|
AT LAST, A PROFESSIONAL CATHOLIC RESPONSE TO
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS
Parents who have been concerned regarding the sex educaiton and sex abuse programs (safe environment) in the schools but who have found themselves no match for the bully pulpit of the bishops and their so-called experts can take heart in a new report by the Catholic Medical Association.
The Report is titled To Protect and to Prevent with a subheading The Sexual Abuse of Children and Its Prevention. It is professional and thought provoking for both Catholics and the public, and deals with child development along with the issue of child abuse. It addresses the timidity of society which has failed to acknowledge something as repugnant as the sexual abuse of children. It warns with wisdom and demonstrates with facts and figures the harm of classroom sex abuse programs. The report reiterates what was evidenced by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice's study that homosexuals in the priesthood have by and large been the perpetrators of these vicious sexual crimes on adolescents, namely boys.
Sexually predatory child abuse has been a subject that society did not want to confront and for the most part, they still do not. Bishops have been able to keep the homosexual scandals within the Church quiet by a variety of stall tactics used in dioceses around the country to protect the child sexual perpetrators. Thus Bishops kept parents at bay until the statute of limitations had passed. And these same evil tactics continue on part of the Bishops today. One can never downplay the horrific sex abuse that adolescent boys have been forced to endure and how incredibly devastating it was when it was at the hands of priests and bishops who used their office of trust like a spiders web.
If the bishops were remorseful and penitent, those bishops who have protected homosexual predators by moving them around would all turn themselves into the authorities as a means of reparation for the untold suffering their actions have caused. Such an act would show the victims, the victims families, and the Faithful that they were truly sorry and repentant.
The Catholic Medical Association takes these programs, which run from pre-school through adolescence, to task. The Report states that the child abuse prevention programs (which the bishops are calling "safe environment programs) are not only harmful, but also not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church. Those familiar with the child abuse programs are aware that they are all based upon the premise that the child can defend himself against an abuser. The Catholic Medical association report refers to this tachnique as "child empowerment" and clearly elaborates on the danger of such an approach.
The Catholic Medical Association Report did not point an accusing finger at the bishops as doing deliberate evil, but we heartily appreciate what they did. However, when parents have tried to communicate with bishops over the years on the subject of the bishops' sex abuse programs or their sex education programs and are routinely ignored or arrogantly dismissed, there is nothing left to think. Thus Mothers' Watch has added some relevant comments within the Catholic Medical Associations' report that we have put in brackets and italics in an effort to safeguard the professionalism of the work.
TO PROTECT AND TO PREVENT
The Sexual Abuse of Children and Its Prevention
(Taken from the 2006 Catholic Medical Association Report)
Studies of the Efficacy of Child-Empowerment Programs
Ten years into the widespread use of the child-empowerment prevention programs, questions increasingly were asked by parents, teachers, child development specialists, policy-makers and legislators: At what age is a child able to comprehend the concepts taught in the prevention programs" Do the programs frighten children? Do they hinder normal familial expressions of love?
Do they interfere with the development of the child's morality? Do they cause children to misinterpret healthy expressions of affection by parents, teachers, and caring adults? Do they interfere with the child's development of appropriate concepts of love and sexuality? Research was undertaken to look at child-empowerment prevention programs for preschool, elementary school, preadolescent and adolescent children...[p. 10]
Preschool
In 1987, the Family Welfare Research Group at University of California at Berkeley completed a study of seven different prevention programs to answer the question: “What do preschool children learn from the programs?” Children were asked to explain what they understood about the concepts of touching, of secrets, and of strangers taught in the programs. The gains in knowledge by 118 preschool children after participation in these programs were very low and there were surprisingly untoward results. The children responded more negatively to pictures of neutral physical interactions between persons. Parents noted increased anxiety, changes in sleeping patterns, and an overanxious fear of strangers1 [p. 10].
Several other studies completed in 1988 included one by Borkin and Frank who asked preschoolers after their participation in the prevention program: “What should you do if someone tries to touch you in a way that doesn’t feel good?” 2 Most of the children didn’t know any of the safety rules taught in the program, with only 31% of the children able to answer the question appropriately. Another study tested 183 preschool children and found that, after the 20 lessons of the Talking about Touching program, the majority of the children were unable to answer the question. The results of these and other studies validated developmental research that preschool children do not have the cognitive capacities for abstract thinking and complex conceptualization that are necessary prerequisites to comprehend the program materials. This led to the recommendation for the State of California to shift the focus of prevention of sexual abuse from preschool children into programs for parents, teachers, and adult caretakers 3 [p. 10-11].
The 1989 report of a Task Force of the California Office of Children’s Abuse Prevention concluded that the responsibility for protecting children belongs to adults and should not be given to the children…. The task force made a list of concepts and lessons that were developmentally inappropriate for preschool curricula (but which formed the ideological core of child-empowerment prevention curricula). Included in this list were:
- Teaching the abstract concept of body ownership
- Teaching the classification of touch as good or bad or confusing, safe or unsafe
- Demonstrations or media presentation of specific acts of private parts touching
- Teaching about adults or older children harming them physically or sexually
- Teaching physical defense skills
- Teaching to run away from an abuser
- Teaching about concepts of secrets in the context of child abuse
- Teaching the children to trust their feelings as a way to avoid abuse
- Teaching – don’t talk to strangers
- Teaching about fault and blame
- Teaching assertiveness skills to ward off abuse
- Teaching the concept of children’s rights 4
[p. 11].
[Mothers’ Watch comment: Catholic school sex abuse programs are often the same or very close to public school programs. These same concepts can be found in Catholic school programs.]
Preschool and elementary school
In 1991, J. D. Berrick, Ph.D., Director of the Berkeley Child Welfare Research Center, and N. Gilbert, Ph.D., Professor of Social Welfare at the University of California at Berkeley published their findings from a three-year systematic analysis of 15 curricula of sexual abuse programs for California preschoolers and grades 1 to 3. Included in the study were the following prevention programs: Good Touch Bad Touch, Confusing Touch, Child Assault Prevention, CARE (Child Abuse Recognize and Eliminate), Children’s Self-Help and the Talking about Touching programs 5 [p.11].
All the programs were found by Berrick and Gilbert to be inadequate in their consideration of normative child development. Among the developmental issues not considered properly were the reliance on the child’s comprehension of abstract concepts and their ability to be intuitive. Intuition is a difficult concept for children, and it is unreliable in evaluation whether something is abuse or not. Yet many of the programs rely on intuition: “you can tell if a touch is good or bad by how you feel; “If you have a funny feeling inside, it is not OK”; “funny feelings are hard to describe. It’s a little voice that tells you when something is wrong”; “Good touch makes you feel good and bad touches hurt and make you feel angry.” Many programs rely on both intuition and rules: “When a touch makes you feel uncomfortable inside, you should always tell someone you trust”; “anytime someone touches your private body parts or you feel uncomfortable or mixed up about the touch, say “no” and tell someone”; ”it is against the law.” Other programs tell children that adults can touch the child’s private parts only if they have a very good reason—such as a medical reason [p. 12].
Abstract concepts are not part of children’s cognitive repertoire. Yet abstract concepts such as “safe,” “free,” “secrets,” “bribes,” “intuition,” boundaries and “rights” are integral to all the programs. Children are taught that they have rights and should assert their rights in order to control the boundary of their body: “No one is allowed to touch your private parts; they stay covered unless you take a bath, change your clothes, or go to a doctor.” Private parts are described as “the area under your bathing suit”; “your body is yours alone”; you have the right to say ‘no’ to forced or tricked touch”; “you have the right to be free.” Rights, boundaries, and the right to be free from coercion and sexual abuse are complex and confusing concepts for children. Young children may generalize their right to say “no” to all realms of behavior and refuse to comply with the family rules. After participating in the prevention program, one little boy decided he was free to eat ice cream or to go to bed whenever he desired. One little girl told her brother to let her watch the TV program she wanted or she would call the police and tell the police that he had touched her private parts. Children are taught that they have the right to fight back if an assailant grabs them. “Kicking is good. Kick him in the shin and stomp on his foot. Bite his fingers.” Children who follow the instructions to fight back may use self-defense skills inappropriately and hurt their friends and siblings. In dangerous situations they may be unable to predetermine if fighting back will cause increased potential for greater harm [pp. 12-13].
Secrecy is a major component of child sexual-abuse prevention programs. Children are taught that secrecy can be good or bad: “A good secret makes you feel good”; “a bad secret is like touching or looking at your private parts”; “bad secrets have no time limit”; “bad secrets are usually scary”; “bad secrets should never be kept secret” is abstract and is beyond the developmental level of most young children. A young child understands a secret to be the physical act of whispering in the ear. Only after eight or nine years after birth, when abstract thinking starts to emerge, does a child begin to understand what a secret is [p.13].
The programs also teach two-dimensional concepts that are difficult for children to understand: “Secrets can be bad and good”; “someone you think is good may do a bad touch”; “you may like the person who is doing the touching but not like how the touch feels.” Children are unable to reconcile a bad touch occurring with a good person. They experience emotions serially and singularly (she loves her dress and hates her shoes; she doesn’t both love and hate her dress and shoes). They can neither reconcile two conflicting emotions about one concept or about one person, nor can they recognize conflicting character traits within one person. It is estimated that seventy-five percent of abuse involves someone known to the child. The abuser therefore has a strong influence on the child and is probably considered as “good” by the child and his family. Many children, although they are severely traumatized by the abuse, do not at first comprehend that they are being abused because they cannot conceptualize a good person doing a bad thing [p.13].
The programs attempt to communicate the possibility that an innocuous situation can change into a threatening situation: “You may want a touch at first but then change you mind.” This abstract concept has temporally separate aspects and beyond the cognitive ability of young children. Because children have limited anticipatory concepts and behaviors they will not act to protect themselves in an unsafe situation that begins as a safe situation such as with a good person who turns into a bad person. Anticipating danger requires the conceptualization of two temporally different experiences with a person who can be both good and bad and who performs touches that may start as good but turn into bad ones…[p.13].
Junior high and high school
Child-empowerment programs were in widespread use in the 1990’s for junior high-school students. In 1995, David Finkelhor conducted a comprehensive study to determine the effectiveness of programs at preventing sexual abuse in children aged 10 to 16. 6 The longitudinal study of 2000 children between the ages of 10-16 was conducted to answer the questions: (1) Does participation in the abuse prevention program affect the child’s behavior in situations of victimization? (2) Does the incidence of victimization of children who participate in the sexual-abuse prevention programs differ from those who do not participate? The child-abuse prevention programs were classified as “more comprehensive” if they contained at least nine of the following 12 components recommended by prevention educators:
- The nature of sexual abuse
- Bullies
- Good and bad touch
- Confusing touch
- Incest
- Guidance about screaming and yelling to attract attention when threatened by an adult
- Telling an adult about the incident
- The abuse is never the child’s fault
- Practicing avoidance skills
- Information to take home
- A meeting for parents
- Repetition of the material
The study found that the preadolescent and adolescent children who participated in the “more comprehensive” programs were not able to prevent a sexual assault against themselves, nor were they able to reduce the extent of their physical injuries. Additionally, there was a troubling, although statistically nonsignificant, higher rate of injury in those children with more comprehensive training. Participation in these programs was associated with an increased likelihood that children would disclose the victimization but had no significant effect upon whether the child blamed himself for the sexual assault. The skills children learned in prevention programs did not result in the two crucial and desired outcomes: reduced incidence of sexual assault and decreased injury from the assault. Finkelhor concluded that child-empowerment strategies are not an effective approach to prevent child or adolescent sexual victimization [pp. 14-15].
Studies on Sexual Offenders
Studies on sexual offenders also contributed to the growing body of data that victim-oriented programs are ineffective and inappropriate for the prevention of child and adolescent sexual abuse. In an analysis of men convicted of the crime of child sexual abuse, Elliot et al. found that the vast majority (66%) of offenders knew their victims through family or friends and most offenders used more than one strategy to approach the children or their families. The offenders devised ways to be invited to the child’s home (33%). Often they obtained access to the child through teaching, tutoring, or playing sports. An alarming number of offenders isolated the child through babysitting (48%). Children were sexually assaulted in an extensive variety of situations: in parks and child recreational areas, during the walk alone to and from school, in restaurant bathrooms, in the predator’s home, and in the child’s home” 7 [p. 15].
Offenders reported being attracted to vulnerable children—children who have family problems, who appear insecure, and who are lonely, needy and trusting. The abusers state that they can sense the trusting, vulnerable type of child who will never suspect the abuser’s intentions before the abuse occurs; “Kids are easy to trick because they have no idea of what I am trying to do.” 8 To create normalization of sexual activity they subtly increased sexual touching during the grooming period. They desensitized the child by talking about sex or showing sexual materials including explicit videos and magazines. Once the actual episode of abuse was initiated, the child who said “No!” or threatened to tell was at a great risk of being severely harmed. To maintain the abusive relationship, the offenders instructed the children in secrecy (33%) or portrayed the abuse as a game or as education (42%). They used threats of dire consequences or physical force. Twenty percent of offenders blamed the child for the abuse or threatened to withdraw their “love” from the child. Eighty-four percent of the offenders had learned their strategies for access, coercion and maintenance of the relationship with the child victim through pornography, TV programs, films, or media 9 [pp. 15-16].
[Mothers’ Watch cannot pass up commenting on the above paragraph because it reinforces what we have been trying to get across in our newsletters for many years. The “vulnerable child will never suspect the abuser’s intentions” especially when that person is a religious, whether it be male homosexual clergy going after a vulnerable boy, or a lesbian in a Catholic school “courting” an adolescent girl.
“They desensitize the child by talking about sex or showing sexual materials including explicit videos and magazines.” And may we add bishop-approved explicit classroom sex education materials also serves to help desensitize and corrupt an entire classroom. Furthermore, using such material in the classroom legitimizes the sexualization of children.
“Offenders instructed the children in secrecy.” For years the vilest of programs and films were used in the Catholic classroom secretly without the parent’s knowledge or consent. Sex instruction in the classroom also uses games, from crossword puzzles and word search and others that were just gross to familiarize children with sexual body parts. Children are familiarized with sex in the classroom to such a degree that they lose their sense of purity and modesty. Once these virtues are broken down, the child becomes an easy victim for an older sexual abuser or curious enough to begin to experiment sexually with other youth.]
To overcome the child’s resistance the offenders used a period of time—often as long as a year or more—of grooming the victim. Grooming is a premeditated strategy intended to manipulate the potential victim into complying with the sexual abuse. As reported in the John Jay Report, grooming behaviors used by priests included the use of gifts, entertainment, travel, overnights with the priest, verbal and physical intimidation, emotional blackmail, seduction, and the use of drugs and alcohol. The most common places of victimization were the residence of the clergy or the home of the victim, although there were a wide variety of other locations also used. The most frequent context for the incidents of sexual abuse was either a general social event or an event with the family of the victim. The majority of sexual abuse was committed by men who were close to the children, spent social time with the victims and were friendly with their families 10 [p. 16].
There is no foolproof profile of an abuser or his strategies. Education cannot adequately prepare children for the variety of locations, strategies and approaches used by offenders. The danger of sexual abuse is far too pervasive to expect that children can be taught through child-empowerment programs to recognize and protect themselves from offenders. This is particularly obvious when considering that too often parents are disarmed by the benign appearance of the offender and failing to recognize the danger to their child, invite the offender into their home. Children are vulnerable to victimization because they are smaller, weaker, and less sophisticated compared with the larger, older, aggressive, and crafty offenders. It is not possible for the child to prevent sexual abuse. In her 2003 study, Rebecca Bolen reported that the prevalence of child sexual abuse has not decreased in the last 20 years. This corresponds to the 20–year history of child-empowerment prevention programs…. [which Bolen concludes] do not prevent abuse 11 [p. 16-17].
Are Child-Empowerment Programs Catholic?
The final part of this section answers the question: Are the child-empowerment programs consistent with the principles of Catholic moral teaching? Article 12 of the U.S. bishops’ mandated Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People requires the education and training of children to prevent sexual abuse, and it mandates that the education and training of children “be in accord with Catholic moral principles.” The 1992 document of the Pontifical Council on the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, [TMHS] states that education of the child concerning the sensitive issue of sexuality is the prerogative of the child’s parents because “sexuality is not something purely biological, rather it concerns the intimate nucleus of the person.” Parents are responsible for the formation of children to love “as incarnate relational beings and to express the precious and rich gift of spiritual love through self-giving” 12 in two forms: “virginal and married love.” 13 “Chastity is the spiritual energy capable of defending love from the perils of selfishness and aggressiveness and able to advance it towards its full realization as the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus unite the bodily and spiritual being.” 14 Parents fail in this duty if they “tolerate immoral or inadequate formation given to their children outside the home” 15 [p. 17].
The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality notes that, in the area of human sexuality, children develop at very different rates. Therefore, four principles are to be observed: (1) “Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualized formation.” (2) “The moral dimension must always be part of the explanation.” (3) “Formation in chastity and timely information regarding sexuality must be provided in the broadest context of education for love.” (4) “Parents should provide this information with great delicacy, but clearly and at the appropriate time.”16 It is the responsibility and the right of parents to discern the appropriate time and manner of educating their children in all matters dealing with sexuality and in the formation of chastity. Because children mature at different paces within different realms (i.e. emotional, cognitive, psychological, social, and moral) it is imperative that parents discern and allow for each child to mature at his or her own pace without premature exposure to educational materials or other information with sexual connotations. “No one can take this capacity for discernment away from conscientious parents.” 17 Each child requires supervision, guidance, protection, and a protected environment to ensure the tranquility and innocence necessary for formation in chastity and love. Parents have the God-given right and duty to determine when and how the child receives sexual education. Programs that expose the child to sexually laden educational material beyond the child’s maturation may offend the child’s modesty and innocence, and have deleterious effects from the designation of sex education, their preoccupation with inappropriate sexual activities between adults and children can be both unsettling and provocative to the child. The Church has an interest in producing a countercurrent against the forces within the culture, the educational systems and the media that tend to prematurely sexualize children [p.18].
The principles enunciated in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality have caused parents, educators, deacons, priests and bishops to seriously question the moral appropriateness of mandating a school-based program of education for children apart from their parents on the subject of the prevention of sexual abuse. A foundational piece of every sexual-abuse prevention program is the description of what constitutes sexual abuse. Safe-environment programs should follow the same standard as that which the Church sees as necessary for education in human sexuality [pp. 18-19].
[Mothers’ Watch comment: The bishops have ignored the Vatican Document The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality. Even Cardinal Trujillo, head of the Pontifical Council of the Family and whose office produced the document does nothing to enforce its teaching. The Bishops do not want to acknowledge the Document because their sex programs have violated the magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church for four decades and their actions show that they have no intention to change their ways. While the Catholic Medical Association speaks only in terms of program content, Mothers’ Watch has no problem letting people know that those responsible for such content are the bishops!]
The Charter of the Rights of the Family, Article 5(c) states: “This primary task of the family includes the parents’ right that their children should not be obliged to attend a course in school on this subject [sexual abuse] which is not in harmony with their religious and moral convictions.” A recent change in the USCCB regulation allows “parents to remove their children from diocesan-sponsored training programs in child sexual-abuse prevention,” (Bishops’ Committee for the Protection of Children and Youth, Memo (March 2006) but this change fails to recognize that “the family has an affective dignity which is suited to make acceptable without trauma the most delicate realities and to integrate them harmoniously in a balanced and rich personality.” 18 The removal of a child from a safe environment training program in school signals the child as different from the rest of the class, raises questions about why the child is removed and what is being taught, and provides exclusive information for discussion among the child’s classmates that will have a direct effect upon the absented child. This has the potential to disrupt the dignity of the family and to cause trauma to the child [p. 19].
In summary, the child-empowerment prevention programs in use today are not effective at preventing sexual abuse, are not consistent with the science of child development, and are not consistent with principles of the Catholic faith. The Church’s response to the clergy abuse scandal must be reviewed and alternatives identified that are effective in preventing abuse and are in accord with normative science and the principles of the Catholic faith [p.19].
[Mothers’ Watch: The 90-page Catholic Medical Association report goes into detailed explanations of child development from infancy on, including neurological development. It then discusses the need for modesty within the family. It states:]
The practice of modesty and privacy sets the tone for respecting the dignity of the human body, respecting properly bodily boundaries, regulating appropriate interaction with others and aids in the development of “self-mastery.” “If children and young people see that their legitimate privacy is respected they will know that they are expected to show the same attitude toward others,” 19 The practice of decency and modesty in speech, action and dress motivated by respect for one’s own body and the dignity of others is very important for creating an atmosphere suitable to the growth of chastity. 20 Formation in modesty and privacy are invaluable in developing the child’s power to discern what is normal versus abnormal behavioral interactions between him and older children and adults [p. 34].
Latency
The report discusses latency “the period of tranquility and serenity before any physical sexual development is evident and that must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex” 21 [p. 37].
…[T]he Church has long held to approximately age seven as the dawn of the “age of reason” or “age of discretion” in terms of catechesis for the Sacraments of Initiation. For the Sacrament of Penance, the Church’s understanding is primarily focused on acting according to a sense of right and wrong and having sorrow for sin. Thus, the “age of reason” is primarily an affective notion, one based on a sense of “what” is right or wrong in relation to God and others, and should not be identified with adult-level abstract reasoning powers [p. 37].
Emotions are interwoven with cognitive and moral development and are an integral part of relational interactions. Educational intrusions of sexual content disrupt the child’s focus and development of cognitive and moral consistencies. “At this stage of development, children are not fully capable of understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and cannot integrate premature sexual information with responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and education development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life 22 [p. 40].
All education of children concerning morals, marriage, and the sexual relationship of the intimate marital union, is best left in the hands of the parents who can protect the innocent child from premature awakening of sexual interests. “So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary.”23 Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children’s innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral and emotion development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence.”24 Intrusions into the latency period by educational programs of explicitly sexual content are likely to offend the child’s innate modesty and to produce both confusion and a sense of guilt because they violate the child’s natural boundaries. Ideally, the age of innocence can extend throughout adolescence so that the true ideals of love, chastity and marriage can be maintained without being tainted by the immoral standards of culture [p. 40].
For the child’s moral character to be consistent and stabilized, parents must have comprehensive rules regarding exposure to media—TV, movies, video games, and Internet. Children exposed to common media machines will have a hard time developing a respect for human life, for their own dignity and for the dignity of others. The popular media teach greed, gambling, the advantage of power-over-others and a perverse sexuality based on self-gratification. They teach that violence has no negative consequence and action motivated by self-enhancement is superior to action based upon moral character. The more exposure the child has to illustrations of primitive discharge of aggression, the less likely the child will learn to modify his aggression in healthy ways and the more likely the child will be to use relationships for self-gratification. The failure of parents to limit access to the media and to facilitate the child’s development of self-reflection with modulation of emotion and aggression will result in a greater incidence of depression, suicidal ideation, unrestrained sexual activity and in the escalating incidence of childhood violence at increasingly younger ages [p.44].
Adolescence
Misunderstanding the absolute need of their adolescent for vigilant and authoritative parenting, many American parents abdicate their role as parents and do not interact with their adolescent’s decisions. Parents incorrectly assume that their adolescent has the right to follow his or her own inclinations to seek self-enhancement and sensory pleasure. This assumption is reinforced by the laws legislated to give the right to adolescents of absolute confidentiality in the critical areas of drug dependency, mental health, and sexuality-related issues.
Adolescents who grow up without moral direction from their parents easily incorporate the cultural standard of the relativity of values and “individual rights”—the right of the individual to his own personal choice regardless of how it effects others. They make unhealthy decisions based upon peer group pressure and upon what feels right and pleasurable….
Most youth do not make decisions based upon projecting consequences, weighing risks and benefits, and discerning the moral obligations of relationships. The so-called “executive functions” of the brain, the functions which control the ability to understand the long-term consequences of actions on self-friends, family, and society, are not fully formed… [p. 46].
The dependent relationship of the child to the parent is undergoing constant changes from the moment of birth onward. The dependence upon the parent is gradually modified, always in the direction of encouraging maturation and autonomy, but never to the point of separation and complete independence. Adolescents require consistent authoritative parenting within a secure attachment relationship in order to thrive. The period of adolescence is not the time for detachment, independence, and separation from parents and adults. When parents believe that separation is necessary for adolescents to become “themselves,” a discontinuity between the generations is fostered that leaves many youth with the experience of being dropped off by their parents into self-sufficiency without the capacity to be self-sufficient. Many youth flounder and make decisions whose deleterious effects are life-long. Many adapt by immersing themselves in the fiercely independent and materialistic lifestyle offered by the culture….
The large junior high schools established since the 1960’s have caused much harm through isolating large numbers of early adolescents with peers and few adults. The children, especially those with maladaptive developmental pathways, learn only the worst from each other in part because of the need to belong and the intensity of competition with peers… [p. 47].
Adolescents need their parents’ attention, direction, correction, affirmation, admiration and their authoritative vigilance in keeping them on a healthy moral path. Caring parents discourage dating until late adolescence and impart the clear understanding that dating is for the purpose of discernment for marriage. Postponement of dating until late adolescence avoids emotional heartaches from broken relationships, the potential transgressions of intrinsic moral laws, and the danger of date-rape. Without the pressure of romantic involvement, adolescents can continue to develop, relationally and emotionally, within healthy friendships under the protection of their families… [p. 48].
The child has a moral proclivity to be in relationship with God and to comprehend spiritual reality. The human brain is interpersonal, social and spiritual and is designed to be in relationship with people and with God 25 [p. 49].
Thus concludes the excerpts from the Catholic Medical Association book which Mothers’ Watch recommends be read in its entirety by every parent, grandparent, bishop and clergy, educator and anyone who has a love and concern for children.
Mothers’ Watch would like to add that the problem of moral relativism that has swept into the Catholic and public schools and the Church is very broad. It was brought into the schools in the form of a new methodology called values clarification that purportedly would teach children to esteem themselves and to make autonomous “choices.”
This new methodology or values clarification (also called affective education probably because it sounded better), focused on emotions, i.e., “feelings,” rather than intellect. Values clarification was a major part of the classroom sex education package pushed by the bishops and that methodology spread rapidly into all subject areas, including religion. Thus, bishops, subtly but surely, placed a wedge between parent and child as children were taught they could make their own decisions based on “feelings.” Values clarification strategies cemented peer group dependency through repeated use of breaking children into groups for decision-making regarding moral issues. There were no right or wrong answers, students were to be tolerant and non-critical of all students’ beliefs so that when a consensus had to be formed by the group, the student with strong morals was forced to bend in order to conform.
This same methodology is the rule in Catholic, and in various forms in just about all schools and textbooks. The moral degradation it has reaped in the past four decades is immeasurable. Some of those students who are parents now could sense something not right when they were in school, but too many fell victim without even being aware. Thus, what they learned about making autonomous decisions has not only produced an untold number of cafeteria Catholics, but many who seem unable to mature. It has also produced children with little Faith who cling to their peers, who have little spiritual direction, and who become easy victims of anyone wanting to take advantage of them.
Where are our moral leaders, our shepherds who should be tending the spiritual needs of their flock? They are meeting behind closed doors in rooms filled with the smoke of Satan, developing charters, paying for surveys, while all the while promoting the “cult of sex” through their child sex abuse prevention or safe environment programs. All “busy work” to make it appear that the bishops are doing something. All they are doing is biding their time and keeping the homosexuals safely in place, because as is being revealed, bishops too are not only being exposed as homosexual, but as child predators. With all the bishops’ activity, it is readily evident that bishops are only protecting themselves, not the children, not the Church, not the Faith of the people.
Mothers’ Watch P. O. Box 1029, Frederick, Maryland 21702-0029
1 J. D. Berrick, n. Gilbert, With the Best Intentions: The Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Movement (New York, Guilford Press, 1991), 24-25.
2 Ibid. 25.
3 Ibid. 26.
4 Ibid. 28-29.
5 Ibid. 33-34.
6 D. Finkelhor, N. Addigian, J. Dziuba-Leatherman, “Victimization Prevention Programs for Children: A Follow-Up.” American Journal of Public Health 85 (12) (1995): 1684-89.
7 M. Elliott, K. Browne, J. Kilcoyne, “Child Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us,” Child Abuse and Neglect 19(5) (1995): 579-94.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 The John Jay Report, section 4.4, at 74.
11 R. M. Bolen, “Child Sexual Abuse: Prevention or Promotion,” Social Work 48 (2) (2003): 174-85.
12 TMHS #3.
13 Ibid. # 16.
14 Ibid. #4.
15 Ibid. 44.
16 Ibid. ##65-67.
17 Ibid. # 65.
18 TMHS # 48.
19 TMHS # 57.
20 TMHS #56.
21 TMHS #78.
22 TMHS #83.
23 TMHS # 78.
24 TMHS 83.
25 A. Newberg, E. D’Aquili, V. Rause, Why God Won’t Go Away: Brain Science and the Biology of Belief (New York; Ballantine Books, 2001.
|
