Who are they kidding?

Who are they kidding?

The Washington Post weighs in now with its take on the revolt in the Arlington diocese over the Good Touch, Bad Touch program. I was taken aback by a couple things. First, the reporter says that Arlington is so conversative—they don’t have altar girls! Good Lord! Someone tell them the Dark Ages are over.

The bigger and more outrageous statement is that of Kathleen McChesney, head of the US bishops’ office of child and youth protection, who says of objections to these sex abuse programs for kids.

“I’m not aware of much protest around the country,” McChesney said. “I think most people recognize that the more you can teach young people about safety in general, the better off their children will be.”

Are you kidding me? What about the parents in Boston, who I know contacted her office? What about the dozens of articles written about the protests in magazines, newspapers, and wire services? That should could say such a thing shows how self-delusional these people are and how much they want to create the appearance that placing kids on the front lines of their own protection by stripping them of their innocence is a normal thing.

The Post article, as you might expect, is not sympathetic to the parents. In fact, the parents say the description of their behavior at the meeting is over-exaggerated. They also point out that the diocese has spiked a story that was to appear in the diocesan newspape, the Catholic Herald, about the meeting that would have provided a more sympathetic view of the parents.

As the priest as the end says, the main objection for many is that such programs shift the focus away from the real sources of the Scandal:

“This is an example of the diocese blowing smoke,” said the Rev. William M. Aitcheson, pastor of St. John Bosco Church in Woodstock, Va. “Until we go into the seminaries and root out the homosexuals and dissenters, we will not get at the root of the problem” of child abuse.

1 comment
  • My respect for Kathleen McChesney is diminished.  The second comment is disengenuous: “safety in general” as people use the word refers to unforeseen risks (like don’t hide under a tree during a lightning storm, look both ways before crossing)—the risk that TAT “teaches” about is a profoundly moral issue.