care decisions without their parents. By nature, children are not capable emotionally, morally or spiritually of “autonomous” decision-making to engage in sexual activity. Children should never be persuaded that they have an identity that is premised on rejecting the body. Because of the push for youth sexual rights, and its expansion to include “gender identity,” children are being steered by our culture toward actions that are wrong per se, not just wrong because of their age. (Unfortunately, most opposition to gender ideology has coalesced around the socially acceptable view that adults can do whatever they please, but kids need to wait until they are 18. This leaves struggling young adults at the mercy of the cult of gender ideology and ignores the fact that mutilating your body is objectively wrong, even when the person has diminished culpability.) Moreover, early sexual activity can harm a child’s developing body. Emotionally, the consequences of such activity last for years, if not decades. For children, the virtues of modesty, chastity, and obedience are protective and pave the way to full freedom as an adult. If the Catholic Church does not proclaim these truths, who will?
In addition, the Church must realize the need to catechize parents on this issue. Unfortunately, parents routinely acquiesce to laws and regulations that limit their authority in matters of sex and “gender identity.” Many parents are uneasy about the dominant “sex ed,” but lack confidence to complain. Others see nothing wrong with it because they believe that their children have autonomy in these matters. The church has the ability to move the needle in this area, however. At the height of the transgender craze, almost half of Catholics in the United States believed that sex assigned at birth could be different from a person’s “gender.” That number has fallen to less than a third, thanks to efforts by the US Bishops to catechize the faithful.
The Church has beautiful teaching on the family, describing it as the domestic Church, and insisting that “the future of the world and of the Church… passes through the family.” This teaching contains an implicit view of the child, as an innocent member of the family who needs his parents’ guidance and protection, especially in matters of human sexuality and identity formation.
