Dr. Keyes is founder and chairman of the Declaration Foundation, a communications center for founding principles. Tune into his new television show “Alan Keyes is Making Sense” on MSNBC, Monday through Thursday, 10 p.m., ET.
But safeguarding the souls of children largely consists of protecting them from hearing about, thinking about, or – God forbid – experiencing perverse possibilities that they would never consider on their own. Unfortunately, sometimes this means that decent parents become too childlike – coming to believe that no one would seriously propose such perversities, or seek their acceptance. It is the Achilles heel of the struggle for innocence that we can so convince ourselves that certain things are unthinkable and unspeakable that we lose vigilance in opposing those who are quite ready to think, speak, and do, the most monstrous things.
Hence the perverse service that Joycelyn Elders has performed by contributing a preface to a new book by Judith Levine — Harmful To Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex. If you have somehow managed to believe that the institution of childhood itself is not under attack, think again. This book explicitly advocates the view that sexual activity among young people is a good thing, and that sexual relations between adults and children aren’t necessarily bad. And Dr. Elders has helpfully contributed a sanitizing aura of “educational” legitimacy to sugar-coat this very real poison.
What is the appropriate response to such an attack? We must, of course, unconditionally reject the spurious doctrine of sexual exploitation of children “for their own sake” with all the moral outrage that has been so rightfully directed to the Catholic priests, and others, who have already been acting on the Levine doctrine.
But we should reject it with the confidence that comes from knowing the reasons that sex is bad for children. This society has a rational moral preference against childhood sex, and we must defend that preference with coherent and compelling argument, not just with outrage. When adults speak the unspeakable, we must respond with argument.
The sexual “liberation” of children requires the denial of any connection between human sexuality and family life. It means, accordingly, the failure to school the heart, mind, and conscience of children to look at their sexual being in a way that is rooted in the mature moral possibilities of human life – the relationships, responsibilities, and commitments that are the key to genuine happiness.
The Planned Parenthood mantra that the key issue in sexual formation is “education” treats sexuality as if there is a body of factual knowledge that any 13 year old can acquire that will make him capable of responsible decisions in such matters. Nothing could be more false. The knowledge that makes humanizing sexual choices possible comes in part from moral experience that is simply not available to the young. Sexual responsibility is a crucial part of moral responsibility. That means it requires the formation of character, and of the ability, among other things, to forego present gratification for future goods. Moral responsibility includes the ability to appreciate the importance of things like honor, decency, and obligation to family, that may seem abstract in the short term, but turn out to be all important to human happiness.
It is a simple fact of human experience that the tides of passion must begin to swell before the ability to handle those passions can develop. The formation of moral character occurs crucially during the years of maturation and struggle with such passions. The proposal that young children can be beneficially “informed” about and then manage sexual practices is at best utterly morally obtuse. Whatever the “liberationists” may claim for the child, what invariably occurs is exploitation.
The first and foremost component of sex-related education must be the family itself. The first thing that children can learn and ought to learn is not about physiology, but about what it means to be a mother or a father, and the connection between moral discipline and the love and tenderness that is shared within a family. Once children are introduced to this understanding of true family life, their attention starts naturally to focus on their assumption of that role for themselves. Then, and only then, as the formation of their moral character approaches the maturity of adulthood, it becomes appropriate and fruitful to introduce them to the mysteries of the married state.
Disrupting this natural and noble sequence of human development is always dangerous, and usually exploitative. Defending its wisdom is the duty of all responsible adults. Those who publicly assault the very principles of childhood innocence need to be taken to the woodshed for some remedial moral formation.
