Sunday, October 23, 2005

Bishop Vasa's Curriculum for The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality from Rome

“The purpose of this program is to offer assistance to
parents based on the science of child development to form healthy and secure relationships with their children. The secure attachment relationship assures that children will develop with empathy, self-control, and harmonious personalities. The most important protection children have against developing aggressive and violent behaviors, including sexual abuse, is the empathic and nurturing secure attachment to their parents beginning in the first year of life. In turn, this same relationship protects children from becoming victims of abuse.”

- The Most Reverend Robert F. Vasa

In the quest to honor children and their parents and Our Lord.  There has been created "Healthy Families - Safer Children..  http://securechild.org/

Table of Contents

 Program I. Changing the Culture
Section One: The Crisis of Culture
Section Two: The Development of the Child
Section Three: Proactive Parenting for Safe and Moral Children
Program II. Child Development
Section One: Secure Attachment
Section Two: Insecure Attachments and Healing
Section Three: Adult Attachment Relationships
Program III. Authoritative Parenting
Section One: Discipline and Emotions
Section Two: Styles of Parenting
Section Three: The Marriage-Centered Family
Program IV. Moral Development
Section One: Moral Formation in Early Childhood
Section Two: Moral Emotions
Section Three: The Adolescent and Morality
Program V. The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality
Section One: Educating for Love and Chastity
Section Two: Sacred Parental Responsibilities
Section Three: Subsidiarity and Parents’ Rights
Program VI. Healing the Family, the Community, and Culture
Section One: Healing the Broken
Section Two: Healing the Parish and the Home

Section Three: Healing the Children


The way the Church teaches about love and intimacy is tangibly felt by reading the curriculum that our Archdiocese has chosen and the currculum of dignity in Healthy Families - Safer Children the Power of Relationships.  Catholic families can share a wholistic approach to teaching children .

Please read at least a little of this writing by Pope John Paul II. 


"Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents.

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Bishop Vasa: Bastian of Common Sense & Good bye to Laurie Miller/Calendar Additions

Dear All, Continuing the effort to protect children and uphold the rights of parents. Here is Bishop Vasa's latest column. You can make sure are always informed by him weekly, just go to the websites and request this. Web: http://www.sentinel.org/ecolumn/ Email: vasa-ecolumn@sentinel.org ************************ E-Column by Bishop Robert Vasa ************************ REVISING STATUTES, SEX ABUSE CONCERNS AND PROMOTING VOCATIONS BEND -- The work at the Annual Presbyteral Assembly centered on the revision of the diocesan statutes and guidelines. I found the discussion to be animated and lively, interesting and interested. It seemed to me that the priests took the work we were engaged in very seriously and recognized that it was important not only for them personally but for the diocese as a whole. I found myself wonderfully energized by and grateful for their conscientiousness in tending to details that at times were nothing but tedious. Having heard the comments and suggestions of the priests and continuing to hear the comments and suggestions of the laity, I am now in a much better position to script the next revised draft. My hope is that the next draft can be ready in the next few months and that it can be reviewed once more at the deanery level and then put into final form for official adoption prior to the end of 2006. There are several sections that require further very serious review and at least one, relating to clergy health care benefits and retirement, that still needs some rather major work. I am most hopeful, at this time, that the document ultimately produced can serve the Church of Eastern and Central Oregon at least as well as its predecessors have served the diocese in the past. Pray that it is so. That used up a significant portion of the week. Another thing that occupied a lot of time was trying to respond to all the folks across the nation who wrote and mostly emailed with expressions of concern about "safe environment" programs for children. My public expression of my own concerns and questions seems to have created a kind of locus to which a significant number of concerned parents have gravitated. I am not ready at this time to pursue publicly the questions I raised in a past column, but I do want to engage in as thorough a study of this issue as necessary to allay, if possible, my own fears and concerns. A number of people have sent links to articles and websites as well as their own questions and concerns, and I appreciate the level of interest in this topic. It shows me that there are many folks out there who share my fears and concerns and whose concerns are so grave that they have withdrawn their children from such programs, refused to offer these programs to the children of others and objected to participation in them themselves. It seems to me that this is a very serious issue that needs to be weighed and considered most assiduously from a Catholic perspective to try to determine if the fears presented and questions asked have any validity. Proceeding to mandate programs of questionable value or origin under the guise that we hope they will be an effective means of keeping children safe in the future just does not sound right. At the very least, I have an obligation to assure myself, after some kind of due diligence, that these programs do not violate basic Catholic principles, unduly usurp parental rights or contradict basic common sense. It seems to me that the questions are serious enough to receive serious consideration, and a knee-jerk reaction that this is simply a group of "radical right organizations . . . working feverishly to keep our children in the dark about their sexuality and their right to make determinations about their own lives" is simply too dismissive. Many of the same objections which are raised about the highly questionable sex-education programs offered or mandated in schools for children of all ages may be applied legitimately to "safe environment" programs. I certainly do not want to confuse the two issues, for they are different, but some of the principles are certainly the same. I hope to continue to pursue this issue with the hope of coming to some fuller understanding of the dynamics involved. The study of these dynamics needs especially to extend to the children themselves. In 1995 Focus on the Family published a report on an organization known as SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States), which has, among other even more disturbing citations, these two. The first by an original SIECUS board member: "Incest between adults and younger children can prove to be a satisfying and enriching experience." The second by a SIECUS co-founder: "The major effects of [child sexual molestation] are caused not by the event itself but by outraged, angry, fearful, and shocked reactions of the adults who learn of it." Unfortunately, this same organization, and others like it, actually endorse some of the programs supported and promoted and mandated for our Catholic children under the guise of keeping them safe. One such program was actually designed by the purveyors of such tripe. Ever hear of a wolf in sheep's clothing? This is an area where parents have a most serious personal obligation to ensure that their children are not inadvertently exposed to principles and values that may be contradictory to those held by the parents or at a time not of the parents' choosing. At the same time I want to reiterate that I endorse the safe-environment programs sponsored for adults and those in positions of responsibility for children in our parishes and schools. I encourage all parents to take the valuable time to view the available materials so that you can be better instructed in the very real risks that face your children and from which, I am convinced, only you can protect them. My weekend travels took me a short piece up the road to Grass Valley and Wasco where I celebrated a Confirmation Mass. The three youngsters could not hide in the crowd as I questioned them, and I suspect there was this sweet and sour mix of both loving and hating the rather personalized attention focused on them. They did extremely well. The three topics that I have committed myself to promote worked their way into the Confirmation sermon, namely, vocations to the priesthood and Religious life, evangelization and adult religious education. In keeping with the promotion of vocations theme, one young man told his pastor that he had thoughts of being a priest. I subsequently sent an encouraging card, to which the young man reportedly reacted negatively. His response, "Dad, I was just being nice; I did not really mean it." I suspect that even "just being nice" may be a sign of a future vocation to the priesthood. Pray it is so. ****************************************************************************************************** To have a child die seems so "out of order". It doesn't seem fair somehow. May Laurie's short and sweet life make us thankful for our years and do our best to glorify our Creator and work for His Kingdom with the time He has given us. Rest in His Perfect Peace, dear Laurie. Laurie N. Miller March 2, 1994 - October 15, 2005 Laurie N. Miller, 11, of Turner died Oct. 15 after a two-year battle with cancer. She was born in Salem to Thomas and Christy (Rose) Miller. She lived near Salem for a short time before moving with her family to the Turner area. She was a sixth-grade student at St. Mary Catholic School in Stayton. She designed a Nike tennis shoe that was sold to raise money for Doernbecher Children’s Hospital in Portland. She was the honorary hostess for the “Walk with Laurie” that was held in August in Stayton to raise funds for Doernbecher and the Livestrong Foundation. She enjoyed playing soccer and softball as well as doing arts and crafts. She also enjoyed spending time with her family. She was preceded in death by two great-grandfathers and uncles, Rob Miller and Ernie Kuenzi. Survivors include her parents; siblings, Lee, Clayton, Michael, Maria, Karen, Melissa and Dorathy, all of Turner; grandparents, Valentine and Dolores Miller of Brooks and Eugene and Karen Rose of Turner; and great-grandparents, Irene Rose of Albany and Dora Gilbert of Burns. Remembrances: St. Mary Catholic School, Stayton, or Doernbecher Children’s Hospital, Portland. Side Note: To help the family in a more tangible way, Laurie's god-mother, Mary Belleque, would be happy to receive any donations to help the family with necessities she observes. Her address is 3405 Deerpark NE., Salem 97305 or call 503-390-6921. ******************************************************************************************************** Thursday, Friday, Saturday - October 20-22 - 74th Annual Catholic Medical Assn. Conference, PDX "The Biological and Spiritual Development of the Child" This promises to be an excellent conference at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Portland. All clergy, educators, parents as well as doctors, nurses, etc., are invited. Dr. Lynne Bissonnette-Pitre, local Portland Physician, is coordinator. Total information about the conference can be obtained at www.cathmed.org Tuesday, October 25th - Vicarate Celebration, Church of the Ressurection, Tualatin Quarterly vicariate celebration of the chaplet of Divine Mercy for Life at the Church of the Resurrection in Tualatin from 5:30 to 7 p.m. . It will be a mass with a Litany for Life, part of the vicariate observance of prayer, remembrance and fasting for life. Friday, Saturday, Sunday - October 28-30, Mother/Daughter Retreat, "Falling in Love, Mary and the Eucharist, Mt. Angel Abbey Sister Therese Improgo, O.S.F. - Retreat Facilitator Sister Therese Improgo is currently on staff at Our Lady of Peace Retreat Center in Beaverton, OR as a spiritual director and private retreat director. In past years, she has been principal, vice principal and teacher in the Catholic School Systems of Oregon and California. She holds a Masters Degree in Theology from the University of San Francisco, enjoys reading, hiking, singing and has traveled to Europe, the Holy Land, Southeast Asia and the Far East. "In today¹s society much of our time is spent in 'hurry-up-and-wait' situations. How do we make this precious time an adventure with God? Come and See!" For reservations contact Mount Angel Abbey Retreat House St. Benedict, OR 97373 /503-845-3025 Retreat begins with registration on Friday at 7:00 p.m. and ends on Sunday at 1:00 p.m. $180.00 for Mother/Daughter sharing a room; $200.00 for Mother/Daughter in separate rooms; $60.00 for each additional Daughter Fee includes meals, lodging, use of facilities and retreat program $35.00 DEPOSIT REQUIRED ********************************************************************************************************** If you have a daughter, maybe it's time to make this retreat. Life and time is too precious to waste. God Bless you all until the end of time, Carolyn The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. Isaiah 11:6 VOCAL Voice of Catholics Advocating Life PO Box 458 Sublimity, OR 97385 Member of Catholic Media Coalition "Inline with the Church, online with the world"

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

"Abusing God's Children" part two

EXAMPLE LESSONS

During the introductory meetings at which "Talking about Touching" was presented in Norwood, the parents were given examples of lessons that would be presented to students.
In a 3rd grade class, the students would be given the following story:
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...

In the 1st grade, children would receive this instruction:
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.

A 2nd grade class would be presented with this example:
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.

The objection might be raised that the last scenario itself imparts a false lesson. The situation may or may not be "safe," but it is unquestionably wrong. Most children would feel a natural revulsion toward the uncle's actions, but rather than affirm that revulsion and engage in moral discourse, the children are instead presented with the vague secular idea of "wellness."

The "Talking about Touching" material could also frighten young students, parents suggested, because the case studies could encourage them 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. "Their minds don't need that," said Pauline Irwin, mother of three girls at the school. "You start putting these things into kids' heads."

When several parents questioned 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, a seeming admission that such cases are inevitable at the expense of their own innocence. In other words, the "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!

THE COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN
The genesis of the "Talking about Touching" curriculum provides a fascinating case study in how secular forces - and highly questionable forces at that come into play within a Catholic-school curriculum.
The curriculum was funded by the State of Washington and produced by the Seattle-based Committee for Children. This committee is a non-profit organization that grew out of 1970s group called Judicial Advocates for Women, which itself originally grew out of Seattle COYOTE, and whose initial mission was to "educate the public about the realities of prostitution." In fact, COYOTE is an acronym for "Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics;" the group was founded in 1973 "to work for the repeal of the prostitution laws and an end to the stigma associated with sexual work." As of 1997, Seattle COYOTE's executive director was Catherine LaCroix, who billed herself as a "Dianic Wiccan priestess" and a "Shameless Sacred Whore."

The curriculum itself consists of lesson plans for children from pre-kindergarten to 5th grade and will cost each parish about $2,500 for the complete set. Sales of this program as well as other child-safety curricula netted the Committee for Children more than $8 million in revenue in 2001, according to its filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

"Talking about Touching," while recommended by numerous groups including SIECUS, an organization known for promoting the breaking down of taboos against adult-child sex, was proposed for use by the Archdiocese of Boston by the blue-ribbon Commission for the Protection of Children. The commission set up by Cardinal Bernard Law in 2002 amid the firestorm of criticism against the cardinal and the archdiocese for the mishandling of sexual abuse allegations against priests over several decades. Its overall mission was to recommend policies for the prevention of child abuse.

The commission's members included a dozen business leaders, mental health professionals, and educators, but no theologians, official representatives of the archdiocese, or even Catholic parents. As one Norwood parent observed, it seemed odd that the cardinal, who had excused the shuffling of predator priests from parish to parish by saying that the Church relied on psychiatrists and doctors, would turn to the same secular "experts" to come up with a program to prevent child abuse.

THE LIABILITY ISSUE
One of the primary reasons for implementing a curriculum that was available immediately, rather than developing an original program that could take Catholic moral principles into account, may have been the requirements of the archdiocese's insurers to decrease legal liability. In fact, "Talking about Touching" was accepted by the commission on the recommendation of the National Catholic Risk Retention Group (NCRRG), an insurance group formed in 1988 by the US bishops, which has also developed a companion program for training of adult parish leaders, called "Protecting God's Children." That group's primary mission is "financing and managing the liability risks of the Catholic Church" through "cost-effective excess liability programs."

In the end the Archdiocese of Boston has made it clear that the "Talking about Touching" curriculum will be implemented in schools and parish religious education with or without parents' support - although Father Coyne, the archdiocesan spokesman, has conceded that the mandatory requirement of the program for all parochial school children will be reconsidered.

Still, many of the concerned parents in the Boston archdiocese are unwilling to wait and see whether their children will have to endure these lessons in their schools during the next academic year. "We will be homeschooling my daughter next year," William Germino said, adding that he knows of at least one other parent who has already pulled his child out of the school. John Bettinelli added, if nothing changes in relation to the program, "We will have to homeschool. We'll have no option at that point." And the controversy shows no sign of abating, as parents with children in other Boston-area Catholic schools are joining the Shared Concerns of School Parents group at an increasing pace, and national media attention is being focused on what could be a model program for other US dioceses.


Even if they do choose to homeschool their children, the parents may be faced with another crisis in a few years, when those children are ready to receive the sacraments. If the parents cannot in good conscience send their children to parish religious-education programs that include the "Talking about Touching" curriculum, will the children be able to receive First Communion, or to be confirmed? At this point none of the parents in Norwood can answer that question. They only know that today, they may have no other options.
Author, Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. is the Managing Editor of CWR (Catholic World Report).
The Shared Concerns of School Parents web site is at (www.germino.biz/scsparents/).

Monday, October 17, 2005

"Abusing God's Children"

Background Information on Programs for Oregon Catholic Children

Guest Commentary
Abusing God’s Children - Part 1, 2, and 3
By Thomas Augustine
www.MichNews.com
Sep 14, 2005

Talking about Touching 

By Domenici Bitingly, Jr.
A controversial, mandatory child-abuse prevention program in Boston parochial schools
has alienated parents who simply want to assert their rights.

June 1, 2003 (CAR) - In March, a group of parents of students at St. Catherine of Siena school in Norwood, Massachusetts, gathered at their suburban Boston parish for a presentation on a new curriculum that will be taught to all students. The program was to be inaugurated this year for children at the class levels from pre-kindergarten to the 4th grade; next year it would be expanded to cover the 5th through 8th grades at all parochial grammar schools in the archdiocese.

Although the program is billed as a broad-based "personal safety" curriculum, in practice the focus is more specific. The course is entitled "Talking about Touching," and it is primarily a response by the Archdiocese of Boston to the clergy sex-abuse scandal.

As the parents were given their first exposure to the curriculum through an introductory video, some of them were shocked at what it contained. The video 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."

At that point John Bitingly, a father of three boys who are students at the school (and the brother of this writer), knew something was wrong. "There was no mention of chastity or love, that the two people should be married, or even that they should be of the opposite sex," he said. Referring to the video itself, he said, "And whether the child (in the video) was an actor or not, I knew that the child had just been sexually abused."
Some of the parents in Norwood were concerned that such a troubling, secular understanding should be at the heart of a curriculum being taught in a Catholic school and touching on such a sensitive topic.

But when they asked whether they would be able to have their children excused from the lessons, they were first challenged, "Why would you want to?" When they pressed, they were told that this year their children could be exempted, but that the Archdiocese of Boston had decided that every child in parochial schools and religious-education programs would be required to receive training in the sex-abuse program beginning next fall.

So these parents--all of them loyal and orthodox Catholics, active members of their parish--began to organize, and to inform themselves about their rights as parents of Catholic-school children.
The parents had several significant concerns:

• Their parental authority, as outlined in Church teaching and canon law, was being usurped;
• The program's contents violated their children's innocence;
• There were secular, worldly principles being fostered in the program that were inimical to their own Catholic principles; and
• The curriculum placed their children as the first line of defense for the archdiocese against legal liability.

PARENTAL AUTHORITY
Several fathers first approached the pastor of St. Catherine's parish, Msgr. Cornelius McCrae. The pastor urged them to organize the parents who were concerned, which they did, forming the group that took on the title "Shared Concerns of School Parents."

Msgr. McCrae proved friendly and helpful, but he made the revealing statement that, as a priest in Boston in the current climate, he could not publicly oppose the program, because he could not risk being seen as an opponent of any measure that might conceivably protect children from clerical abuse. So the parents, he said, would have to undertake their own campaign.

The Norwood parents did exactly that, organizing a meeting at which the cadre of concerned parents would present their objections to other members of the parish. This meeting was originally to be a lay-run affair, but then Msgr. McCrae changed his mind, and said that the meeting would be run by school administrators and archdiocesan officials, including Deacon Anthony Risotto, the director of the Boston archdiocese's newly formed Office of Child Advocacy, Implementation, and Oversight.

At that April meeting, the parents confronted the deacon with their dismay at being required to involve their children in a program that would, in their informed opinion, expose their children to harmful material. In asserting their rights, they presented the Church's teaching, including Pope John Paul It's words from his 1981 apostolic exhortation, Familiaris Consortio:

Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents.

Deacon Rizzuto's response, reported by several of the parents who attended the meeting, was that he had not read any of the Church documents to which they were referring, including Familiaris Consortio and Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, a 1995 document of the Pontifical Council for the Family. In fact the deacon, a retired Air Force officer, had no particular claim to expertise in the fields of family life or child protection; he had been chosen to head the new archdiocesan office from his most recent post as overseer of the archdiocese's cemeteries.


And Deacon Rizzuto replied simply that the unhappy parents should trust the teachers and the archdiocese. Rizzuto added that alternative programs and "making this program more Catholic" were options that could possibly be considered, but unless there were "enough concerned families," nothing was likely to change. And it was not clear how "enough concerned families" could be mobilized, if loyal parishioners were being encouraged to set aside their concerns and trust their teachers.

The Norwood parents were not to be so easily dissuaded from voicing their concerns. William Germino, father of a 5-year-old girl in a pre-kindergarten class, said he was concerned that the way in which sensitive material was presented in the "Talking about Touching" program would do more harm than goo--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."

Despite such concerns, the Boston archdiocese has decided that parents will not be able to have their children exempted from the lesson plans. Nor will parents even be allowed to monitor the classrooms in which their children are exposed to this sensitive material. In an interview with the Associated Press, Father Christopher Coyne, the official spokesman for the Archdiocese of Boston, reasoned that parents are not forced to send their children to Catholic schools, or to keep them in parochial schools if they object to particular programs.

He did not address the fact that 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.

Echoing the advice presented by Deacon Rizzuto, Father Coyne said that the parents of schoolchildren should trust their teachers and administrators. "At a certain point, you buy a program," he told the Associated Press.
But what is it, exactly, that parents of Boston schoolchildren are being asked to "buy into?" It is important to recall that the "Talking about Touching" program was brought into the Boston parochial schools in response to public outrage over the sexual abuse of children by priests of the archdiocese. Should concerned parents now "buy into" a program that they recognize as abuse in a different guise?

Moreover, the sex-abuse scandal that has shaken the Boston archdiocese was perhaps caused, and certainly aggravated, by the failure of chancery officials to respond to parents' complaints. When lay people complained about the behavior of abusive clerics in the past, they were ignored, or kept at arm's length, and assured that the clergy knew how to deal with the situation.

Now, after having seen the grotesque consequences of that approach, Boston's parents are again being advised to trust the "experts." And in a direct clash with the teachings of the Church, which clearly teaches that parents are the best "experts" in the formation of their own children, in this case the "experts" recognized by archdiocesan officials are psychologists, teachers, and administrators.

EXAMPLE LESSONS

During the introductory meetings at which "Talking about Touching" was presented in Norwood, the parents were given examples of lessons that would be presented to students.
In a 3rd grade class, the students would be given the following story:
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...

In the 1st grade, children would receive this instruction:
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.

A 2nd grade class would be presented with this example:
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.

The objection might be raised that the last scenario itself imparts a false lesson. The situation may or may not be "safe," but it is unquestionably wrong. Most children would feel a natural revulsion toward the uncle's actions, but rather than affirm that revulsion and engage in moral discourse, the children are instead presented with the vague secular idea of "wellness."

The "Talking about Touching" material could also frighten young students, parents suggested, because the case studies could encourage them 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. "Their minds don't need that," said Pauline Irwin, mother of three girls at the school. "You start putting these things into kids' heads."

When several parents questioned 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, a seeming admission that such cases are inevitable at the expense of their own innocence. In other words, the "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!

THE COMMITTEE FOR CHILDREN
The genesis of the "Talking about Touching" curriculum provides a fascinating case study in how secular forces - and highly questionable forces at that come into play within a Catholic-school curriculum.
The curriculum was funded by the State of Washington and produced by the Seattle-based Committee for Children. This committee is a non-profit organization that grew out of 1970s group called Judicial Advocates for Women, which itself originally grew out of Seattle COYOTE, and whose initial mission was to "educate the public about the realities of prostitution." In fact, COYOTE is an acronym for "Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics;" the group was founded in 1973 "to work for the repeal of the prostitution laws and an end to the stigma associated with sexual work." As of 1997, Seattle COYOTE's executive director was Catherine LaCroix, who billed herself as a "Dianic Wiccan priestess" and a "Shameless Sacred Whore."

The curriculum itself consists of lesson plans for children from pre-kindergarten to 5th grade and will cost each parish about $2,500 for the complete set. Sales of this program as well as other child-safety curricula netted the Committee for Children more than $8 million in revenue in 2001, according to its filings with the Internal Revenue Service.

"Talking about Touching," while recommended by numerous groups including SIECUS, an organization known for promoting the breaking down of taboos against adult-child sex, was proposed for use by the Archdiocese of Boston by the blue-ribbon Commission for the Protection of Children. The commission set up by Cardinal Bernard Law in 2002 amid the firestorm of criticism against the cardinal and the archdiocese for the mishandling of sexual abuse allegations against priests over several decades. Its overall mission was to recommend policies for the prevention of child abuse.

The commission's members included a dozen business leaders, mental health professionals, and educators, but no theologians, official representatives of the archdiocese, or even Catholic parents. As one Norwood parent observed, it seemed odd that the cardinal, who had excused the shuffling of predator priests from parish to parish by saying that the Church relied on psychiatrists and doctors, would turn to the same secular "experts" to come up with a program to prevent child abuse.

THE LIABILITY ISSUE
One of the primary reasons for implementing a curriculum that was available immediately, rather than developing an original program that could take Catholic moral principles into account, may have been the requirements of the archdiocese's insurers to decrease legal liability. In fact, "Talking about Touching" was accepted by the commission on the recommendation of the National Catholic Risk Retention Group (NCRRG), an insurance group formed in 1988 by the US bishops, which has also developed a companion program for training of adult parish leaders, called "Protecting God's Children." That group's primary mission is "financing and managing the liability risks of the Catholic Church" through "cost-effective excess liability programs."

In the end the Archdiocese of Boston has made it clear that the "Talking about Touching" curriculum will be implemented in schools and parish religious education with or without parents' support - although Father Coyne, the archdiocesan spokesman, has conceded that the mandatory requirement of the program for all parochial school children will be reconsidered.

Still, many of the concerned parents in the Boston archdiocese are unwilling to wait and see whether their children will have to endure these lessons in their schools during the next academic year. "We will be homeschooling my daughter next year," William Germino said, adding that he knows of at least one other parent who has already pulled his child out of the school. John Bettinelli added, if nothing changes in relation to the program, "We will have to homeschool. We'll have no option at that point." And the controversy shows no sign of abating, as parents with children in other Boston-area Catholic schools are joining the Shared Concerns of School Parents group at an increasing pace, and national media attention is being focused on what could be a model program for other US dioceses.


Even if they do choose to homeschool their children, the parents may be faced with another crisis in a few years, when those children are ready to receive the sacraments. If the parents cannot in good conscience send their children to parish religious-education programs that include the "Talking about Touching" curriculum, will the children be able to receive First Communion, or to be confirmed? At this point none of the parents in Norwood can answer that question. They only know that today, they may have no other options.
Author, Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. is the Managing Editor of CWR (Catholic World Report).
The Shared Concerns of School Parents web site is at (www.germino.biz/scsparents/).

Sunday, October 16, 2005

Bishop Vasa says No to "Safe Environment" Programs - part two

Bishop Vasa Says No to”Safe Environment” Programs -  part two

From Catholic World News News:http://www.cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cf

"Kudos to Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, Oregon, who has announced that he will not comply with a new USCCB policy USCCB policy requiring sex-education programs (advertised as "safe-environment" training) for all Catholic children.
Many Catholics have aired their concerns about these programs, and this bishop, at least, has obviously been listening."

He asks:
Are such programs effective? Do such programs impose an unduly burdensome responsibility on very young children to protect themselves rather than insisting that parents take such training and take on the primary responsibility for protecting their children? Where do these programs come from? Is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them? Is it true that other groups, actively promoting early sexual activity for children, promote these programs in association with their own perverse agendas? Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual matters? Do I have the right to mandate such programs and demand that parents sign a document proving that they choose to exercise their right not to have their child involved? Do such programs introduce children to sex-related issues at age-inappropriate times? Would such programs generate a fruitful spiritual harvest?
Right. That does cover the complaints, all right. Now what?
Bishop Vasa answers:
"At very least, even the possible unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above leaves me unwilling and possibly even unable to expose the children of the diocese to harm under the guise of trying to protect them from harm."

Bishop Vasa's email address is bpvasa@dioceseofbaker.org
God Bless and protect Bishop Vasa

Friday, October 7, 2005

Bishop Vasa says 'No' to "Safe Environment Programs" part one

Dear All, For those families still suffering because of the "safe environment" programs that they feel abuse their childrens innocence, here is some wonderful news for you. Bishop Robert Vasa from the Diocese of Baker is putting the children of the Baker Diocese under his protection. He is respecting the parents and their concerns regarding their own children. He is respecting the Church and Her Teachings and he is following in the footsteps of the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ. Who laid His life down for His Sheep and His little lambs.
Bishop Robert F. Vasa
Let us pray that other Bishops will ask questions of these programs so that our children will never again be subjected to abuse from the very people that are to protect them Here are his words and here is what he is concerned about. Thank God for this good Shepherd. To make sure we really protect children, we need answers 10/06/2005 Bishop Robert Vasa BEND — The next topic is one that I bring up only with great reluctance for I do not want to give any appearance whatsoever of being soft on my desire to assure the complete safety and protection of children. The Charter for the Protection of Children has been interpreted to include mandatory “safe-environment training” for all children of or connected with the Church. In the diocese, we have indicated that such training must be made available to all children under our supervision in our Catholic schools but have not taken on the nearly impossible task of assuming responsibility for every child in the diocese.
As a result of this discrepancy between a new interpretation of the charter and our diocesan policy, the annual charter audit will undoubtedly find the Diocese of Baker, and me as bishop, “Not in Compliance” and will issue a “Required Action,” which I am prepared, at this point, to ignore. I say this not because I resist efforts to protect children, but rather precisely the opposite. There are a series of questions that I believe need to be answered before I could mandate such a diocesan-wide program of “safe-environment training.” A few such questions follow: Are such programs effective? Do such programs impose an unduly burdensome responsibility on very young children to protect themselves rather than insisting that parents take such training and take on the primary responsibility for protecting their children? Where do these programs come from? Is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them? Is it true that other groups, actively promoting early sexual activity for children, promote these programs in association with their own perverse agendas? Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual matters? Do I have the right to mandate such programs and demand that parents sign a document proving that they choose to exercise their right not to have their child involved? Do such programs introduce children to sex-related issues at age-inappropriate times? Would such programs generate a fruitful spiritual harvest? Would unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above give sufficient reason to resist such programs? There are many concerned parents who have indicated to me that the answers to all of these questions are unsatisfactory. If this is true, do these multiple problematic answers provide sufficient reason to resist the charter interpretation? At very least, even the possible unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above leaves me unwilling and possibly even unable to expose the children of the diocese to harm under the guise of trying to protect them from harm. I pray that, in this, I am neither wrong-headed nor wrong. For holding to this conviction I and the diocese may be declared negligent, weighed and found wanting. (continued)