Monday, October 31, 2005

The Hireling Report #5 - Part I

Abusing God’s Children
By Thomas Augustine
Sep 14, 2005

Link to Original

Additional links provided on the original site

In this regard, we recall what the Holy Father teaches in Familiaris consortio: "The Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles. That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity -- while still in the years of innocence -- by opening the way to vice". Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Pontifical Council for the Family Guidelines for Education Within the Family (November 21, 1995)

Penis. Vagina. Buttocks. Anus.

Coming soon to your parish as part of your children’s religious education.

This is not a joke!

VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children” program insists repeatedly in the K-2 lesson plans for teachers that parents should begin teaching their children these private body part names when their children reach 18 months of age! Can’t wait to have junior’s grandparents over to show off for them the first words of little Johnny! The sexperts and sexologists are so much more progressive than us silly parents. Apparently, so are our bishops.

Shocking to see such words in a Catholic publication? Welcome to dozens of U.S. Bishops’ response to the homosexual clergy abuse crisis in the Church. This “sex abuse prevention program,” “not sex education” as the program itself insists, is one of the most popular religious education and Catholic school curricula chosen by orthodox and modernist bishops alike to help “arm” our children to protect themselves against… whom?

You have to be kidding, you ask me. Well, lesson plan three for the K-2 grade curriculum, which is an “opt-in” session, meaning that unsuspecting parents will need to sign a statement opting their children into this program, has the four “grammar words” shown above, as well as some others just as shocking, to ensure we are protecting our children, from whom again?

The USCCB’s own report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study confirmed what many had always suspected. More than 85 percent of all of the sex abuse cases were by priests and bishops with pubescent and post-pubescent boys and young men (ages 11 to 17). In other words, according to these conclusions, homosexual priests and bishops were responsible for the vast majority of the sex abuse cases documented by the Church for the period of time of the study.

But wait! VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children” introductory video presents us with several “myths,” particularly this evidently very important one. This video can be downloaded at their website at One of the “myths” that is quickly presented in this first video, to be shown to thousands of youth teachers, volunteers, religion teachers and even “extraordinary” ministers of Holy Communion, is that “homosexuals are more likely to cause sexual abuse than heterosexuals.” The video goes on to emphasize in the next slide that “heterosexuals cause more abuse” than homosexuals.

Of course, 98 percent of the population is known to be heterosexual, while only 2 percent has homosexual inclinations. So, for the total number of abuse cases based on studies in the U.S., this “myth” by itself may be true. However, the problem with this statistic is that a homosexual male is more than 100 times more likely to abuse a teenage boy than a heterosexual male. I have taken my own informal survey from friends of mine. They have all categorically stated that as heterosexual men, they have no sexual attraction toward teenage boys. And remember, the Bishops’ own report showed 85 percent of pubescent and post-pubescent boys being sexually abused by priests and bishops, which means they had homosexual inclinations. But don’t worry, the Bishops’ “awareness” program will teach these 5 to 8-year-olds to be able to protect themselves.

Well, let’s get back to lesson plan three for the K-2 curriculum, and compare it to authoritative teaching on this subject. What makes this K-12 program particularly insidious is that its developers have lifted carefully selected Scripture passages and Catechism quotes to give it so-called “Catholic” window dressing. However, these proof texts have nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the lesson plan. In other words, just because Sacred Scripture speaks about Christ’s Body (The Church) and its “members,” it does not follow that He was referring specifically about teaching children their clinical body parts as a “protection” device in religion class or in Catholic grade schools as part of its “sex abuse awareness” curriculum. In fact, in the name of purity and modesty and chastity (words NOT used in ANY of the lesson plans of the entire course), Christ Himself would have never brought such scandal to young children.

Remember, this, or a similar program, with a slightly different name, most likely has been mandated by your bishop, no matter which diocese you reside in, as his response to the fact that homosexual clergy molested hundreds of teenage boys and young men, in thousands of known instances. This program is somehow going to prevent these sexual perverts and predators from harming your children. In fact, it is supposed to “empower” your children to ward off potential “unsafe adults” and their “unsafe touches.” One of the first stages is for your Catholic school teachers and religion teachers to teach them the clinical names of their private body parts. No, really… I’m not making this up. The Ph.D. level sexologists, psychologists, psycho-therapists and sociologist… Oh yes… and our bishops… all agree. And we know they are much smarter than us, and much smarter than the Vatican and authoritative Church teaching!

Paragraph No. 78 from The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality states the following:

It can be said that a child is in the stage described in John Paul II's words as "the years of innocence" from about five years of age until puberty -- the beginning of which can be set at the first signs of changes in the boy or girl's body (the visible effect of an increased production of sexual hormones). This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. 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.

Apparently, most priests and most bishops in the good ole U.S. of A. have never read this document from 1995. Apparently, most of them do not have the Catholic sense to review in detail the curriculum they have mandated to be taught in diocesan parish schools and religion classes by September 30 in many cases.

Surely, the “orthodox” Bishops will put a stop to this. “My bishop would never allow this,” you say. I thought the same thing. After e-mailing dozen of messages regarding the VIRTUS’s consultants’ checkered backgrounds with the culture of death and the recommended book lists for this curriculum, showing many direct ties to Planned Parenthood-backed and promoted books and contacts, the response I received from my diocesan office was the following.

My e-mail address has been blocked for incoming messages. Apparently, I hit a nerve. Surely, they didn’t do this intentionally. In fact, I called and spoke to the priest who is “in charge” of the program in my diocese, initially expressing my concerns. Of course, after the token respect and wordsmithing that is typical in so many chanceries throughout AmChurch, he must have believed I was appeased. Apparently, although there is no such thing as the Index of Forbidden Books any more, there is an index of forbidden incoming e-mail addresses. Perhaps the words in the text I was sending were being blocked by the automatic filter of the diocesan computer system. Or perhaps, because my e-mail list of concerned Catholic parents had grown, it was detecting this as spam.

OK. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided. I will e-mail them separately, and one at a time if necessary. Nope. Still blocked, banned and censored, for trying to “protect my children” and others from my diocese’s own incompetence. A priest friend recommended that I call His Excellency directly. Okay, I thought. I have spoken to the bishop on the telephone on other unrelated matters before. Surely, he doesn’t know what is in this curriculum. Surely, he has the Catholic sense to remove this stuff from his diocesan schools and religious education programs immediately.

Two phone calls to his voicemail more than a week ago. Finally, after listing some specific questions, such as the following, I received a response from the bishop’s media guy that said in effect that the bishop had not reviewed the children’s component in its entirety, and then later the diocese sent out a letter stating that Lesson Plan number 3 could be removed from the program. The diocesan response also said that due to lack of time, finances and resources, the entire child’s component (Touching Safety is the new and revised VIRTUS-backed “Protecting God’s Children” program) has not been reviewed appropriately. They would be “making changes” and assessing it for “next year.”

But this year, I guess it is OK for our children to have their innocence destroyed!

Beware of the Bait and Switch

It is a long-term strategy and well-known plan of the sex educators of the past 40 years to drop their curriculum on unsuspecting teachers at the last moment with a mandate to have it implemented as soon as possible. It is also a well known strategy to go back and remove the “offensive” elements of a curriculum after receiving a small, but vocal uprising from concerned parents.

After this customary dust-up, the approach of “We’ll remove the most offensive parts” or “those parts you find most objectionable” from the curriculum. After all, “We haven’t really had any other complaints so far except from you.”

Of course, at first they will try to appease the concerned parents (known as fundamentalists or “right-wing Puritans”) by insisting the curriculum states that parents are the primary educators, and of course, “your child” can opt out of the entire program if you would like.

In other words, in Catholic schools, by mandate of our beloved bishops’ interests in protecting our children from the homosexual perverts and predators in their ranks, I have the “right” to “opt-out” my child from this perverted curriculum, while the vast majority of K-2 students learn the body part names (as well as draw body parts, but “not the private ones” as the teacher calls them out, during a session on drawing body parts on their own silhouettes in swimsuits no less), all so my child can then go back into classrooms with these same “sex abuse educated” children. Then, they can go home and show Mommy and Daddy and their younger brothers and sisters (as long as they are at least 18 months of age!) how they can draw body parts on their bodies with swimsuits, but refrain from drawing penises, vaginas, anuses, buttocks when the teachers announces these private body parts aloud in front of the whole class… well, you get the picture, unfortunately.

So the “drawing the body parts” on the silhouette will be offered to you as being all right, because even the though the teachers are instructed to name out loud, the private body parts are the parts the children are not supposed to draw. So, we’ll just eliminate lesson plan three, and everything else will be all right. “The Bishop approved this program, you know. You don’t want to be disobedient. He is a descendant of the Apostles.”

But I thought the Bishop hadn’t reviewed the program?

Riggghhhhhhhttttt… Remember, this is mandated to be taught in some form or fashion at your diocesan Catholic school to your schoolchildren. But if they can’t get them there, then they’ll get it from volunteer teachers at your 45 minute religious education classes this year, for a total of at least three sessions—K-12.

Now, some will state, “Okay, you have made your case. This stuff should not be taught to the younger children, but what about the middle school and high school adolescents? Surely, there is some need for this there.”

According to the Church’s long-held teaching on the principle of subsidiarity, the family is primarily charged with the duty of teaching the full understanding from a Catholic perspective on “the truth and meaning of human sexuality.” In fact, the subtitle of the 1995 document is “Guidelines for Education Within the Family.” That is right—“within the family.”

But perhaps some modern, deconstructionist Scripture Scholar can reinterpret this subtitle to mean something exactly the opposite of what it states. Perhaps the Bishops and Priests are too “deconstructed” by the plain meaning of words to understand the plain meaning of “education within the home.” But I digress…

Ideally, age-appropriate talks on sexuality, chastity, modesty, purity, holiness and biology will be done as the child matures and begins to ask questions to his mother or his father. In fact, the document with the very title of the name in quotation marks above, says that the mother will ideally impart the information to the daughter, with the father to the son. Only if the parents delegate such tasks to others (the Church), should this chastity, modesty, purity and human sexuality information be imparted. And even then, it should never be done in a mixed class setting of boys and girls, or with a male teacher to females and/or vice versa. Ideally, and preferably, it should be done with the teachers assisting the parents with suitable Catholic curricula (not Planned Parenthood or SIECUS-adapted sources) with irrelevant Scripture verses and Catechism paragraphs proof-texted as Catholic window dressing. Even at the older grades.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, Catholic parents should ask for help and assistance from the Church and/or other experts in teaching these concepts to their children. Have any of you asked for this assistance from your Catholic priests, teachers and bishops? I know that none of my friends nor my wife and I have requested it. Remember, this or similar programs were mandated by the U.S. bishops as a response to the fact that homosexual priests and bishops, in 85 percent of the cases that were tracked, sexually abused and molested pubescent and post-pubescent boys. Because of this, all Church volunteers and children need to be armed this “vital” information to destroy their innocence, plant a low view of human sexuality in their minds forever, and become proximate occasions of sin.

Oh, yes, but the U.S. Church has paid out nearly $1 billion in claims and several dioceses have declared monetary bankruptcy (although spiritually bankrupt for dozens of years of course) as the temporal punishment due to sin. These programs are designed to “protect your children.” That is why your signature, whether you attend, or your child attends these sessions or not, is so important. The diocese needs your signature. The attorneys and the insurance company demand it. That is why you need to be fingerprinted in the Diocese of Arlington, and elsewhere. The Church must share your fingerprints with the State authorities to “protect your children.”

So, what about the older children’s curriculum? Surely, that stuff could be used in Catholic schools and in religion classes, couldn’t it?

Copyright by Thomas Augustine

Copyright© All Rights Reserved.


Post a Comment

<< Home