Your Excellency's Elixir

Bishops Protecting Bishops, Not Children

From promiscuity to the horrendous problem of sexual abuse, the “remedy” offered by our callous bishops is more and more sex education.  The sexual abuse programs now being pushed so hard by the bishops are just their crafty and cunning attempt to pretend they care about children.

The bishops are not acting as bishops should but more like deceitful peddlers hawking snake oil. Can you hear them now?

Step right up folks if you care for your children.   Do you worry about your children as you see the degradation of society all around you? We have the cure for all those problems.  It’s right here in this little bottle, folks.  It’s a special tonic we concocted with the help of sex experts.  Listen up folks!  Are your children ever in ear range of hard rock music with its graphic lyrics?   Has your child seen suggestive commercials or situation comedies on TV that has him asking questions you don’t want to answer?  Has Fr. Molester been coming on to your boy?  Or is your problem, and this is a most serious problem dear parents, is your child still innocent and pure?  Then you have trouble.  You need our trusty remedy.  For the small cost of your child’s soul, “Your Excellency’s Elixir” is just the tonic your child needs.

Bishops have been so hell-bent to teach children sex that they use any and all tactics.  They brought in waves of sex education under the innocuous headings such as "family life" so parents wouldn't be aware of what was being taught.  Parents who questioned such programs were/are intimidated and treated with contempt.  Parents courageous and successful enough to insist on keeping their children out of such classes found that their children were being made to feel alienated or punished.  Now the bishops are once again, acting in contempt of parents by continuing to broaden their sex programs to include the deceptive sex abuse programs.

The bishops use the excuse that bringing in child sex abuse programs will enable them to get insurance.  If bishops were truly concerned about “insurance,” the sanest and most logical answer is obvious.  The bishops must remove every homosexual priest from the priesthood and seminaries as a sure step in the right direction.  It is no secret that an overwhelmingly majority of the abused involved homosexual acts against young boys.

The issue of seminarians either being abused or taunted by abusers within the seminaries is a grave problem that is also not being addressed because these young men are over 18 years of age.  The bishops do not mention this area of the problem because they are more concerned about legality instead of morality.  Bishops are not speaking out against the sin of sodomy; they are just saying quit sodomizing little boys, because that is illegal.

The underage victim issue is what is costing dioceses amounts reaching into the billions.  Yet, bishops who have lost all credibility want parents to blindly believe that sexual abuse programs are for the benefit of children.  And, not surprising, parents are not even being allowed to purchase the program materials.  Nor are parents being allowed to see these program materials except under the watchful eye of the administrators.

Bishops hide the programs from parents because the child abuse prevention programs almost exclusively target parents, grandparents, aunts and uncles as the abusers. The bishops’ sex abuse programs continue to bring pornographic materials into the youngest of grades and call it “age appropriate.”  All this sex information is geared at desensitizing the child about sexual language, genitalia, and sexual acts.

Young parents are dumbfounded when they learn the extent of perversion being foisted on innocent young children by bishops. These same bishops maliciously harbored, protected, and thereby facilitated the homosexual sodomites who have physically, spiritually, mentally and socially destroyed untold numbers of young boys.  These men, who call themselves bishops, are blackened by the sins of what they have done and what they have failed to do.

What do bishops have to gain by further enlarging child sex abuse prevention programs instead of removing sodomites from the priesthood?  The least known purpose of such programs is that they are dangerously anti-child and anti-parent.   From such information false statistics will be created.  Such  “reported suspected abuse” is an attempt to fabricate false statistics that would make the parents and families appear abusive, thereby directing attention away from bishops and priests. And don’t forget, for over 30 years, the bishops’ programs have redefined families for include any and all  household arrangements, from “live in’s” to homosexual partners as family members.

The intense explicit sex information and its ongoing systematic delivery from the time children enter school will create children who are so sexualized and familiar with every form of sexual activity that engaging in such acts will be construed as having had informed “choice.” Consider the following:

• Children will be perceived as “willing,” thus “consensual participants” and the child predators can blame the child victims as the seducer.  For example, Bishop Weakland, in 1989 called children sexually aggressive.  But then in 2002, it was discovered that he paid out 450,000 dollars in Church funds to silence his accuser regarding his predatory homosexual activities.
• The perverted push for the “rights” of children to be sexual and the multi-generational (man-boy) sex as acceptable is coming from the homosexual community and other pro-sex camps.  For example, Fr. Shanley from the Boston archdiocese was openly a board member of the man/boy “love” association (NAMBLA) for years without any censure from Cardinal Law.
• Just as the sin of fornication lost its stigma, it is very likely the bishops envisioned that the obliteration of the stigma regarding adult-child sex as a crime will soon be obliterated, as well.
• Once sex abuse is no longer criminal, there can be no more lawsuits.

Laws enacted to give homosexuals “rights” are also legalizing sodomy.  Mayors, taking it upon themselves to marry homosexual couples is just the beginning.  It’s Sodom and Gomorrah all over again and the bishops are mum!   

Safe Environment Programs 

Bishops Protecting Bishops While Viciously Attacking the Family

Child abuse/child safety programs are an added dimension of sex education. The child abuse programs, now euphemistically called “Safe Environment Programs,” are the most vicious of all bishops’ sex education programs. The effects reach into the home and attack the very heart of the family.  Beginning in Kindergarten, they:

• destroy the innocence of children with pornographic sex talk and visuals.
• invade and pry--threatening the very security and well-being of the family.
• target family members, especially fathers, as abusers.
• teach children to be suspicious and distrustful of parents and family.
• turn children away from confiding in parents to confiding instead in a “trusted” adult.
• coerce children to reveal instances of “bad touches,” i.e. spanking.
• paint a broad swath of abuse to put any family in jeopardy,. categorizing it as, “physical abuse,” “sexual abuse,” “neglect,” and “emotional” abuse
  • “Physical” abuse can include any “damage to a child which cannot be reasonably explained,” as well as, spanking, slapping, shoving and hair pulling.
  • “Sexual” abuse includes sexual acts between an adult and child and the displaying of pornography to children.
  • “Neglect” is failure to provide appropriate housing, food, clothing, etc.
  • “Emotional” abuse is described as “any attitude or behavior which interferes with a child’s mental health or social development” and includes, among others, yelling, name calling, negative comparisons to others, telling them they are “bad.”  Also included is “failure to provide affection” which includes “ignoring, lack of appropriate physical affection (hugs), not saying “I love you”…lack of praise and lack of positive reinforcement.”

With a list like that above, in the eyes of an overzealous “facilitator,” absolutely no parent will escape coming under the definition of being an abusive parent.  It is rare that a loving and caring parent did not, at some time, have to spank or slap at least one of their children.  Spanking, which is more humbling than hurtful, is condoned in the Bible and by the Catholic Church.

And what of hair pulling?  So what if mom gives Suzie’s hair a little tug.    Will mom be labeled an abuser?  If daddy doesn’t hug Johnny everyday, does that make dad emotionally deficient and thus suspect?  This kind of nonsense is frightening parents from properly disciplining their children.  The slaps, spanking and hair tugging children receive from a loving parent cannot compare to the hurt these youth could be faced with who grow up without any discipline.

Certainly there will be those few who are bad parents, but to frighten and confuse all school children, will do nothing to solve that problem.  Certainly it will not solve the problem of homosexuals preying on young boys.

Without a doubt, the child abuse programs are the new Judas kiss, ordered by the bishops, to be dutifully administered by children upon unsuspecting parents.

Setting Children Up

The “safe environment” sex abuse/child safety programs have been around almost as long as sex ed itself.  In fact, the programs have been around long enough that they have been incorporated into the revisions of regular sex education materials, materials approved and or mandated by the bishops.

The Benziger Family Life Program, the first and most widely used program in the Catholic schools, has had the added child abuse component for many years.  

Beginning in Kindergarten, Benziger has been discussing differences in boys and girls bodies hidden by a bathing suit.  Children are then introduced to “good touch, bad touch,” and “say no.” As part of the child abuse component, children are being warned that “bad touches” often come from “someone in your own family.” In Grade One, Benziger has children revealing, “what goes wrong in families,” and uses the typical happy, sad, angry, afraid faces lesson.   It then instructs the teacher to make a large sign saying “TALK ABOUT IT.”  

To encourage openness throughout the Benziger program, the lessons repeatedly prompt children to share “feelings” and talk about what goes on in the family. The teacher is to lead a prayer called, “Talking to God,” whereby the children are to pray, “Dear God, help me to tell how I feel…” And this is just Grade One.

Grade school sex/religion programs have long abandoned lessons on the proper formation of conscience and replaced it with teaching one to trust their own feelings instead. Children are repeatedly prompted to rely on feelings that are emotional, thus outside of the realm of intellectual scrutiny.  Feelings can be desire, and desire is often sensual, and not a reliable means of determining right from wrong.  All child abuse programs have children listening to their bodies.

Sex/child abuse prevention programs have been psychologically luring children to become pleasure seeking and sexually minded.  For example, in Grade Four Benziger’s heavy emphasis on feelings continues as it states, “feelings come from your mind and your body working together.”  The child abuse segment gets very confusing as children learn that “expressions of love make you feel good.”  The tragic conclusion apparent when reading such sex programs is that “feel good” talks, combined with hours of classroom time devoted to sexual anatomy and discussions identifying children as “sexual beings,” ¹ throws the door wide open to sexual experimentation.

The children are being primed and titillated -- set up by such programs.  The “loving” predatory homosexual who has won the trust of his victim can now lure the child into “feel good” sex and define it as an expression of love.  Mothers’ Watch has been warning parents for years that bishops or anyone who promotes or teaches any form of sex programs should be suspect as a possible abuser. After all, who but someone with a perverted mind would produce, promote or teach this? 

As evidenced by the new bishop-blessed K-8 gross sex program, Growing in Love (GIL), classroom sex indoctrination programs continue to get worse, not better.  Yet, the bishops ad hoc Committee on the Catechism has glowingly approved GIL as suitable religion.  GIL also integrates the child abuse component throughout.  Kindergarten's Lesson One jumps right into the genital body parts ritual that curiously includes the "anus."  Lesson Two talks about being "gay" and "families" that include homosexuals as parents.  

In Growing in Love's (GIL) Kindergarten, Lesson Three, the good ole’ bishops have the wee students introduced to the “good touch-bad touch” segment.  The lesson’s Program Resource discusses good touches such as the “marital touch” between a man and woman.  Also the “self-touch” for “comfort or self-pleasure that includes among others, “playing with genitals” -- “A young child may touch or stroke his or her genitals almost automatically, for comfort or pleasurable sensation.”  (For the complete critique of Growing in Love, see under sex education on this website.)

At the other end of the spectrum, Growing in Love's “bad touch” example is “forcing a child to kiss or hug relatives or family friends, even when the child does not want to.”

Still in Kindergarten, Lesson Five talks about “Stranger Danger” and recommends a book titled, Sex Education for Toddlers to Young Adults, a book that calls sex “fun,” and says, “In our sexual activity, we are God’s partners.”  This book tells parents that it is a “serious mistake” to stop a child from masturbating and to be “infringing on the privacy of a child’s bedroom.” 

The bishops’ GIL Grade One rehashes the Kindergarten sex lessons adding a few more body parts and gives “gay” relationships another boost.  Grade Two teaches: “Human beings have elements of both genders…[and that] Children should not be placed in rigid gender categories.”  One does not need to give a lot of details to see just where this bishop-blessed program is going.

Tuning into "feelings" is a major component of GIL.  Incredibly after all kinds of sex talk, Grade Two goes on to talk about God giving "Jesus feelings, too" and adds, "God wants us to express our feelings..." Both Benziger and Growing in Love tell the children that it is God who wants them to reveal feelings.  How coercive!

When addressing sex abuse in Grade Three, GIL seems to be playing upon the sympathy of the child to the benefit of sexual perverts when it says:  “Some adults are unable to relate sexually to other adults.  They [adults] can receive sexual pleasure only from sexual activity with children…” ² 

Grade Three Catholic children are schooled in the art of masturbation (that “good” touch). GIL states:  “Masturbation can be individual (often accompanied or caused by reading or watching sexually graphic materials) or mutual as when partners manually stimulate one another’s genitals as an alternative to sexual intercourse.” 

Remember, GIL is the program approved by the bishops’ ad hoc Committee on the Catechism.  So, Your Excellencies, with all due respect, Mothers’ Watch wonders just who this “partner” for eight year old boys might be?  Furthermore, are the bishops saying that the Catechism Committee recommends a program that teaches children to mutually masturbate at ages eight and nine?  Even more heinous, GIL is putting mutual masturbation into the heads of young children as if it were acceptable with only a token statement about possible “misuse.”

What pervert would lure a child into masturbation and stop there?  Evidently neither do the bishops or GIL because, between Grades Five and Seven, GIL gives detailed descriptions of oral and anal sex and S & M (sado-masochism).  Yet, the bishops list the garbage-packed GIL on their catechetical menu as good food for the minds of children!   This is how the bishops “shepherd God’s people” ³ by setting the children up for abuse.  

As parents became aware of this sex program, bishops dismissed parental complaints saying that only certain of the GIL books were approved.  This is plain dishonesty!  There are four books at each grade level.  Not approving the Family Resource, which was to go to parents, does not affect the graphic content.  It just keeps parents from suspecting what might be going on in class. The same graphic content is found in the teachers’ Program Resource, an important companion to the Teaching Guide. Anyone who reads the program materials will see that these two books are interdependent upon one another.  

 Sexy Dolls 

“Teach-a-bodies” anatomically correct dolls have been around for a number of years.  These dolls have been in use for teaching Kindergarten and First Grade children about sex abuse.  The ones used in the Catholic school were 22-inch tall adult male and female dolls.  The male doll has a moustache, chest, underarm and pubic hair, a penis and scrotum and has openings for the anus and mouth and a tongue.  He also has a condom in his pocket.  The female doll has breasts, openings for the mouth, vagina withclitoris, etc.  The female also has a baby in the uterus. (They now come in various sizes and ages.  Check out www.teach-a-bodies.com ).   The Good Touch-Bad Touch program being mandated in the Arlington, Virginia diocese by Bishop Loverde mentions the use of “dolls” with a story about “who sexually abuses children.”  Dolls are used for the characters in stories about abuse.

To sexualize dolls and to use them to demonstrate child abuse is unconscionable.  To little girls, dolls are for enjoyment and make-believe.  They are companions, a source of comfort.  These sexed up dolls will be distressing for children.  How will a little girl ever play with one of her favorite dolls without thoughts of those awful adult sex dolls?  The use of such anatomically correct dolls is itself sexual child abuse. 

Mothers’ Watch moms showed (more like flashed) these dolls in all their anatomically correct splendor to bishops at their November conference some years ago.  They didn’t like it and even feigned embarrassment, yet, continue to sexualize Catholic children.  

Bishops are the Abusers

One of the first stated warning signs of sexual child abuse is “acting out sexual behavior.”  Who is to blame when a child takes up masturbation because he learned all about it in the classroom?  Who is to blame when a young person contracts a sexually transmitted disease of the mouth after being familiarized with oral sex in the Catholic classroom?

One would think that if the bishops were really sincere in their mission to “restore trust” 4 that they would restore religion rather than heavy-handedly forcing more sex programs on innocent children. Furthermore, if, as the bishops admit, “secrecy” in the past has created such trauma in the lives of so many people, why are the bishops’ diocesan minions allowed to keep “secret” the content of such child abuse programs?

 Bishop Loverde, like so many bishops, will not openly show the contents of the Good Touch-Bad Touch Program to parents.  Parents have to come individually and be supervised and intimidated when examining the program.    Not only that, but the parent meeting to implement the program in Loverde’s diocese was held on Thanksgiving weekend, a time when many parents were either away or busy with family and guests.  Other dioceses choose Christmas or other inconvenient times.  Such treatment of parents is an often-used tactic. There is no end to the stealth used by sex program promoters to get around parents.

Label Parents as the Abusers

These horrendous programs not only harm children, their evil is calculated to impact on the family as well.  During class discussions children are prompted to disclose all that goes on in the home.  Specifically trained teacher or counselor “facilitators” will be provided with a list of what constitutes abuse.   They will also be told that “reporting” is mandated. In fact, a number of states have fines for “failure to report” anything the teacher can label suspicious.

Thus, “Ms. Facilitator” will be making her list of children being “abused” by family members, i.e. spanked, yelled at, not hugged, etc.  Little Joey, who loves to join in any discussion and embellish his story for effect, as some children are wont to do, might really get his parents in the soup.  All the while, “Ms. Facilitator” makes her list of “suspected” abusers to report.  It is from this deliberately contrived “reported suspected abuser” list, not the tried and convicted list, that all the statistics are made. 

Those pushing child abuse prevention programs use just such lying statistics.  Bishops will use the statistics they gather to destroy the credibility of parents.  These “fudged” statistics certainly would make the number of homosexual priest abusers appear to pale by comparison. 

Pam Church’s Good Touch-Bad Touch program “Facilitator Guide” (1985), states that: “Based on the number of children potentially abused and the negative effects of child sexual abuse, there is a need to develop prevention and intervention programs. In particular, the former type of program would appear to be valuable as it can curb the probability of the abuse occurring…” (Emphasis ours).  This is unconscionable, and leaves no doubt that the Good Touch-Bad Touch program is made up to create false statistics.  There is to be no real proof of parental child abuse, only “potential.” There is no proof that such programs have kept, or will keep a child from being sexually abused, only that it “would appear” or is “probably.” This program is completely experimental and the children and parents are the guinea pigs.  The actual effects, and one only need ask knowledgeable parents, is that such programs will traumatize and sexualize children and disrupt the comfort and security of the home. 

Convergence of Evils

Our current society will be looked upon as the most anti-child of the civilized world, and the bishops by their actions and inactions have enabled this tragedy to befall the family.  Bishops gave little more than a whisper from the sidelines when abortion became law.  Untold babies are being routinely murdered in the womb, even at the time of birth, thus turning would-be moms into callous and hardened women.  Bishops supported the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), which fortunately did not pass, but from which fall-out is evident in the troubles within families.  Because mothers must work, children are forced into daycare.  Because working mothers have little time, programs that disrupted the innocence of youth, preoccupied the minds and stimulated the emotions of the children with sex readily made their way into the classroom.

Catholic bishops have replaced religion with sex programs from the time children enter Catholic schools.  Sex programs, along with drug education programs are no more than familiarization programs that easily lead youth into harmful and sinful activities.  The entertainment industry was, until the 1960’s overseen by boards of censors and good outspoken Bishops, and has not only glorified smut and sin, but also made it entertaining and commonplace as it invades the home.  Priests and bishops have corrupted children and themselves.  The bishops’ and priests’ homosexual sexual abuse of children is the epitome of an uncaring hierarchy, one who looks at children to be used, not just as sexual slaves, but then abused en masse to garner “statistics” in an attempt to cover their own depraved appetites.  

The fact that sex education and sexual crimes of sodomite priests have been allowed to flourish, shows the abject failure of the Catholic hierarchy, a failure unparalleled in Church history.  Even during the great heresies of the past, youth were never targeted and robbed of their Faith, and then sexualized and raped in mind (and God help us, body) as they have been since bishops promoted classroom sex education.  Woe to the children;  God help us all!

One parent, Christopher Manion, writes:  “programs like ‘Good Touch- Bad Touch’     inflict on our children the rotten fruits of a crisis that our children did not cause.  And the adoption of such programs as a ‘solution’ to the crisis is, frankly, a crass attempt to divert the gaze away from the real source: bad bishops, bad priests, and bad teaching.” (Mr. Manion, who now writes for the Wanderer is one of many parents of Bishop Loverde’s Arlington diocese fighting against the “Touch” program.   

  Safe environment programs are tantamount to “sexual harassment” of children and as such are sexual child abuse. If a teacher would present this same classroom material to a child outside the classroom, it would   be considered criminal child endangerment. Pornography in the classroom has gone unchecked for years under the label of education.  This double standard can no longer be tolerated and needs to be challenged in the courts.

                                          ____________________________

1 The bishops’ 1991 document, Human Sexuality:  A Perspective in Lifelong Learning, constantly uses the term “sexual beings” to describe all persons, birth to death 

2 The same sympathy for the abuser also comes across in the bishops’ 1991 Human Sexuality document where, with regard to child abuse it states: “There is still, however, one more victim in the case of sexual abuse and violent misuse, whose dignity must be respected and whose needs must be met – the perpetrator, the abusive person himself or herself” (p. 67 – 68) .

3 Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, 2002, ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

4 Ibid.