She Was A Good Catholic Girl In The ’50s Who Reveals How She Rebelled.

This interview was recorded in 1989. It was one of 200 people that my team and I videotaped for our six part television series, Making Sense Of The Sixties, which aired in 1991. Our goal was to interview ordinary folk, people who had lived through the 60s in various ways and could talk about it straight to camera, without as we say in the movie business, editing themselves before answering questions. To find great storytellers my team interviewed several thousand people on the phone to pick storytellers like her. I would share her name but without her permission (and I don’t have it) she will remain anonymous. The American Catholic Church, like much of society during the 1950s, advocated for conservative behavior particularly in regards to relationships and sexual activity. These views would have been reinforced through teachings during mass, catechism classes, and possibly in Catholic schools or youth groups. Modesty in dress and behavior was heavily emphasized, as it was seen as a reflection of one’s moral character and respect for oneself and others. The Church taught that respect should be shown to parents, elders, and church officials. Obedience and deference to authority were valued. Participation in the Church community, such as attendance at mass, involvement in youth groups, or volunteering, was encouraged. The Church advocated for chaste and modest behavior when dating. Physical affection was to be kept to a minimum to avoid inciting lustful thoughts or actions. Kissing, for example, was generally viewed as acceptable as long as it was done in a chaste manner and not taken to an extreme. In the 1950s, the church taught that kisses, particularly “first“ kisses or kisses while dating, should be quick and with a closed mouth. The idea of a “closed mouth“ kiss reflected the societal value placed on chastity and modesty. Such a kiss was seen as innocent, appropriate, and respectful, as it was less likely to escalate into more intimate physical contact. Particularly for younger teens, chaperoned dates or group dates might have been encouraged to ensure appropriate behavior. The Church firmly taught that sexual intercourse should only occur within the confines of marriage. Premarital sex was considered a sin. The Church taught that the primary purpose of sex was procreation, hence the opposition to contraception, which remained in effect until today. Women and girls in particular were often expected to be the gatekeepers of physical affection, and were often held responsible for setting boundaries in physical relationships. This meant that they were often the ones expected to ensure that kisses remained chaste. Public displays of affection were generally frowned upon in the 1950s, and any kiss outside the confines of marriage, particularly in public, was expected to be modest. Some biblical passages were interpreted in a way that suggested wives should be submissive to their husbands. For instance, Ephesians 5:22-24 states “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.“ The Church, and society at large, generally taught that women should respect their husbands’ authority in family matters. Women were encouraged to support their husbands and were often discouraged from contradicting them, particularly in public. Marriage advice at the time often urged women to maintain a pleasant home, care for children, and avoid nagging or challenging their husbands. People have asked me how I got people to be so direct in front of the camera. I used several techniques. I told each subject that this was important and that it was being recorded for history and that 50 years later, what he said would be heard by people who had never lived in the 1960s and wanted to know more about it. I told each person that the viewer would know if they were bullshitting – that people could tell just by looking at their faces when they spoke. I said that what they were doing was historic and that if they were nervous, it was good to be nervous. I said that without their stories, a part of the history of that time would never be told. The responses that I got were extraordinary. There were interview subjects who cried in answer to the first question that I asked, as though they had been waiting since the 1960s (remember this was 1989) to share what they did or didn’t do and why.