Abstract
Today, in the face of cultural challenges, dramatically decreased birth rate and the collapse of marriage and family institution, there is no doubt that preparation of youth for marriage and family (PYMF) is now, more than ever, necessary. The changes that have taken place in almost all modern societies demand that not only the family but also the school and Church be involved in this process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Today, in the face of cultural challenges, dramatically decreased birth rate and the collapse of marriage and family institution, there is no doubt that preparation of youth for marriage and family (PYMF) is now, more than ever, necessary. The changes that have taken place in almost all modern societies demand that not only the family but also the school and Church be involved in this process. According to John Paul II (1981), this process includes three main stages: remote (mostly in the family), proximate (mostly at school) and immediate (immediately preceding the wedding). This chapter focuses on the proximate stage. In the Lithuanian system of Education, the PYMF is not a separate subject but is integrated mostly in moral education. In Lithuania, moral education is divided into the two subjects—Religion and Ethics. Students choose between ethics and religious education and almost half of the student population choose Catholic Religious Education (CRE) as an optional subject (Pranevičienė & Margevičiūtė, 2012). In CRE the concept of the family is based on the understanding that,
the family, a natural society, exists prior to the State … is based on marriage, that intimate union of life in complementarity between a man and a woman … indissoluble bond of matrimony and is open to the transmission of life. (The Holy See, 1983, Preamble, B)
Every component of the family as so described is today becoming a real challenge during the proximate stage of preparation of Catholic young people for marriage and family in schools. The ideology of ‘gender’ is the main cause of this because it ‘denies the difference and reciprocity in nature of a man and a woman and envisages a society without sexual differences, thereby eliminating the anthropological basis of the family’ (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 56). This is the case not only in Lithuania. There are more and more countries where marriage as ‘the union between a man and a woman’ is questioned, with 26 countries in the world having legalised same-sex marriage (Pew Research Centre, 2017). In all countries in the World, including in Europe, the implementation of reproductive rights and comprehensive sex education contradict the concept of the family as ‘open for the transmission of life’.
The PYMF, as an integral part of CRE in Lithuania, is based on Catholic sexual ethics. The problem is that comprehensive sex education, which is integrated into other school subjects (mostly in biology), strongly contradicts Catholic sexual ethics. It is very likely that this contradiction will become stronger in the future for several reasons, foremost among which, the global authorities such as UNICEF, UN Population Fund (UNFPA), the World Health Organization (WHO), as well as powerful associations such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). These organisations create policy guidelines and fund initiatives worldwide to carry out their strategic priorities (De Irala, Osorio, Beltramo, Carlos, & López del Burgo, 2014). On 25 September 2015, the member states of the UN approved the ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. These consist of 17 goals and 169 targets which nations have committed achieving by 2030. Target 7 of the third goal calls on nation states to: ‘ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health care services, including for family planning, information and education, and the integration of reproductive health into national strategies and programs’ (UN, 2015, par. 3.7). On 20 April 2013, the IPPF approved ‘Vision 2020’, in which 152 IPPF member states agreed ‘to make comprehensive sexuality education (CSE) available to all by 2020’ (IPPF, 2013, par. 8).
The Problem and the Research Question of the Chapter
The CSE and Catholic sexual ethics do not only differ on content or methods but they are two different worldviews. CSE is based on sexual and reproductive health (abortion is an integral part of it), gender, sexual rights and sexual citizenship, sexual pleasure, sexual diversity (IPPF, 2010). These contradict the understanding of the human person, human sexuality, human dignity and human life according to Catholic sexual ethics. According to Pope Francis, sexuality education ‘can only be seen within the broader framework of an education for love, for mutual self-giving’ (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 280).
Pluralism is unavoidable in today’s educational reality while the most important feature of dialogue is the preservation of self-identity, that is “to go out from oneself and consider the world from a different point of view is not a denial of oneself, but, on the contrary, is necessary for enhancing one’s own identity”. (Congregation for Catholic Education, 2013, par. 38)
Pluralism may be difficult for teachers of CRE who need to find correct and corresponding answers to students’ questions and issues regarding the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, love, marriage and family. It is for this reason that the aim of this chapter is to clarify the main anthropologic dimensions of the PYMF that could serve as a guide for teachers of CRE in their own pedagogical practice of PYMF, as well as serving as an assessment tool that would help gauge how the different programmes of other school subjects are relevant to Catholic sexual ethics. The anthropological dimensions (AD) of the PYMF are constructed as a system of parameters, in which every dimension has criterions and corresponding indicators which show whether this dimension is or is not in the evaluated content. However, it is very important to note that RE can no longer be understood as the formation of a person or the passive acquisition and reproduction of knowledge. Today it is not enough to stress doctrinal and moral issues. According to Pope Francis, ‘we have been called to form consciences, not to replace them’ (2016, par. 37). Moving from traditional education to an integral education that is oriented to the student’s life, the AD of PYMF can serve as a framework. This can happen if the interpretative creative active education takes root in the experience and attitudes of the student, thus moving from monologue to dialogue, from moralising to collaboration.
Understanding of the Human Person as a Unique Inseparable Unity of Body and Soul
The PYMF as an integral part of CRE is grounded on the Church’s understanding of the human person as an inseparable unity of soul and body. This unity is ‘so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the ‘form’ of the body’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993, par. 365). In the human person, the two different natures, materialistic (body) and spiritual (soul), are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature (CCC, 1993, par. 365). The body can never be reduced to mere matter: it is a spiritualized body (Pope John Paul II, 1994, par. 19). It is the material body that allows discourse about the human being as a person. The body connects the human being with this material world and other creations, but on the other hand, the human being differs from other animals on account of the body. This body comes to life and makes ‘the alive human being’ (Gn 2: 7) only when God fills it with his breath, which no other creation has received (Skinkaitis, 2016). The spiritual reality of the human person is revealed through his physical body, because ‘only the body, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine’ (Pope John Paul II, 2006, p. 203).
Yet it is neither the spirit alone nor the body alone that loves: it is man, the person, a unified creature composed of body and soul, who loves. Only when both dimensions are truly united, does man attain his full stature. (Pope Benedict XVI, 2005, par. 5)
According to the biblical narrative, ‘God created mankind in his own image, … male and female he created them’ (Gn, 1: 27). From the very beginning humankind is described as the relationship between two persons of different sex. It is precisely this sexual humankind that is proclaimed as God’s image (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2004, par. 5). At the very centre of being human is relationality. The human person is the only creature that is called for love and the first sign indicating this social dimension is the human body itself. It signals human interdependency and complementarity because the human race grows by means of the human body (Skinkaitis, 2016). Christian anthropology stresses that the person’s integrity is based on relationship, and therefore human nature cannot be understood only as the unity of body and soul, but as a person having unity of bodily spiritual and moral basis (Skinkaitis, 2016). This is the main reason why sexuality cannot be considered only on a biological level. Human sexuality encompasses the whole reality of the human person. In this sense, Christian sexual ethics stresses the uninterrupted existential and psychological relationship between life transmitting, or procreating, dimension of human sexuality and the love transmitting dimension that binds persons (Obelenienė & Narbekovas, 2016). Through the body, the person expresses love, which is understood as a spiritual human experience of which the bodily and visible sign of love is a child.
Summarising the above, the first anthropological dimension of PYMF is that the human person can be described through the two criterions: the inseparable unity of spiritual soul and body (its corresponding indicators—sexuality is the whole person encompassing reality, not only at the psychical level; and the indispensability of two dimensions of sexuality: expressing of love and procreation); the human body is more than psychical reality (the body manifests the person and the body can never be seen as something extrinsic to the person or an object to be manipulated).
Understanding of Human Dignity
Human dignity is considered as a strong legal category, inseparable from the fact of human existence. It is from this concept that all natural human rights arise. However, paradoxically, the term human dignity, although being part of the content of many international laws and national constitutions, is perceived ambiguously (Juškevičius, 2007). In the most general sense, the concept of human dignity can be defined in accordance with two different positions (Obelenienė & Narbekovas, 2016). On the one hand, dignity is associated with the very existence of the human being. Dignity is ‘a priori’ characteristic of being human, because the ‘dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God’ (CCC, 1993, par. 1700). On the other hand, human dignity is understood to be given by others, and/or established by the human himself. According to this concept, the essence of dignity is not defined through its reason and properties that create it but though the value of the person.
For Catholics, the basis of the dignity of the human, created according to ‘imago Dei’, may be found in the goal of creation itself. The imago Dei is expressed in a threefold manner, namely (i) that only the human person is able to know and love his creator, (ii) that the human being is the sole creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake, and (iii) that only human beings are called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1993, par. 356). Furthermore, unlike any other creatures on Earth, only humans have the unique characteristic of being ‘rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts’ (CCC, 1993, par. 1730). Every human person is thus ‘not just something, but someone’ (CCC, 1993, par. 357). Under no circumstances can the human person become a means to another person. The human is the only moral being in creation because only those who are rational and free can be morally responsible. Freedom does not arise from the human himself; it is God’s gift as the output of His relationship with the human being. At the same time, freedom is a responsible attitude towards the Good (Skinkaitis, 2016).
While in the Genesis narrative other creatures are created by the command of God that ‘let’s be’ or ‘produce’ (Gn 1: 4–24), in creating the human race God says ‘Let us make’, (Gn 1: 26). This difference elevates humanity to a completely new level because the human being is connected with God in a special way (Obelenienė & Narbekovas, 2016). Therefore, the human cannot apply the same rules in relation to another person and with himself as with all the other creations. For this fundamental reason, human procreation must be fundamentally different as well.
Just as humans were personally created by the Creator, out of His love for humanity, and were wanted for their own sake, in the same way, the human must transmit his life to his children. Different from animals, humans must give life to their children only through a personal act that derives from love (Obelenienė & Narbekovas, 2016). Only in the human world do children and parents live in a special relationship, which begins even before children’s birth and remains until the end of their lives. This means that human life has to be transmitted accordingly to human nature and in those conditions that are the most beneficial for a child to be born, grow up and develop. For Catholics this means that the origin of human life should have its authentic context in marriage and in the family where it is generated through an act which expresses the reciprocal love between a man and a woman. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2008, par. 6). According Pope Francis,
the child must be born of such love which is “the fruit of the specific act of the conjugal love of the parents”, because “he or she is not something owed to one, but is a gift”. (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 81)
This is the only appropriate way for human procreation and is the only way for the dignity both of spouses and of the conceived unborn.
The content of the PYMFL integrated into CRE has to clearly and unambiguously contain the notion that human life begins from the moment of conception. Indeed, the reality that human life begins from conception,
does not allow us to posit either a change in nature or a gradation in moral value since it possesses full anthropological and ethical status. The human embryo has, therefore, from the very beginning, the dignity proper to a person. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2008, par. 5)
Respect for human life is first and foremost the strengthening of responsibility. Therefore, when talking about the transmission of human life, the teacher of CRE must pay special attention to terms that are not compatible with human dignities, such as reproduction, or the expression of a negative attitude towards pregnancy, such as unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. No ambiguities regarding the beginning of human life are acceptable. In some cases, the CRE teacher can be the only source from which students will learn that human life starts from conception. For example, the evaluation of textbooks of biology carried out in Lithuania shows that none of the textbooks use the term embryo and only one textbook clearly states that human life starts from the moment of conception (Obelenienė & Narbekovas, 2017).
Students must learn the correct facts about the conception of biological human life and that it logically follows that pregnancy is a direct consequence of sexual relations and not of misuse of contraception. It should also be argued that sexual relations are only justified in the context of marriage because teenagers are not mature for fatherhood or motherhood, that is, they are not capable either to commit or take responsibility for another person nor are they mature in a physical sense. It is for this reason that it is better to use the term marital act rather than sexual intercourse.
The teaching of the ending of life before birth, the avoidance of pregnancy and use of contraception is directly linked to the tradition of disrespect of women. In Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI has warned that,
man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. (1968, par. 17)
Today, we need to return to the message of the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, ‘which highlights the need to respect the dignity of the person in morally assessing methods of regulating birth’ (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 82).
Discussing sexuality in the context of unwanted pregnancy or unplanned pregnancy is talking about using another person, which does not agree at all with the Catholic concept of human dignity.
Summarising the above, the second anthropological dimension of PYMF ‘the understanding of human dignity’ can be described through the two criterions. First of all the dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God. This is understood through three indicators, namely that humans are rational, are free and have a dignity, and therefore they must not be subject to abuse. In so far as the person is rational he/she can get to know fertility and control sexual desire by themselves. On the other hand, because humans are free they have free will and can decide for themselves.
The second criterion is that human dignity and human life are inseparable. Indeed dignity and life begin at the moment of conception. This means that an authentic context of the origin of human life requires that parents give life to their child directly and through the conjugal act. Procreation should only happen within a family context consisting of one man and one woman on the basis of marriage. All this is an expression of a positive attitude towards pregnancy.
Understanding Man and Woman as Two, Equal in Dignity but Sexually Differentiated and Complementary to Each Other’s Person
The human being was created as a dyadic unity and therefore sexuality is a unique way to reflect one’s own nature of being an ‘Imago Dei’ (Skinkaitis, 2016). ‘The human being exists only because, in respect of both the other human being and God, he is “in se a diada”’ (Skinkaitis, 2016, p. 426). Sexuality characterises man and woman not only at the physical level but also on the psychological and spiritual levels, making its mark on each of their expressions. Such diversity, linked to the complementarity of the two persons of different sexes, allows a response to the design of God, according to the vocation to which each one is called (The Pontifical Council for the Family, 1995). However, different sexuality does not necessarily mean one person’s superiority over another person. According to Pope John Paul II,
it is important to stress the equality of a woman’s dignity and a man’s responsibility. This equality is inimitably implemented by self-gifting to one another and to one’s children, which is common in marriage and family. … By creating ‘male and female’ humankind, God gave man and woman equal human dignity by gifting them with inalienable rights and responsibilities. (1994, par. 22)
In other words
man and woman are equally created according to God’s image. Both are persons gifted with mind and will, able to orientate their lives by implementing freedom. But both are doing it in their own way, specific to their sexual identity; in this way, the Christian tradition can speak about reciprocity and complementarity. These notions, which recently somehow became controversial, however, are useful in seeking to explain that man and woman cannot reach life’s fullness without one another. (Skinkaitis, 2016, p. 141)
When talking about human sexuality to students, the CRE teacher’s language should be enriched by terms such as persons of different sex, or man and woman, but never terms of depersonalised sex. It needs to be emphasised that ‘biological sex and the socio-cultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated’ (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 56).
Summing up, the third dimension understanding man and woman as two equal but sexually differentiated persons can be described with criterion sexual identity—masculinity and femininity—as ‘Imago Dei’ and its indicators: the human being is created for relationships as a man and as a woman; man and woman are equal in dignity; man and woman are sexually different persons; man and woman are complementary to each other’s person.
Understanding of Love
It is often believed that there is no need to develop the ability to love, and that love is given to a human being as a certain type of adventure of the heart (Wojtyla, 1994). The word ‘love’, however, is commonly used and often misused, said Pope Francis (2016, par. 89).
Love is usually identified with feelings. While researching attitudes towards love among Catholic engaged couples in all Lithuanian dioceses, it was found that the majority of respondents also identified love with feelings and passion (Kulpys, 2009).
Love, however, should be seen as something which, in a sense, never ‘is’ but is always ‘becoming’. What it becomes depends upon the contribution of both persons and the depth of their commitment and their ability to transfer their thoughts and feelings from sexual values of the other person to values of the person himself/herself. Experiences which have their roots in the sensuality or natural sensitivity of a woman or a man constitute only the material of love (Wojtyla, 1994).
Love should be created by spiritual, resolute, personal action by integrating four dimensions of human love, namely, the sensual impulse toward sexual pleasure, feelings and emotions (only at this level man and woman begin to experience the world together), the affirmation of the value of the person, and ‘to cement and crown love’s dynamic unfolding’ (Anderson & Granados, 2009). In the case of disintegration, this results from a person’s inability either to control himself or to have possession of himself, that is, the inability to love. According to Pope Benedict XVI,
“love” is a single reality, but with different dimensions; at different times, one or other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the <…> dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love. (2005, par. 8)
True love can only be the creation of persons, that is, their unity in which they gift each other unconditionally. This does not mean to lose or to sacrifice something. Giving is the highest expression of ability, and of one’s vitality. It is an experience of power and health (Fromas, 1999). Love is a reciprocal act of giving and receiving because, ‘man cannot live by oblative, descending love alone. He cannot always give, he must also receive. Anyone who wishes to give love must also receive love as a gift’ (Pope Benedict XVI, 2005, par. 7). But in order to give oneself it is necessary to be in possession of oneself, that is to control sexual desire, which is, according to Wojtyla, some kind of oppression on the other. The truly human and right attitude towards sexual desire must be based not on biological but on the principle of personalisation, which means that a person can never be used (Wojtyla, 1994). The content of the spouses’ relationship undoubtedly supposes the content of a relationship with a child, who is the result of this nuptial relationship. If spouses accept each other as a gift, the child will be unconditionally accepted as a gift.
From the human being as the indivisible unity of body and soul, it follows that ‘bodily love’ is an integral part of love. The human body with its sexuality, masculinity and femininity is not only the source of fertility and procreation but has nuptial character, that is, the ability to express love. It is through love that a person becomes a gift and it is through this gift that the person gives meaning to his/her existence (Kulpys, 2009). When love is completed in body language, the sexual act becomes an unconditional self-gifting which includes: openness to life (which is possible to be realised only when the couple is practicing Natural Family Planning), respect for another person (a person can only be a goal), and stresses the control of feelings and free participation of persons. Man and woman can only become a gift to one another if they are in possession of themselves, that is if they are masters of themselves and they control their sexual desire. As a condition for human existence and a means of love, sexual desire has a massive potential since it is good in itself, but it only becomes morally good when it is changed and personalised by a human person’s inner, psychic and spiritual powers. Woman and man can provide each other with sexual pleasure, can both be the source of this purpose, but ‘pleasure and sensual indulgence is not the good that unites people for long-term purpose’ (Wojtyla, 1994). Sexuality is not a means for enjoying pleasure, ‘it is an interpersonal language wherein the other is taken seriously, in his or her sacred and inviolable dignity’ (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 151).
Therefore, love needs to mature. Teenagers are not able to take responsibility for another person, thus chastity is the main condition for a teenager while growing and maturing in love. Chastity is the spiritual power which frees love from selfishness and aggression (The Pontifical Council for the Family, 1995, par. 16). Among all virtues, chastity ‘proves invaluable for the genuine growth of love between persons’ (Pope Francis, 2016, par. 206).
Chastity is understood as a virtue, which expresses the integration of a person’s sexual desire according to moral convictions about personal life. It supposes self-control, openness to life, as well as love, which is beyond the pressure of physical sexual desire. Therefore, chastity teaches self-control, which develops a person’s freedom. This virtue enables the control of sensual triggers by willpower and power of desire. If the motivation for chastity is not sufficiently developed and there is no emphasis placed on the person’s value, just a tendency for sexual value, which is overpowering for the will, the relationship with the person of the different sex is not formed properly (Wojtyla, 1994, p. 216). The idea of chastity for young people is needed not as a denial of their nature, but as training on how to control oneself, as an inspiring human example of what may be achieved by human will, as maturing them for their human vocation to love. Without chastity, love is not true love, because the wish to ‘consume’ is very active. For safeguarding the virtue of chastity, it is not only parents but also the teacher of CRE who also must follow the principles outlined at ‘The truth and meaning of human sexuality Guidelines for Education within the Family’ (1995, par. 121–127).
Summing up, the fourth dimension, ‘the understanding of love’, can be described by two criterions: the ability to love needs to be developed (sensitivity and sensuality are only material roots of love given to us by nature; a task that needs to be sought through the integration of ‘love material’ to the one totality of self-creation; all persons can and must learn to be masters of themselves; chastity is a prerequisite for the acquisition of the ability to love); love as unconditional self-giving (openness to life; respect for another person, the control of feelings and free participation of persons possessing themselves).
Conclusion
The principles of Catholic sexual ethics strongly contradict comprehensive sexual education that pretends to occupy the entire sexuality education arena. It is therefore very important that the teacher of CRE, in his/her pedagogical practice, is able to answer the main question about a human person, human sexuality, human dignity and life, family and marriage according to Church teachings. In some cases, especially in public schools, the teacher of CRE can be the only person introducing students to a Catholic perspective of sexual ethics.
This paper proposed that there should be four dimensions of PYMF, namely (i) understanding of the human person as a unique inseparable unity of body and soul; (ii) understanding human dignity; (iii) understanding man and woman as two equal but sexually differentiated and complementary to each other; (iv) understanding of love as unconditional self-giving could serve as a guide for teachers of CRE in their own pedagogical practice and in the process of PYMF. These together with an assessment tool would help evaluate how the different programmes of other subjects are relevant to Catholic sexual ethics. This is mainly because the anthropologic dimensions of the PYMF are constructed as a system of parameters in which every dimension has criterions and corresponding indicators, making it easy to evaluate the content of each programme and the dimensions covering the main areas of the Catholic sexual ethics, namely the human person, human sexuality and love, human dignity and human life, and procreation.
It is for this reason that the language of the CRE teacher must correspond to the anthropological dimension of PYMF.
References
Anderson, C., & Granados, J. (2009). Called to love. US: The Doubleday Publishing Group.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. (1993). Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.
Congregation for Catholic Education. (2013). Educating to intercultural dialogue in Catholic schools living in harmony for a civilization of love. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20131028_dialogo-interculturale_en.html#Anthropological_Foundations.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2004). Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the collaboration of men and women in the church and in the world. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (2008). Instruction dignitas personae on certain bioethical questions. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20081208_dignitas-personae_en.html.
De Irala, J., Osorio, A., Beltramo, C., Carlos, S., & López del Burgo, C. (2014). The politics of ‘Comprehensive Sexuality Education’. Briefing Paper, 2014. Retrieved from https://c-fam.org/wp-content/uploads/12The-Politics-of-“Comprehensive-Sexuality-Education”-revised-date.pdf.
Fromas, E. (1999). Menas mylėti. Vilnius: Asveja.
IPPF. (2010). IPPF framework for comprehensive sexuality education (CSE). Retrieved from https://www.ippf.org/sites/default/files/ippf_framework_for_comprehensive_sexuality_education.pdf.
IPPF. (2013). Vision 2020. Retrieved from https://www.ippf.org/sites/default/files/v2020_manifesto_en_web.pdf.
Juškevičius, J. (2007). Kai kurie teisės į gyvybę prenataliniu laikotarpiu probleminiai aspektai. Sveikatos mokslai, 17(2), 764–774.
Kulpys, Ž. (2009). Krikščioniškoji kūno teologija: vedybinė kūno prasmė. Daktaro disertacija. Kaunas: VDU.
Obelenienė, B., & Narbekovas, A. (2016). Human dignity as a universal moral dimension of the preparation of youth for marriage and family life. In J. Stala & J. Garmaz (Eds.), Strengthening families. Kraków: Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow Press.
Obelenienė, B., & Narbekovas, A. (2017). Evaluation of content about human sexuality and Procreation in school textbooks in Lithuania. In The European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 20, pp. 197–205. Retrieved from http://www.futureacademy.org.uk/files/images/upload/20iccsbs2017.pdf.
Pew Research Center. (2017). Gay marriage around the world. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/2017/08/08/gay-marriage-around-the-world-2013/.
Pope Benedict XVI. (2005). Encyclical letter Deus Caritas est. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est.html.
Pope Francis. (2016). Post-synodal apostolic exhortation amoris lætitia. Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf.
Pope John Paul II. (1981). Apostolic exhortation familiaris consortio. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.pdf.
Pope John Paul II. (1994). Letter to families gratissimam sane. Retrieved from https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_02021994_families.html.
Pope John Paul II. (2006). Man and woman he created them. A theology of the body. Boston: Pauline Books and Media.
Pope Paul VI. (1968). Encyclical letter Humanae vitae. Retrieved from http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae.html.
Pranevičienė, B., & Margevičiūtė, A. (2012). The right to religious education in Lithuania. Jurisprudence, 19(2), 443–458.
Skinkaitis, R. (2016). Žmogaus, sukurto pagal dievo paveikslą ir panašumą, teologinė perspektyva (Monografija). Kaunas: VDU.
The Holy See. (1983). Charter of the rights of the family presented by the Holy See to all persons, institutions, and authorities concerned with the mission of the family in today’s world. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_19831022_family-rights_en.html.
The Pontifical Council for the family. (1995). The truth and meaning of human sexuality: Guidelines for education within the family. Retrieved from http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html.
UN. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Retrieved from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld/publication.
Wojtyla, K. (1994). Meilė ir atsakomybė. Vilnius: Alka.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Obelenienė, B. (2019). The Anthropological Dimensions of the Preparation of Youth for Marriage and Family. In: Buchanan, M., Gellel, AM. (eds) Global Perspectives on Catholic Religious Education in Schools. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6127-2_33
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-6127-2_33
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-6126-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-6127-2
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)