Talking about Touching in Minneapolis

Talking about Touching in Minneapolis

The debate over “safe environment sex education” continues in the Minneapolis-St. Paul archdiocese. Unlike other dioceses, concerned parents have been successful in getting the archdiocese to agree to allow parishes to choose between a Catholic-appropriate program and Talking about Touching, whose deficiencies I have detailed at length.

The parents’ group, Primary Educators, has updated their blog with information on the new push for the program as the school year begins. Among the key bits is the news that for the first time “the archdiocese has publicly stated in writing that the “Formation in Christian Chastity” or Harrisburg program is approved by Archbishop Flynn.” This is the alternative to the Planned Parenthood-endorsed Talking about Touching that parents were able to get officials to allow, if begrudgingly. The Harrsiburg program now has 36 schools using it, while Talking about Touching will be used in 31.

Speaking of the Planned Parenthood endorsement, in a Q&A in the diocesan newspaper, Sr. Fran Donnelly, archdiocesan director of the youth protection office, admits to the fact of the endorsement. This should embarrass everyone pushing this program as much as its roots in a pro-prostitution occultic feminist organization.

I hope someday soon people wake up and realize that these programs unnecessarily strip the innocence from children, make them responsible for their own protection from predators, and aim to make us forget that the reason priestly predators were able to do the damage they did was because bishops coddled and protected them.

Technorati Tags:, , , ,

  • JohnR:  While I agree completely that TAT (and VIRTUS, for that matter) are completely and unequivocally CYA actions, I couldn’t disagree more about three things:

    First, your blanket observation that “[t]he U.S. Catholic bishops—to a man—are utterly incompetent” is false on its face.  Utter incompetence, without a modifying object, means that not a single one of them can do ANYTHING competently.  At the risk of seeming to damn with faint praise, ALL of them can do some things well, and SOME of them can do MANY things well.  I think your point is that MOST of them can’t do the things you find important as well as you’d like, and on that you might find many people joining you.

    Second, your statement that Archbishop Chaput is “revered”—nonsense.  “Highly admired,” possibly.  “Well liked,” definitely.  But “revered”?  Come on.

    Finally, unless the Archbishop has written another piece in First Things of which I am unaware, your characterization of it as “whiney” [sic] and as one “in which he complained about activist lay persons daring to call bishops on the carpet—in court, no less” is, at best, disingenuous.

    You know very well that the argument he put forth in the article was about lawyers fashioning new law that is directed solely at the Catholic Church, so as to line their own pockets in later lawsuits.  He argued that such laws are unconstitutional since they are meant to apply only to the Catholic Church, and he said that the media is complicit because they refuse to publicize this nefarious scheming.

    You may have many motivations for your attitudes toward the Church, toward bishops in general and toward Archbishop Chaput in particular, but it doesn’t further your case when you twist the truth in order to do so.

  • John, the Church isn’t a company.  It’s the Mystical Body of Christ.  We are a family.  We pray for each other, especially those most in need, and we support those bishops who are strong.  Are you just another complainer, or are you going to be part of the solution?