Objection #2:

 YOUCAT gives confusing catechesis on human sexuality and end of life issues.

Confused catechesis characterizes YOUCAT’s attempts to deal with the delicate topic of human sexuality. Question 65 of YOUCAT explains:

There is no man on earth who is not descended from a union of a mother and father. Therefore it is a painful experience for many homosexually oriented people that they do not feel erotically attracted to the opposite sex and necessarily miss out on the physical fruitfulness of the union between man and woman according to human nature and the divine order of creation. Nevertheless, God often leads souls to himself along unusual paths: A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God…

The ambiguities in this paragraph will create enormous uncertainty as the text does not differentiate between same sex attraction and sinful homosexual acts of behavior. YOUCAT states that: “A lack, a loss, or a wound—if accepted and affirmed—can become a springboard for throwing oneself into the arms of God”—as if the young person with same sex attraction ought to “accept and affirm” his or her condition as “a springboard for throwing himself into the arms of God”! But no clear indication is given of exactly what it means to accept and affirm same sex attraction, and this terminology can obviously be used in an attempt to excuse immoral behavior. But God does not wish for anyone to sin and He does not wish for evil to be done so that good may come of it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states of homosexuality:

Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved… Homosexual persons are called to chastity. ⁽¹⁰⁾

Given that extensive research by courageous Catholic doctors and psychologists has demonstrated that same sex attraction is not genetically determined and can be healed, YOUCAT ought to give hope to those experiencing this condition and it should provide links to appropriate Catholic sources of information on the causes and healing of same sex attraction.

YOUCAT’s treatments of Onanism and contraception are equally confusing. In Question 409, it tells young Catholics that “The Church does not demonize masturbation, but she warns against trivializing it.” Here again, vague terminology is apparent and many readers are bound to interpret the statement about not “demonizing” certain sexual behaviors as meaning that they are not a serious sin. The bitter irony of this statement is that by NOT calling masturbation a grave sin, YOUCAT DOES trivialize it! YOUCAT’s treatment of this topic contrasts starkly with the Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which lists masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual acts as “grave sins against chastity.” ⁽¹¹⁾ TheCatechism of the Catholic Church states that “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” ⁽¹²⁾

On page 229, accompanying YOUCAT’s discussion of contraception, a side note appropriately quotes Pope John Paul II as characterizing contraception as immoral. In Question 421, the authors also recommend Natural Family Planning (NFP). But in the next sentence, rather than stating that the Church rejects all means of contraception, the text adds that “the Church rejects all artificial means of contraception” (emphasis added). With this confusing phrase, the text could be read to mean that there are non-artificial (i.e., natural) means of contraception, and that NFP is a form of non-artificial contraception! Young people could mistakenly infer that contraception is acceptable, as long as it is “non-artificial” contraception — and their whole attitude towards NFP will be distorted.

In reality, as Pope Paul VI explained in Humanae vitae, the Church condemns contraception for separating the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union — not for being “artificial.” Natural Family Planning ought to be a way of insuring the healthy conception of children by parents who want to be generous in welcoming God’s gift of life. YOUCAT’s implicit presentation of NFP as “non-artificial contraception” recasts it as primarily a method of avoiding conception rather than as a way of insuring healthy conception in a spirit of generosity. The is all the more regrettable in a catechism for young people many of whom will imbibe the contraceptive attitude without even realizing it. This treatment differs markedly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which states that “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil.” ⁽¹³⁾

In its teaching on holy marriage, YOUCAT does acknowledge the complementary roles of man and woman, but it says nothing about the special role of the man as spiritual leader of his family or of the special role of woman as the heart and nurturer of the family. Yet all of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church — and more than nineteen hundred years of magisterial teaching — have emphasized the spiritual headship of the husband and father in the Christian family. At a time when male moral leadership in the Church and in society is desperately needed, the failure of YOUCAT’s authors to even mention the traditional teaching of the Church on the spiritual leadership of husbands and fathers is a lost opportunity.

Although not directly related to human sexuality, YOUCAT’s teaching on organ transplantation also dangerously oversimplifies a matter of life and death. Question 391 supports organ transplantation after “a certain determination of death." This sounds reasonable, but the sad reality is that many organ transplants take place only after “a certain determination” of “brain death” — which is not the same as true death. Indeed, there are certain organs that can only be “harvested” while the patient is still alive. Many patients declared “brain dead” still have a heartbeat, pulse, and exchange of gas through their lungs! Why are young people not given this vital information? ⁽¹⁴⁾