HOW DARE YOU, BISHOPS!

"How dare you, bishops!” should be screamed from the rooftops, carried on placards, written across billboards, in newspapers on talk shows and anywhere parents can be seen or heard.  The bishops cure for child abuse is to abuse the children in the classroom. 

The callous, self-serving bishops, publicly exposed for concealing homosexual priests who have abused children, are attempting to appear contrite, reformed, concerned and “doing something” to fix the criminal acts covered up and facilitated by them for so many years.  Tragically that “something” is to further molest the minds of children in the classroom by again expanding the sex instruction.  

Even more incredulous with these programs, children are being familiarized with sodomy at a very young age as if to indoctrinate youngsters that sodomy is neither sinful nor criminal. And that’s not all! These programs place a wedge between parents and children as they teach children to be especially suspicious of family members.  

Of all things these “pious” frauds have the audacity to call these programs by such names as “Safe Environment,” “Protection of God’s Children,” “Prevention of Child Abuse” or simply as “child safety.”  Entire programs are being built around this issue.  A telling example is the Boston Archdiocese “Talking about Touching” sex abuse program.  For many years the Boston archdiocese welcomed every perverted classroom sex program.  

Mothers’ Watch exposed Cardinal Law and his programs.  Cardinal Law was keeping on the good side of everybody except parents and their children.  He spewed pro-life lip service about abortion and was lauded as a pro-life Cardinal.  Yet, he foisted on children in his diocese some of the vilest of sex programs.  Why should anyone be surprised at his protection of criminal priest child abusers?  His actions again only confirm the truth that one cannot be pro-life and pro-sex ed.  Tragically, the pro-life movement in general still refuses to see the connection.   

Cardinal Law was removed from office after much public clamor.  Yet, Cardinal Law’s licentious legacy lives on in the Boston archdiocese, as they are about to usher in yet another explicit “touching” sex program while continuing to ignore the outcries of parents. (See “Talking About Touching” article on this curriculum further along in this article.)

Bishops are drowning our children in a whirling heresy of sex that was, and continues to be, spurned by sex/chastity education.   Abortion, destruction of family life, sexual abuse, acceptance of perverted “lifestyles” have proliferated since the bishops stopped being Catholic, cast aside the spiritual and embraced the sexual the past thirty plus years.  The

Evil of Evils

 Tragically, the reality is that these programs are the camouflage used by bishops and for those homosexual pedophiles still undiscovered.  What they are doing by using these programs is saving the perverted homosexual pedophiles by creating a youth so very sexualized that they will not know they are being abused.  

The bishops’ sex programs that ignore the Sixth and Ninth Commandments have diminished all sense of sin in almost three generations of Catholics. As a result, those who have attended Catholic schools have had the reputation as some of the most sexually “liberated” in the country.  Catholics  living in sin, adolescents fornicate without batting an eye.  Now “child safety” programs will usher in still more filthy programs from the time the youngest of babies walk into a classroom.  

When “child safety” programs combine with the homosexual sodomist’s “tolerance” programs, the outcome is easy to predict.  The bishops’ programs teach little children not only what sodomy is, but that it is just another aspect of one’s sexual expression as a “sexual being.”  

As we are already seeing, very young children will talk about who is “gay.” Many more are experimenting with masturbation and homosexual activities at unbelievably young ages.  

The bishops’ sex programs are setting the stage so that the homosexual and pro-sex network can then make the case that children are sexual, and being sexual can be seductive to adults, as well.  So laws have to be changed to protect the adults from being accused of being the perpetrators, when it is the children who are at fault.  

Forty years ago, it was unthinkable that contraceptives would be distributed through schools much less that a school would transport girls to abortion mills.  It was unthinkable that such antics as the “condoms on bananas” drill would be rampant in Catholic schools as well.  Tragically, nothing related to sex is unthinkable for the classroom today, nothing too graphic or too sick for Catholic children!

Parents are made to think that schools not only provide an education in academic skills, but help children foster a healthy and helpful independence in accordance with their age.  What children are actually learning is complete independence from parental beliefs and values and a strong interdependence on their own peers, i.e. making their “own choices.”  Children are taught all about sodomy and even that sodomy is acceptable.  A child having such “knowledge” is expected to be able to make informed “choices” regarding his sex life and orientation.

Some bishops now argue that an adolescent who is sodomized gave consent, therefore should not then be considered “abused,” but simply “choosing” to exercise  his sexual curiosity or desire. Like fornication between teens or people choosing to “shack up,” no one raises an eyebrow anymore. It has been accepted.  Soon too, the outrage of homosexual pedophiles seducing and sodomizing young boys will also disappear.  Since children are considered  “sexual beings” and the “right” to sexual activity is on its way to being firmly in place, sex with kids is becoming acceptable.  Sex with children will no longer be criminal as judges we see are now ruling.

“If it is legal, it is teachable "

Laws against illegal sodomy falling like dominos in our country.  A high-ranking public school educator, who was a “catholic”, stated resolutely, “If it is legal, it is teachable.”  Laws against sodomy, now being abolished or made void by courts and legislatures have made homosexuals a privileged class.  Many children are viewing sodomy, already taught in schools for many years, as no more than “different strokes for different folks.”

As Mothers’ Watch has said before, we are also seeing a strong push for the acceptance of homosexual pedophilia infiltrating the medical profession.

The American Psychiatric Association has already redefined pedophilia in its diagnostic manual saying that the pedophile is no longer psychologically disordered merely because he molests children.  He is disordered only if the child feels “anxious about the molestation.” 

In May 2003, the American Psychiatric Association’s symposium debated removing all paraphilias from their revised psychiatric manual on mental disorders. These include: pedophilia, exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestitism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism (see narth.com website).

In the same bed with the above organization, the American Psychological Association had declared that pedophilia was “’abuse’ only if the child felt bad about the relationship.”  The American Psychological Association later backed-off their statement, when Americans became outraged.  However, the activities of both the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association need watching considering the proposed alteration of language of this organization.

The American Psychological Association, in its effort to lavish the criminal child abuser with “warm fuzzies,” wants to stop using judgmental terms like “child abuse,”  “molestation,” and “victims” and use instead neutral, value-free terms like “adult-child sex.”  They want to avoid talking about the “severity of abuse” referring instead to “the level of intimacy.”

Watering down the crime of homosexual pedophilia has been going on for thirty years.  By 1990, the Journal of Homosexuality devoted a special issue to adult-child sex calling it  “male intergenerational intimacy” cleverly avoiding use of the terms “boy” or “girl.”  (See www.narth.com website.)

Incredibly, as far back as 1972, the American Medical Association (AMA) published a book titled, Human Sexuality, whose targeted readership was to be the medical profession, clergy, sex educators and others. 

The book okayed birth control, abortion, and pre-marital sex and stated that adolescent homosexual experiences are common and expected. Furthermore, the AMA was very soft on homosexuality and hard on children abused by pedophiles. The book states that sex offenders of children are “usually passive individuals who feel threatened by other adults,” are seldom involved in nonsexual crimes. 

While giving the age range of children (girls between 5 and 10 and boys between 7 and 12), the text hinted that the child was at fault stating that in the greater number of cases the “victims were almost universally flirtatious toward the male psychiatrist” who evaluated them.  The book went on to say that “Most molestations do not by themselves present serious adjustment problems for the child, who may be puzzled by the general alarm.” The book further states that the effects of such abuse may result in “thumb-sucking, nose-picking, sniffing, nail biting” and so on as if sexual abuse was not a big deal, just a case of anxiety looking for an outlet.(p. 137-8).
 
The above American Medical Association’s Human Sexuality book takes on greater meaning when one sees who the consultants were who read and approved the content! Among them were representatives from Planned Parenthood and SIECUS including Mary Calderone and Dr. John Money.

But more importantly, one of the consultants who lent their name and approval of the book was none other than bishop James McHugh (deceased), the infamous father of Catholic classroom sex ed and snake with the pro-life movement.  McHugh, the bishops’ chosen and blessed sex guru, controlled the bishops’ Family Life Bureau from its inception.  Anything to do with sex, including sex education, Pre-Cana, natural family planning, and pro-life activities were held under the smutty thumb McHugh’s leadership.  The harm done while McHugh was at the helm is immeasurable and McHugh was there for the duration.

Incredible as accepting homosexual pedophilia seems that is exactly where our society and the Catholic bishops are leading America.  The writing is not only on the wall it is even in Kindergarten textbooks.

See “From the Acceptance of Homosexuality to the Acceptance of Pedophilia” and also the article on Bishop McHugh written by Randy Engel on this website.  Randy Engel has also written a book titled the McHugh Chronicles which documents the powerful and evil influence of this now deceased bishop.

“Safe Environment” for bishops?

 In light of the homosexual priest scandals, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) have new “guidelines” for implementation of “safe environment” programs.  These bishops even admit that their guidelines are not spiritually inspired by Church teaching, but by sexuality “experts,” the same sick experts that recommended sex education.  In an attempt to quell the publicity, bishops now say that they will “cooperate with civil authorities, educators, and community organizations.’     The bishops new “‘code of conduct’ establishes acceptable behavior that is legal”  (Emphasis ours).   Furthermore,  American bishops have meticulously avoided any condemning statements against sexual activity of all priests including homosexual priests with young men over 18!

The bishops again demonize the child stating that: “It is important to remember that while child abuse is usually committed by an adult, children and young people may be offenders.”   This is a thin-ice statement which could refer to children abusing children, but more importantly, and most likely, could also mean that children could be accused as the seducers of sex with adults.  

As an important aside, before bishop Weakland’s, sodomite activities made national news a few years ago, his 1989 statement defending homosexual pedophiles made the newspapers when he blamed the adolescent for being “sexually very active and aggressive.” Bishop Weakland, a destructive liberal, was an “expert” among bishops until he was ousted, not so much for his sodomite activities that made national news, but for his abuse of over $400,000 in Church funds to keep his perversive “sexual being” activities quiet.

The bishops, in a pickle, welcome all sex abuse programs regardless of source:  “a diocese/eparchy can utilize a community or public-school based program.”  That “welcome” is not new.  The “Talking about Touching” program is secular and almost every textbook now used in Catholic schools is the same as public schools.
The bishops state: “dioceses…can obtain grants, loans or other funding to pay for “safe environment” programs from charitable foundations or benefactors.”  Again, no concern for the souls of our children or the content of these programs—only the bishops’ shrinking pocketbooks.

The bishops mandate that: “safe environment programs must be incorporated into the long-term mission of dioceses/eparchies.”  Thus, sexual information in so-called “safe environment” child abuse programs will be another integrated addition to K through grade 12 already in place.  One hour a week CCD programs already burdened with sex ed and social issues will have even more time; usurped with the addition of sick sex abuse talk.

Bishops’ Pastoral Target Parents

The recent pastoral by the USCC bishops’ Committee on Women in Society and in the Church and Marriage and Family is titled Walk in the Light targets the family as abusive.  The bishops’ introduction side-steps the homosexual attack on children and points accusingly at the family:  “Now we speak against another kind of violence: child sexual abuse, particularly in the home or family setting.”  The bishops are either complete hypocrites judging by their track record or else they are desperately trying to redirect the blame away from themselves.  Their Pastoral has some telling information:

• The Pastoral gives brief mention that “some” within the Church have sexually abused adolescents, but repeatedly refers to families as abusers.

• It states that the bishops have “established and ad hoc committee on sexual abuse by clergy….and developed comprehensive policies.”

• It claims, “Some abusers can learn to change their behavior.”  Apparently the bishops are still attached to their “protective hideout” treatment of homosexual pedophile priests as legitimate even though authoritative documentation shows that this is not so when it is sexual abuse.

• The bishops dodge the homosexual pedophile problem by deliberately using questionable statistics like a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat.

• The bishops’ Pastoral attempts to distract attention by citing United Nations statistics on the exploitation of girls worldwide.  They report that 20-25 per cent of sexual abuse victims are girls compared to 12.5 boys. The bishops and their Pastoral fail to mention that these statistics include the cultural genital mutilation of young girls and girls used in sexual slavery.  Then the sanctimonious and deceitful bishops triumphantly announce that they will “join the [anti-life] United Nations, the International Catholic Child Bureau” and others “drawing attention to the vulnerability of girls.”

• The bishops and their Pastoral attacks the family by stating: “Family members make up one-third to one-half of the perpetrators against girls and 10 to 20 per-cent of the perpetrators against boys.”  The bishops must be very gratified with this statistic since they were among the first to redefine “family” years ago to include all sorts of strange combinations in their endless sex programs for kids.

•  The bishops actually admit that abusers seduce their prey telling their victims that it is “sex education.”  Yet for 30 years, bishops have foisted the filth of sex ed on children in the open and captive setting of the classroom.   Mothers’ Watch has been saying all along that children familiarized with sex ed can be very easily victimized; now the bishops in an off-handed way are admitting that it is so.)

• The bishops and their incredible document cautions school personnel and interested parties that “signs of sexual abuse” consist of “knowledge or actions of a sexual nature that are not age appropriate.”  There are two glaring problems with the above ambiguous statement.  The bishops have been teaching the names of genitalia and graphic sexual information (including masturbations and sodomy) to small children for years.  Bishops themselves can be considered as the cause of such abuse.  If instead, the bishops are saying that having sexual relations depends on one’s age then, please!!!—somebody tell these bishops that  “actions of a sexual nature” are only “appropriate” within marriage. In God’s eyes any misuse of God’s marital act is wrong.

• The bishops state that the effect of child abuse on faith and spirituality is that when abused by a “parent or another trusted adult, children might find it difficult to imagine, much less develop, a relationship with a living God.” Note that the bishops mention “parent” first as the abuser then “trusted adult.”  “Trusted adult” is also the term used by the bishops in reference to homosexual pedophile clergy who parents believed to be trustworthy and a living example of Faith.  Thus the devastating harm done to a child is three-fold.  The child is criminally assaulted by the very man who the child sees as next to God, thus the child is not only physically assaulted, but also spiritually devastated.  Add to this the confusion of the child whose parents unknowingly trust the derelict priest.  The child is hurt and embittered toward the priest, his parents and God, the very anchors in a child’s life.

• The bishops’ document arrogantly dedicates several paragraphs to “forgiveness” regarding the abuser.  The bishops completely ignore sin or that such abuse is criminal.  Chiding and soothing the abuser, they state:   “Abusive behavior is wrong and we will hold you accountable for it.  We will stand by you as you suffer the consequences of your behavior, but we expect you to acknowledge the harm done and ask for forgiveness.”

WOW! Bring on the wet noodle — twenty lashes worth!

These bishops, men who facilitated the molestation of countless innocent children, have the nerve to announce that they will develop programs for children that discuss “appropriate and inappropriate behavior” and will tell children where to go if they think they are abused. The only reason that the bishops now know what “inappropriate behavior” is themselves, is that their filthy deeds saw the light of day!!!  And if abuse does take place, the bishops do not want the kids to go to their God-chosen parents, but to a “trusted adult” maybe a bishop-protected pervert or someone that can help to bury the “incident.”

Incredibly, the Pastoral quoted a David Finkelhor, PhD., co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire.  Evidently, they did not happen to notice that Dr. Finkelhor did not find child abuse programs beneficial.  According to his research into the issue of sexual child abuse, and the child abuse prevention programs, he stated that: “children trained in these school programs do use the techniques they have learned, but are no more successful than others at actually thwarting abuse attempts.” The one factor that did help children fend off abuse was when parents instructed their children on how to deal with such situations (Washington Post Nov. 30, 1993).  Dr. Finkelhor admits that “parents are the most influential.” These “parents” were not taught in a bishops’ program, but common sense and the graces of parenthood guides parents in what to say, when, and just how much to say to be effective, without traumatizing their children.

 Sodomy is a Sin that Cries to Heaven for Vengeance

 Nowhere in any of the pronouncements that are coming from the bishops or from the dioceses has there been any murmuring that is even close to being Catholic teaching.  Sodomy is a most detestable sin against God and yet bishops utter not one word about sin, sinful activities nor the Sixth or Ninth commandment, nor prayer nor grace.  

Not one word is said about teaching children purity of thoughts and acts and the avoidance of occasions of sin.  Why? -- Because these programs are in themselves outrageously scandalous occasions of sin for youth.  They are saturating children with impure thoughts that can easily lead to impure acts.  These programs are a refuge for sodomites and geared toward not only tolerance and the acceptance of sodomy, but of fostering perversion.  

Furthermore, in all the bishops are saying, it is evident that they are only concerned with priests keeping away from “jail-bait,” that is, those who are under 18 years of age which still does nothing to protect the young men in the seminaries.  Did the bishops forget that sodomy is a sin no matter what the age?  Or did these shepherds of souls forget the Biblical origin of the word sodomy?

A Very “Touching” Subject 

 The Talking about Touching curriculum being introduced to the Boston archdiocesan schools is just the beginning of a new impetus of sex programs.   Many of the child abuse “prevention” programs, the bishops are rushing to put into use have been around for two decades.  However, they needed a generator issue, and they sure helped to create one to justify giving child abuse a greater span of time in the classroom.  (What kid needs to learn math anyway?  Hand him a calculator! Who needs to spell?  Just hit “spell-check” on the computer!)

Other model prevention programs include the Diocese of Dallas, “Safe Environment and Prevention of Sexual Abuse.  The dioceses of Newark, New Jersey; Austin, Texas, and Manchester, New Hampshire are implementing a program by the Catholic Risk Retention Group called “Protecting God’s Children.”  All across the country dioceses are latching on to some program to begin this school year.  We can expect to see the so-called “chastity educators get on the bandwagon and produce their own brand of programs.

This newest curriculum craze is part of the United States Catholic Conference of Bishops continuing attack on children and the family.   Incredibly, this horrendous curriculum which will sexually harass (i.e. sexually abuse) children en masse in the classroom is already being mandated by the Boston hierarchy.  Not only are the proverbial foxes in the hen house in the Boston archdiocese, they are in control of the entire coop of chicken bishops at the United States Catholic Conference!

Kathleen McChesney, director of the Office of Child and Youth Protection for the bishopswent to Boston and applauded their new programs.  She was introduced as a “strong advocate of children’s rights.”  She also said she saw the visit “as the beginning of a very strong relationship between the archdiocese and her office.   None of this is comforting to parents.   It is also interesting to note that McChesney had worked for the FBI as Special Agent of the Portland, Oregon office.  This is of concern because Washington state and Oregon areas have developed some very sick child abuse prevention programs.

Prostitutes to Child Advocates 

 The Seattle-based Committee for Children, the “experts” who produced the “Talking About Touching” child abuse curriculum was “funded by the State of Washington.” Now that doesn’t sound too bad, but the Seattle-based Committee for Children organization actually grew out of an organization called COYOTE.  COYOTE, an acronym for Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics, was begun in 1973 by the infamous prostitute Margo St. James. This gal is no Mary Magdalene.  She is a well known activist working for the “repeal of the prostitution laws and an end to the stigma associated with sexual work”  which includes a network that holds World Whores Congresses.   COYOTE has been funded since early on by the “Hooker’s Ball.”  Our bishops do themselves proud!

 A Very “Touching” Conference

 The bishops like “experts.” !!  And there are other interesting “experts” involved.  The “Touching” curriculum is Planned Parenthood/SIECUS recommended. On April 5, 2003, Boston hosted a conference called “Taking Action to Prevent Child Sexual Abuse: Strategies for YOUR Community” which was put on by the Massachusetts Citizens for Children and included a workshop on the “Talking about Touching” program. The presenters said they were “working with schools and religious education personnel within the Archdiocese of Boston” to provide training for the program.

Covering two slots of the same Boston conference was Jan Hindman, author of a book for children on child sexual abuse titled A Touching Book and subtitled “for little people and for big people.” One of Hindman’s two presentations was titled, “Ten Commandments of Raising Sexually Respectful Children.”   Hindman, who has been working in the child abuse area for 26 years, is certified by AASECT (American Association of Sex Educators, Counselors, and Teachers), a Planned Parenthood affiliate.

Hindman’s, A Touching Book, whose title sounds as if were a companion to the curriculum, was first published in 1983.  It is crudely graphic, yet very popular.  The book is over-sized with cartoon pictures that take up most of each page.  In its 40 plus page book, it has over 30 grotesquely distorted nude drawings depicting bodies of all ages and sizes of males and females.  It pokes fun of grown-ups who “get purple faces” when hearing the words “vagina, breasts, vulva, penis and testicles.” These words are printed very large and in bold print three times each and the book instructs the child to ‘help the grown-up say each word three times…with a smile… v e r y  s l o w l y.”  Hindman, considered an “expert,” advertises that she has  an updated version of the same book as part of a “Step by Step” video training programs she sells at $135.00 a packet.

 The following information has been excerpted from an excellent expose by Domenico Bettinelli, Jr.’s in the Catholic World Report website (www.cwnews.com , June 1, 2003).   It is very important that parents be aware of just how pernicious the “personal safety” programs are.  The widespread clergy abuse will be just another excuse by bishops to bring more explicit and perverse sexual information to younger and younger children.

Parents learned about a required Talking About Touching curriculum slated to begin with pre-kindergarten children through an introductory meeting and video.  The video set the scene for what was to come as it “opened with the tableaux of a young child of about 5 years old asking his mother, ‘Mommy, what is sex?’  And the mother responds.  ‘Sex is when two people get undressed and rub their private parts together.’”  Bertinelli said that there was “no mention of chastity or that the two people should be married or even that they should be of the opposite sex.”   The parent accurately observed that: “whether the child (in the video) was an actor or not, I knew that the child had just been sexually abused.”

Other lesson examples given:

 GRADE ONE: Cole and Mai are playing at the beach. When they go to the beach, they wear bathing suits. Their bathing suits cover up the private parts of their bodies. On boys, the bathing suit covers his penis in front and buttocks or bottom in the back. Those are his private body parts. The girl's bathing suit covers her vulva, vagina, and breasts in front, and buttocks or bottom in the back. These are her private body parts.

GRADE TWO.   This is Alex. He was visiting his aunt and uncle. Alex and his uncle were watching television and eating popcorn. His uncle told Alex that he had a special game he could play. He called it the "touching game." He said, "Let's take off our clothes and touch each other's private body parts." Alex knew this game wasn't safe, so in a strong voice he said, No, I don't want to do that. Then he got off the couch and left the room. When he got home he told his mom and dad what had happened. Alex's parents were glad that he said "No" to his uncle. They were also glad that Alex had told them what his uncle said to him.

GRADE THREE. This is Kerry. She is worried about something that happened to her last week when she spent the night with one of her friends. Her friend's older brother came into the bedroom, put his hand under the covers of the bed Kerry was sleeping in, and touched her vagina (private parts). She said, "Stop that!" in an assertive voice. He stopped, but then he told her to keep it a secret. Kerry is wondering what she should do. Question: How do you think Kerry felt when her friend's brother touched her vagina...

Bettinelli stated that: “one father of a 5-year old girl in the pre-kindergarten class, said he was concerned that the way in which sensitive material was presented in the Talking  About Touching curriculum would do more harm than good—that use of explicit terms for male and female reproductive organs in front of a 5-year-old, and examples of ‘You put your hand in my pants and I'll put mine in yours,’ could very well ‘upset or frighten small children.’ He added, ‘It has the potential to undermine their innocence.’”

“The Talking About Touching material could also frighten young students” said Bertinelli, “because the case studies could encourage them (the children) to see familiar adults as threats to their innocence.  In several of the scenarios presented in the curriculum, the perpetrators of attempted abuse are a mother’s boyfriend or foster parents. 

When parents questioned the presenters about “the program’s emphasis on the use of explicit terms for reproductive organs, they were advised that this terminology was necessary so that the children could be ‘good witnesses’ for prosecutors if abuse did occur. That answer provoked two objections.  First, it seemed grossly unrealistic to suggest that a prosecutor could not make use of testimony in which a child referred to his ‘private parts.’ Second, and far more important, the children were being trained as witnesses in abuse cases in a seeming admission that such cases are inevitable at the expense of their own innocence. In other words, the bishops, with their Talking about Touching campaign, was pushing the children into an unwanted position as the first line of defense against abusers, putting children at risk in the name of protecting children!”  Furthermore, Bettinelli also stated:  “that the curriculum placed their children as the first line of defense for the archdiocese against liability.”

Mothers’ Watch would like to add that perhaps the diocese thinks that it can get children confiding in the teachers of such curriculum or school guidance counselors in an effort to get to the children before they go to the authorities.  When bishops have allowed sexual child abuse to proliferate across the country by their protection of abusers, and victimization of the accusers, and also by their systematic sexually exploitive curriculum, how can parents ever trust the schools when they want to teach children more sex?!  Yet according to Bettinelli, the Boston archdiocese still says: “parents of school children should trust their teachers and administrators.”  This is incredible! 

If that were not enough, Bettinelli said:  “the same curriculum will be implemented in religious-education classes for those students who do not attend Catholic schools, so that students may not be considered qualified to receive the sacraments if they do not take instruction in the Talking about Touching program.”  Mothers’ Watch would like to comment that parents should not be intimidated by such twisted threats regarding the sacraments.  Such heavy-handed approach by bishops and their minions is an attempt to intimidate home-schooling parents into using their CCD program. 

Child Abuse Programs Target Dads 

It has been two decades since “child abuse prevention,” was introduced in the classrooms and most often falls under the category of “child safety” or “personal safety.”  Interestingly, the word “safe” has been used to camouflage some of the worst programs in the schools.  “Safe sex” was the hue and cry for AIDS prevention programs.  Under the umbrella of “safe schools” are programs which are how-to recruitment courses in homosexuality.

The current “child safety” curriculum is also being designated as “Guidance.”  Guidance counselors are now in most schools and they are a far cry from the counselors who helped students decide what classes to take in high school.  Counselors are also on staff at elementary schools and earn their keep by interfering with the academic purpose of the schools by teaching special units that include the child abuse curriculum, other sexual theme curriculum, as well as, the various superficial how-to-get-along-with-others nonsense.

Child abuse programs that parents think are supposed to teach just “stranger danger” are notoriously hostile toward parents and family members. When parents hear of child abuse prevention programs teaching the children about “stranger danger” and how to say “No!” to advances by would-be molesters, they believe this to be a good thing, and never think to take a closer look at just what that curriculum includes.  The parents do not know that the schools may also be teaching the nitty-gritty sexual details of abuse. 

No More Secrets

 Of concern for parents, and what parents aren’t told is that children will be learning that the worst abusers are within the home.    The film titled, “No More Secrets” (ODN Productions, Inc., 1982) that demonstrates this has been shown in schools for two decades and is very indicative of what the child abuse curriculum teaches.  The film done in cartoon format leaves children and adults who have viewed it with lasting eerie uncomfortable feelings.  Being only thirteen minutes long, the film leaves plenty of time afterward for further classroom discussion.

Unconscionably, the film portrays only family members as abusers, namely, a brother, an uncle and a father. The little brother peeks at his sister when she is undressing.  The uncle, under the guise of tickling, is shown moving his over-sized hand across his nephew’s genital area.  The father is shown stroking the arm of his daughter when she is in bed and that too is to be considered indicative of impending abuse.

The odious film deliberately discourages children from telling their parents about abusive situations as it shows children discussing who they should “tell” with one another.  For example, the little girl does not want to tell her mother about her brother, saying, “What if she tells me to fight my own battles?”  The little girl with the abusive father did not want to tell the mother, saying, “What if she brains me?”  The children tell the little boy being abused by the uncle, to tell the uncle that the boy just wants to be friends, and then adds, “even if he doesn’t stop (the abuse), he’ll know how you feel.”  

Not only is this film anti-parent and anti-family, it violates the sensitivities of the eight and nine year old children who are obliged to sit through it.  The film itself constitutes sexual harassment -— it is unwelcome and inappropriate discussions of matters of a sexual nature in a captive classroom setting.

As if such films were not enough, the school counselor may continue with more subtle attacks on fathers by reading a book titled “Daisy.”  Here again, the entire book is about a little girl who was both neglected and abused by her father.

Such curriculum is an outright attack on the integrity and sanctity of the home.  It introduces fear and suspicions of family members to the innocent minds of children.  Even worse it turns children away from seeking help from parents and family members.  It encourages talking to “someone you can trust” which could turn the child toward the open arms of a smiling confidant who may be a pedophile.   As a result, it can put a child more at risk of being abused as pedophiles often seek occupations where they will be in contact with children.  

Child abusers are rarely the frightful strangers, but most often they are notoriously nice friendly helpful authority figures whose cunning ways often fool adults, parents and children.   Irregular sinful living arrangements which have been redefined as “family” tragically benefit perverts by giving them easy access to children. The idea of everyone living in the household being called family is also in the bishop supported and promoted sex programs (see for example Benziger).   Furthermore, the bishops’ callousness toward children in their sinful and unlawful protection of child molesters has done immeasurable harm to children by helping child abuse to proliferate among the clergy.

While schools defend their curriculum by saying that most child abuse occurs in “families” that is not accurate for two reasons.  Today anyone living within a household is called a “family” whether related or not.  Secondly, counts that are used for statistics include all “reported suspected abusers,” not convicted abusers.   Such malicious reporting could be of a child coming to school with a bruise, little Johnny volunteering that his mommy spanks him, an angry separated parent, or a cruel neighbor with a bone to pick.  All of these become “statistics” which not only harm families, but burden caseworkers allowing real cases of abuse to fall through the cracks.  

Graphic “child safety programs” in the schools are irresponsible.  They confuse young children because young children are not mentally mature.   It is much wiser and saner to teach children wholesome modesty and purity.   A child would more readily flee from such unknown and sick advances.   Teaching children about sexual matters at a young age does more to aid the abuser.  Sex talk in a classroom makes sex talk familiar outside of the classroom, setting up vulnerable children to be more easily lured into a pedophile’s lair.  It is absurd and unconscionable to encourage a child to reason with an abuser as in the “No More Secrets” film.

Child abuse prevention programs:

• Open the door allowing very young children to be introduced to the most perverse of the homosexual sex acts.
• Cast aside Church teaching on purity, modesty, and custody of the eyes and ears and places children repeatedly in the occasion of sin.D
• Desensitize and condition young children to fill their minds with sinful sexual thoughts.Target parents and families as the number one abusers.
  
• Use family members as examples of abusers causing mistrust in families causing children to be suspicious of family members as possible sexual abusers.
• Avoid discussion of sin or crime, while emphasizing that sexual abusers are sick, lonely, or in need of sympathy or counseling. (See also for example: Growing in Love program).
• Encourage children to dialog with the abuser rather than to immediately flee.
• Instill, systematically, a skewed children’s rights mentality including the right to be sexual.
  
• Reinforce the notion that children are “sexual beings”
  
• Leave a child spiritually starving and sexually curious and titillated.
  
• Use masturbation and homosexuality as expressions of one’s “sexual being.”
  
• Erase, subtly, but systematically, the stigma of child/adult sex relationships.
• Become the bishops’ justification for all of the above under a pretense of concern.
  

PRAY TO THE GOOD SHEPHERD TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN