I have just been informed that the US bishops’ conference’s Office of Child and Youth Protection has sent out a four-page memo to all US dioceses. Here are the highlights, but if you can’t be bothered to read them, here it is in a nutshell: “We know the Church has an inconvenient teaching that parents are primary educators of their children and another inconvenient teaching that children’s innocence is to be protected from undue instruction in sexual matters, but some parents are just too stupid to raise their children the way we say they should and, besides, when you weigh the cost of legal settlements versus the innocence of children it’s not even close.”
Here’s the long version from Teresa M. Kettlekamp, directer of the USCCB’s OCYC (whose contact information is at the end of this post), beginning with �All children must receive arch/diocesan/eparchial safe environment training� under pain of the issuance of a �Required Action� for non-compliance. Here are some excerpts from the four-page memo:
�Some arch/dioceses/eparchies have been using a form of safe environment training for children that is not acceptable.
�� any such training programs for children which are totally left to the parents and are not conducted as a regular part of a school or religious education program, curriculum or classroom work and overseen by the arch/diocese/eparchy will not satisfy the requirements of Article 12 of the Charter. This will result in the issuing of a Required Action to the arch/diocese/eparchy to provide safe environment training to children as required under Article 12. Not to do so will be considered noncompliance.
�All children must receive arch/diocesan/eparchial safe environment training. The only exception to this requirement is for the public school religion students who receive safe environment training as part of their regular public school curriculum.
�A parent can refuse to allow their child to participate in the arch/diocesan/eparchial, but this must be done on a case-by-case basis, and four conditions must be met. These conditions are:
Arch/diocesan/eparchial training must be offered to the child.
Arch/diocesan/eparchial safe environment materials must be provided to the parents for the safe environment training of their child.
The parent must specifically state in writing: (1) that safe environment training was offered to their child, (2) that they refused to allow their children to participate in this training, and (3) that they have received safe environment training materials for their child.
This document must be maintained by the arch/diocese/eparchy to ensure full accountability concerning the safe environment training of every child.
�Some have argued that since the parents are the primary educators of their children, they should decide whether and how their children should receive such sensitive information. Both I and the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People agree that parents are to be the primary educators of their children and have the right to refuse the safe environment training by the Church.
�It is a sad fact today that some parents are unable or unwilling to provide the educational support essential for the safety of their children. Moreover, there is the tragic reality that child and sexual abuse oftentimes takes place in the home. The full cooperation of all the parents in the training offered by the Church sends a strong message that all adults are responsible for the safety of our children and that we as adults are committed to seeing that every child receives age-appropriate information for their protection.
�I also take this occasion to dispel an unfortunate misunderstanding and characterization of safe environment training. Since its mandate was the result of the clergy sexual abuse crisis, some have incorrectly concluded that this training is sex education training; it is not.�
Did you catch the implied threat in that sentence I boldfaced? If you refuse to enroll your child in mandated “safe environment” training, you will be under suspicion of being a bad parent, at best, and a child molester, at worst.
As for her specious claim that it is not sex education, that is not what people are claiming. No one claims that it’s aim is to teach the mechanics of sex. The complaint is that the program is too graphic and exposes children to sexual concepts and ideas that should be reserved for adulthood. Children can be taught how to avoid strangers without graphic details. Such programs put children as the first line of defense, shifting the focus from bishops who averted their gaze from abusers to children and their parents.
Also their requirement that parents sign a document stating that they refused to enroll their child has one purpose: a legal liability waiver. If your child is abused by a Church employee, they will be able to say, “Sorry, but you refused safe environment training. Good luck with that.”
You can find out all that’s wrong with these programs from my 2002 article Talking about Touching, which details how the program in use in many dioceses has its roots in a group called COYOTE (Call Off Your Tired Old Ethics) founded by a pagan priestess in order to seek legalization of prostitution. Read it and be informed. Others have since done even more work on this issue. Do some Google searches for SEICUS and Talking about Touching and Good Touch/Bad Touch to see what else is involved.
A friend sends along the following formula which be of help for those bishops who received “Required Action” notices:
What an outrage to suggest that parents are potential abusers with “child and sexual abuse oftentimes takes place in the home” by virtue of the fact they have suspicions about the morality and impact of these programs upon their child. Are they in denial about the scope of the clergy sexual abuse scandal?
One of the techniques of an abuser as I learned in the VIRTUS program was that he shares sexual knowledge with a child that is neglected or has a strained relationship with his parent(s), then he builds upon that intimacy or guilt to exploit the child.
Dom, it’s about control and Rel Ed bureaucracy telling the parents—know in no uncertain terms—that the Rel Ed bureaucracy is determining the rules of engagement.
The Greek Othodox Church has Apostolic Succession, doesn’t it? But I’m sure they are floating in the same flotsam and jetsam.
NOTE: I’ve been able to get around EVERYTHING so far. My kids are home schooled using a Catholic Curriculum. So we convinced our DRE and Pastor that they attend Catholic Boarding School, and are not subject to such HOGWASH!!!
It’s time to wipe out the USCCB bureaucracy. I think it has been infiltrated with overly intellectual Catholics who think they know better than the rest of us (No harm intended to Dom and the rest of the bloggers here).
It’s really only a matter of convincing the insurance companies that it’s not going to happen again. All that is really needed, then, is an adequate deterent. About a bazillion ‘deterents’ come immediately to mind. Would you like me to name a few?
Was at a extended family gathering this past weekend – and one of my aunt’s was saying that her daughter (my cuz) was having a hard time trying to convince the parish Confirmation director that she could adequately teach her child the requirements at home – not wanting an inexperienced CCD ‘teacher’ to do so (the last one spent much of her time talking to the little ones about how special her junior prom had been … what?).
Yes it certainly looks like a CYA ‘solution’ rather than a real concern for the protection of the children.
And as to religious ed. teachers assuming the parental role in this, you can add school counsellors to that also.
Years ago I almost came to blows with a counsellor at my daughter’s (Catholic) high school in similar circumstances.
Title of the thread should not be “Your Bishop’s Council at Work”, but rather, “Your Bishop’s Council Attorneys Issue Yet Another Set of Rules”
The bolded sentence about ‘abuse frequently taking place in the home’ is deceptive and misleading.
Documentation demonstrates that MOST ‘abuse’ which takes place ‘in the home’ is committed by NON-parents—i.e., boyfriends to the separated/divorced mom.
But hey—USCC has bought into the SIECUS agenda, which requires that they buy into the lies necessary to propagate the agenda.
tkosal, you hit the nail on the head.
In the broader scheme of things attorneys have become the proclaimers of how we shall run the parish, especially where kids are concerned. I can’t even take kids anywhere without having $50,000 coverage on a vehicle!
The root seems to be the idea that we must do what is legally sound instead of what is morally and ethically sound. Let’s sacrifice the kids in the interest of not being sued. Let’s put the onus on the parents and kids and not on priests and bishops.
“@earthlink.net
4.238.179.207
2005-09-13 12:32:10
2005-09-13 16:32:10
…you are like white-washed tombs…
What’s the Pope’s phone number. I have a complaint.
And they’re not still teaching Talking ‘bout Touching are they, Dom?
Ugh.
So, the USCCB stops a guy from pod-casting their copyrighted Bible, but now forces kids, not to have decent Catechism, but to endure the kiddie version of corporate sexual harrassment presentations.
I give thee a new commandment:
Kneel Down. Home school. Drop Out.
Both I and the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People agree that parents are to be the primary educators of their children…
Well, gee, how about that? They “agree” with Church teaching.
That’s mighty big of them. Do they also “agree” with the Nicene Creed?
Tony C,
Oh they’re still pushing Talking about Touching all right. It’s been made mandatory in all schools and parish religious education programs. How are we supposed to teach kids the faith if more than half of the class sessions are taken up with this crap?
To be honest, both my pastor and I (as religious education coordinator for my parish) refuse to be involved with it. My pastor said the archdiocese can remove him if it wants, but he won’t be party to something immoral. Same goes for me, although I have less to lose.
Can you clone your pastor, Dom?
Maybe we could Xerox him and pass him out to all the parishes in the U.S.?
I tend to view this as a process of “making lemonade” out of the sexual abuse scandal.
I am convinced that the hidden agenda of the sex ed classes prior to the Boston’s Globe’s reporting of the scandal was the elimination of inhibitions in the parochial school kids so that they would be vulnerable when asked to participate in immoral activity.
At my former parish when I challenged one of the assistant priests about the classes which he taught, he told me that the kids needed to be taught birth control because “they’re going to do it anyway” and this way there would be less of a chance of pregnancy.
Now that the world is onto the abusers, it looks like a new excuse has been found for talking about sex with young children. This is just way too convenient. If parents are smart they will take their kids out of the program and do what they think is necessary at home.
So, all you parents: Order the Seton Catholic Home School Religious Ed program, and push back.
Also, if you kids are in CCD, remember, they can still OPT OUT
So, all you parents: Order the Seton Catholic Home School Religious Ed program, and push back. [url=http://www.setonhome.com]http://www.setonhome.com[/url]
Then read the book by Mary Kay Clark, Catholic Home Schooling. There is quite an intro by a faithful priest who gives his opinion about CCD AND Catholic Schools today.
Also, if you kids are in CCD, remember, they can still OPT OUT of TAT. Or better yet, buy a program such as this and OPT OUT of Religious Ed, period.
Question on this topic:
Does/will this apply to all US dioceses, or only some?
I’m going to ask this same question on another topic; please be patient with me.
Yes, homeschool.
This applies to all dioceses. The USCCB OCYP claims oversight over all dioceses in the US.
This applies to kids in Catholic school, or all kids in the diocese?
She clearly says all kids, Catholic school and parish religious education.
Okay, pardon my ignorance but can anybody here tell me how to locate the entire memo?
I have been to the USCCB site and I cannot locate it.
Can somebody give me link?
Thank you and God bless.
I don’t think it’s been posted in its entirety online yet. I twas sent to dioceses and I received excerpts from a friend. I’m still trying to get a complete copy.
Is this available online?
Because our archdiocese says the public school kids don’t need the safe environment training and our parish doesn’t have a school.
But they’re doing it anyway. Grrr …
I should read the whole thread first. Sorry.
I’ll be watching this issue.
Maybe I could volunteer to teach CCD at my local parish but insist that my class take place at my house and only my kids will be admitted as students?
I wonder to what extent a priest will withhold First Communion? Does the USCCB still authorize praying the Rosary at home or have they copyrighted that, too? Has the Seton homeschool CCD programme been placed on the Index of banned material, yet?
Is there any way for parents to request that they be notified of the days on which these lessons in perversion will be given to students so that parents can keep their children home on the designated perversion days?
That would be up to the individual parish or school to inform you. However, since the curriculum has 17 units and most CCD classes meet only 25 weeks, you can rest assured that they will spend more time on this than on learning their faith.
This disturbs me quite a bit. I haven’t heard anything about our parish doing anything like this with CCD, but my training for it (first year at this parish teaching CCD) is on Saturday. If it is included at all, I will resign and pull my daughter out of Sunday classes. For sacraments, she will need to go to retreats (3 for Confession, 3 for First Communion), but because I homeschool with Seton, she is not required to attend CCD on Sundays. (I decided to put her in this year so she’d know more of the kids at our parish.)
BTW, I took that VIRTUS program, and was NOT prepared to see molestors on those tapes. Honestly, they ought to warn people. I was ready for victims, but do the people in charge have ANY idea what it’s like for a person who was a victim of sexual abuse (by anyone at all) to see molestors calmly talking about how they lured children and snowed the community? It’s not easy to have Christian thoughts at times like that, I’ll tell you. And it has put some people all the way back to thier own abuse. They ought to have a warning, you know.
I just saw a copy of this memo last night. This will render our program for “training” children in my diocese useless! We currently have Formation in Christian Chastity, which does not have classroom “training” for grades 2 through 4. The Director of Child Protection and Safety for our diocese assured us last spring in an information meeting that there was no problem with us opting our children out of this program. Looks like his tune will have to change based on this memo!
I cannot believe the tone of Ms. Kettelcamp in her memo. She really doesn’t think too highly of us parents! It’ll be easier to opt out of public school programs like this than it will be for the church!
I’m glad that I homeschool my children for CCD, something that our parish has supported so far. I certainly have no intentions of “requesting” that my children be exempt from these training programs, we’re just staying away from them!
It has always been of some reassurance to me that there are ways around safe environment training, but based on this memo I’m very concerned that all steps are being taken to close up any loopholes. What will happen when it comes time for my children to receive the sacraments?
Someone might want to direct Ms. Kettlecamp’s attention to the following passage from Familiaris Consortio:
‘The family and society have complementary functions in defending and fostering the good of each and every human being. But society-more specifically the State-must recognize that “the family is a society in its own original right”(111) and so society is under a grave obligation in its relations with the family to adhere to the principle of subsidiarity. By virtue of this principle, the State cannot and must not take away from families the functions that they can just as well perform on their own or in free associations; instead it must positively favor and encourage as far as possible responsible initiative by families.’
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html)
My apologies if this has already been brought up, but this passage on subsidiarity would seem to forbid the kind of policy that Ms. Kettlecamp wants to impose on children in parochial schools.