Benzinger Family Life Program

Written by a nmber of Sex-Ed Consultants

The Benziger Family Life Program (BFLP) would be more properly named, The Benziger Anti-Family Life Program: An Experience of Sharing Feelings About Myself, My Faith, and My Family.

Alice Grayson’s Review of the Sex Education Program

My experience of critiquing this series underscores the wisdom in the old adage, “What goes around, comes around” because theBenziger Family Life Program makes me remember my first experience with sex-ed at Fessenden (an independent private boys’ school, in 1987).

In the fall of that year, I discovered that my son, Ted, twelve years of age, was assigned to a sex-ed program incorporated in the health curriculum. The curriculum guide spoke of “common values” — such as honesty, respect, compassion — and was based on a text written by Mary Calderone of Planned Parenthood and SIECUS. Of course, the topic headings included lifestyles, contraceptives, gender stereotyping, explicit sexual terminology, etc. If a parent didn’t look closely, the program presented itself as an attempt to make children aware that their maturing sexuality was a new responsibility, which called for respect and reflection. The school was supposedly “assisting” the parents in this regard.

As a parent, aware of the hidden dangers in these “flowery” words of the curriculum guide, I proceeded very slowly. I thought I would alert my son but leave him in class until I could preview the films and steer parents into opting for some really commonly-held values based on Judeo-Christian ethics. When I called the headmaster and asked for ten minutes at the parents’ meeting, the headmaster said, “No,” and if I asked too long a question, he would “cut me off.”

Realizing I might have uncovered a bee’s nest, I sent for the films that the children were to see, published by McGraw-Hill, South Bend, Indiana, entitled Human Reproduction. The film opened by portraying a volley ball game in a nudist colony. It proceeded directly to a discussion of males and females while viewing nudes taking showers. Explaining the problems involved with pregnancy, the film suggested and portrayed, for all to see and take lessons, parallel masturbation, where pleasure could be obtained but the “pitfalls” of pregnancy could be avoided. It then moved on to contraceptive instruction and abortion options.

I was embarrassed and angry. However, I was also confident that if I told the parents what this program was about, it would end.

True to the headmaster’s words, however, I wasn’t allowed to explain fully the hidden agendas in this sex-ed program. He “cut me off.” He interrupted me and silenced me, but not before I was able to say “Parents, this program is contrary to everyone’s values — an objective standard of Judeo-Christian morality.” Several parents exclaimed, “Against whose values?” It was clear to me that the main concern of many parents was that their children not produce babies, and they didn’t care how. That this program openly contradicted Judeo-Christian morality made no difference to them or the headmaster.

Reeling from this rude treatment by the headmaster, shocked by the taunting voices of those parents who screamed, “Whose values does it contradict?,” I decided to temporarily leave Ted in class until I could complain to the Board of Trustees. Hopefully, they wouldn’t allow this travesty to continue. (The film was not scheduled to be shown for yet another month.)

As you might have guessed, the Trustee letter writing was a wasted effort. (The Board believed that this matter of curriculum was the headmaster’s responsibility.) Short of a law suit, nothing more could be done at Fessenden.

During my letter writing period, the classroom teacher explained to the children that everything they said would be confidential. Nothing would leave the class. She spoke about families and family problems. She asked the children to keep a confidential journal, and requested that they respond to the question, “How would you feel if your parents divorced? What would you do?”

Clearly, I had underestimated the pressure that this sex-ed class had placed on my son’s shoulders. On that day, in his journal, Ted wrote: “That’s not a problem I will have to deal with. My parents married for a life time and divorce is against our religion. Besides, I think this course is bad, and I think the headmaster is a `jerk’ for `cutting off’ my mother at the parents’ meeting last week.”

You might ask, “How do I know what my son wrote in his journal?” I learned the contents in an hysterical phone call placed to me by the headmaster. I said “Hello” when the phone rang. He screamed into the phone’s receiver the comments Ted had written in his journal. He demanded an apology from my son for disrespectfully calling him a “jerk.” He sputtered some self-pitying remarks about how much Fessenden and he, him self, had “done” for my son, Ted. He demanded that I drop everything and drive immediately over to his office to apologize.

Then, this professional man, this headmaster of a prestigious eastern prep and boarding school, this husband, and father of two children, after shouting, “Come here! Get over here right now!” and slammed down the phone on me. As God is my witness, I only said “Hello” when the phone first rang.

What happened next? I caught a plane for Europe that afternoon to attend a conference in Rome during the Synod on the Laity. I dictated a memo and withdrew Ted from class and eventually from the school, only to confront sex-ed again, Catholic-style, at St. Sebastian’s.

At Fessenden, the sex-ed course continued. Respect, honesty, and compassion based on the invasion of privacy, with the focus of sexology, values clarification, and feelings, remained in place, indoctrinating students.

This past winter the Boston Globe printed a story about a homosexual ring composed of students and faculty members which was operating at Fessenden. To my knowledge, the headmaster is still headmaster and the sex-ed course is still in place. Is there a connection? I believe the answer is “of course,” because the sex-ed instruction initiated the students and faculty alike.

The Fessenden program and the Benziger Family Life Program use the same tactics to achieve the same ends. That is, the child is first “liberated” from family and faith, and while still young, despite the rhetoric of chastity, through the process of values clarification the child actually becomes the victim of the adults’ agenda. This agenda can be pedophilia, homosexuality, abortion, contraception or whatever.

As the Fessenden story points out, the child is prey. This amazing reality is accomplished partly because some parents are naive and think the school can do their parenting job — especially because holding down two jobs and running a household is exhausting. However, it is also accomplished by sneaky tactics — where words do not mean what parents think they mean, and the methodology of invasion is essentially unknown to parents in terms of its depth and revelation of the private life of the student and the family.

Before demonstrating the specifics of BFLP, I think it is important to anchor the sex-ed phenomenon to the contemporary American scene. Newsweek’s June 8, 1992, cover story was entitled “Whose Values?”: [subtitled] “Whose justice? Whose morality? Whose community? Whose family?” The title is splashed across a picture of an intent, angry adult’s face. Naturally, remembering the angry shouts of Fessenden parents (Whose values? …if you will recall) the article caught my interest. The article about classroom values (pp. 24, 25) first cites Norman Siegel, executive director of the ACLU. He “sells” values education based on a concept of “tolerance” — racial in this case. (Catholics all know that the ACLU is notoriously anti-life.) Next comes a back-up statement by a professor, George Wood, coordinator for the Institute for Democracy in Education. Wood says, “Schools cannot be value free.” After that, some soft rhetoric ensues about staying clear of controversial issues, but the conclusion of the article calls for core basic beliefs: tolerance, honesty, respect, caring, and grass roots decision making.

These buzz words are the basis of the Fessenden program, and, really, all the Catholic sex-ed programs! They sell parents because parents’ definitions of these words are traditional and commonly shared across religious and ethnic barriers…something to build a nation on…

In a program like Benziger’s, however, honesty means to tell everything — all your feelings. Tolerance means to blur the distinctions between sin and sinner (hence the love affair with homosexuals is, in practicality, a political agenda for homosexuality). Respect means to blur the sin (i.e., no objective standard of morality). Caring means to become involved with everybody and everybody’s business — especially to welcome the homosexual and the feminist (who, of course, can do anything men can do and better). Grass roots decision-making means to replace home and faith teaching with personal feeling which is carefully molded by the text and the teacher to sway the “stripped” child in whatever direction is desired.

After having convinced “the public” of the necessity of this new values education, the discerning reader, upon continuing his study of this Newsweek article, will find in an otherwise persuasive interview with Marion Wright Edleman, founder of the Children’s Defense Fund (a pro-abortion, pro-sex-ed group that also provides legitimate service to children), this statement, in response to the lead in:

Lead in — “Family values” has been a code appropriated by conservatives. You are unique as a liberal speaking out on this topic.

Response — “I want to stop the labels. I’m liberal on some things. I am a deeply conservative parent. The conservatives don’t have a corner on values, on morality.” (emphasis added)

Comment

To Edleman, and to most “values” educators, values and morality do not relate to objective standards. Instead, values are the subject of a turf war, and the liberals are intent on reaching the kids.

To the discerning reader, or the wise parent, the message is clear: Never take words at face value. Never just read the bold captions of curriculum guides. Look beneath, go to class, observe.

With regard to the Benziger Family Life Program, I am indeed grateful to one group of very smart parents who have taken the time to look beneath, observe, and expose the sneaky deceptions of this series — which is advertised in the name of family and virtue. This coalition of mothers at Human Life International have informally turned over to me the not yet finished first draft of their critique ofBFLP. I quote from it liberally, and when not quoting directly I am most often using source material highlighted in it. I am deeply indebted to this small coalition of dedicated mothers, and I take no credit for identifying the many problems existing in BFLP.

I simply wish to call your attention to BFLP’s value restructuring of our young, accomplished by invasive methodology, desensitization, and deceptive misuse of the English language, repeatedly, and relentlessly with each progressive year. BFLP has launched an attack on the family and on the Catholic Faith, and has done so deceptively and effectively.

Definition of family

For example, let us begin by observing Benziger’s redefinition of words. In traditional language, both legal systems and all the churches have defined the family as a group of people related by blood or marriage. This definition intimately links the generative function to the sacrament of marriage as willed by God, our Creator. At an H.L.I. Conference (Miami, 1990 – (COM/HLI), Monsignor Dermat Martin, Secretary to the Pontifical Council of the Family, spoke of the Holy Father’s concern for the family and its definition. Speaking of defective definitions he declared, “When family is separate from marriage it is anti-family” (H.L.I. Conference, Miami, 1990 – (COM/HLI).

The mothers’ draft for H.L.I. (COM/HLI) reveals:

Benziger’s definition of the family never mentions marriage. This is one of the subtleties of the program that may not be easily picked up, but which will confuse the student about the true meaning of marriage and family. (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, review of BFLP, 1992, p. 7)

The draft continues…

Betty Friedan said the traditional family with its breadwinner husband, homemaker wife and 2.5 children were becoming extinct (note the same wording above is in Benziger) and Alvin Toffler said that “We are not witnessing the break up of the family but a revolution in the structure of the family.” Toffler also said, “When a woman bears a child it will be a national treasure.” (Washington Post, 11/21/79, p. B5). Betty Friedan called this stage two of the revolution. Stage one, she said, “cracked [the] feminine mystique.” In other words, stage one weakened the role of the mother and stage two will destroy marriage and the family defining it as any variety of living together arrangement. This assembly got its impetus from the White House Conference on the Family in 1978 which was a campaign to redefine “family.” The American Home Economics Association define family as “a unit of two or more persons who share resources, share responsibilities for decisions, share values and goals, and have commitment to one another over time…regardless of blood, legal ties, adoption, or marriage.”(Congressional Hearings on the White House Conference on Families, February 2 and 3, 1978 p. 432)

When we look closely at Benziger, we find that the young people are being prepared to accept just such definitions.

The Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, has been very aware of the movement to destroy the family. His Familiaris Consortiowritten in 1981 stresses the importance of family and defines each aspect in accordance with its duty to God, the Church, the community and each other.

Just because so many of the modern families are troubled by divorce and separation does not mean that the meaning of family should be redefined to fit with the new and irregular living arrangements. When family is defined as “a group of people living in the same home” and the student texts talks of different families and the “changing” family, the true meaning of marriage and the family unit, father, mother, and children and their importance is being blurred. Marriage is also being undermined. Furthermore it opens a Pandora’s box that will take in all types of living together arrangements including homosexuals living together and adopting children. (emphasis added
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 6)

The COM/HLI draft identifies the following samples of the Benziger Family Life Program redefinition:

In Kindergarten the definition of the family sounds innocuous enough, “A group of people living in the same home. They are usually related. A family can be two or more people.” The wording can be easily overlooked, thought to be a simplification made easy to understand, but then came a word of caution to the teacher which said “Be careful not to imply that only a stereotypical family of 2 parents and their 2.5 children counts as family.” Although this is only kindergarten, the stage is being set for a different definition of family. By grade two, the definition was a group of people who live together and love one another and the “differing structures” and “changing families” become the underlying theme. This is a grave concern of the Holy Father, so much so that he wrote “Familiaris Consortio” in 1981 to keep the meaning of “family’ intact.”
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 5)

Repetitive samples of the faulty definitions continue through the grades.

Grade 5 (Text (TX) p. 6.) The family is defined as “a group of people who live together and love one another.”

Grade 5, Chapter 9, vocabulary list reads like “a menu of families and includes, nuclear family, single-parent family, blended family, extended family, separation, and divorce” (TM p. 48) (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 47).

Grade 5, Chapter 9, under “Functions of the Family,” the non-family definition appears again: The family is the basic unit of society. Like a city or a nation, a family is a group of people who live and work together in order to provide for their own needs (TX p. 62).

The Homosexual Agenda

The erroneous definition of the family is of course the ideological foundation for advocacy of the homosexual “life style” as one way of living, just like any other way. COM/HLI comments:

Homosexuality is mentioned in a marginal note in the text which mentions a strong and lasting sexual attraction to members of their own sex and, of course, that “Homosexual persons are entitled to the same respect and dignity due to all human beings as children of God” (TX p. 50). It is elaborated upon in the Teacher’s Manual where it instructs the teacher that “fifth graders may raise questions regarding sexual orientation when discussion of attraction arise” and that “More information on the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality is provided in the document, Pastoral Care of the Homosexual Person.” And once again, respect, “no matter what their sexual orientation” is reinforced and “teasing should be firmly discouraged” (TM p. 41.)

Comments need to be made in this regard. Those who struggle against homosexual tendencies and live a chaste life are not the ones making all the demands for respect and recognition. It is not the person that they want accepted, it is the “lifestyle.” (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 43)

It is easy to see why homosexual advocacy in the classroom of youth involves redefining the family as part of an overall agenda which also includes removal of discrimination laws relating to gender or sexual orientation, as well as AIDS education (advocating both condom use and instruction in perverted forms of sexual expression). However, one needs to focus on another crucial concept regarding homosexuality. That is, researchers on the behavioral sciences such as The Kinsey Institute and Dr. Paul Cameron, Ph.D., of The Family Research Institute, report that about 16 percent plus of homosexuals have become that way due to the initiative practices of an adult. Of course, we are all familiar with the headlines of recent years, reporting case after case of clerical pedophilia and homosexuality. It is necessary to realize that those adults who see children as prey (homosexuals can’t reproduce homosexuals!), naturally gravitate to the school to secretly identify potential victims. The Catholic school, complete with vowed celibacy for clergy and religious, makes for very good “cover.”

What is particularly alarming and scary is that the invasion of privacy and sexual preoccupation of the sex-ed classes provides the “teacher” with access to the most intimate information about the student and his family. The child molester can afford to be very “picky,” to choose a child from a weak family structure (less chance of getting caught) and one who is occupied with sexual fantasies. (How naive it is of parents to believe sex educators’ claim that their role is to fill the gap for those parents who aren’t “comfortable” doing the job!) Recall that at Fessenden, both teacher and headmaster had read my son’s journal. Benziger plays into the hands of these molesters by liberating the child from the family, watering down the Faith, and then focusing on sex, the self, and feelings as the subject of sharing.

Sharing

Consider the redefinition of the word “sharing” which reveals its ugliness best in chapter eight, in first grade. COM/HLI comments:

The title of chapter eight is “Sharing with Others” and among the objectives in chapter eight is to “understand the relationship between love and sharing” and “increase the students” awareness that they can share skills and definition for “sharing” in the chapter reads:giving to others of your possessions, skills, and time; telling others about your ideas and feelings. (emphasis added)

The chapter will be subtly teaching the young children that if they don’t reveal their feelings, that is share, that they are to then view themselves as being selfish and uncharitable or unwilling to give to others. Thus revealing all about oneself is being fostered as being right and good. To get the students involved in the idea of sharing, among several activities is one that includes having the students close their eyes and imagine a favorite game or toy. The class is divided into partners who face one another and pretend to lift the toy and hand it to their partner telling them why it is their favorite. It is to be pointed out to the students that they are not just sharing their toy, they are sharing their feelings. (emphasis added)

With one activity after another prompting the child to talk about his personal feelings to everyone in the class, the end of the chapter finally mentions “Talking to God.” The Teachers Manual instructs the teacher to tell the students that when there is no one else to talk to the children can always talk to God. The teacher is to tell the students “that what comes next is very special, a prayer to God” which the students are to repeat line by line after the teacher (TM p. 43). It reads: “Dear God, Help me to tell how I feel. Help me to show Your love. Amen” (TX p. 32). (emphasis added)
(COM/HLI, unpublished, draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 17)

The Benzinger Family Life Program makes it clear that sharing feelings is an independent activity of enormous value. The strategy is to start with the youngest children (kindergarten) and quickly get them to talk first about themselves, then their families and, as the years progress, to discuss social and theological issues. Clearly, the subject matter of sex education in BFLP is the child himself. Sex methodology and political agendas also “share” the spotlight. Church doctrine, the reality of good and evil, sin and sacramental forgiveness are purposely blurred.

Let us peer into the “sharing feelings” phenomenon as it progresses through the grades:

Kindergarten

Children are asked to bring in family pictures and to discuss growth and changes. Even this seemingly harmless activity can be difficult on children from broken homes. Change and growth is discussed, which of course, sets the tone for values restructuring toward the new and away from the past.

In chapter four, kindergarten children are encouraged to talk about feelings relating to a milk spilling incident. They are instructed torole play feelings, such as sad, angry, sorrowful, or frustrated.

All feelings are to be experienced and freely “chosen.” The correct response is hidden among the incorrect, and the chapter concludes with the BFLP’s authors’ prime goal which is a standing, not kneeling, prayer to God, thanking God for a litany of gifts or talents. (Of course, in the eyes of faith, non-talents are God’s gifts too, such as blindness or ugliness or physical and mental handicaps.) The prayer’s “concluding sentiments” are a petition to God that He will help them tell others their feelings.

Also, as early as kindergarten, children are introduced to pedophilia and instructed to respond with a simple “No” word. There is no instruction for the child to flee this situation to seek safety and adult help.

Grade 1

Already, at age six, children are asked to talk and sing about what their family does. They are to discuss what things go wrong in families, and what members could do to make them go right (TM pp. 16, 18 and TX p. 10). (They are also asked to write in their journalabout a family argument and how the child, himself, can “end this argument.” The first grader is instructed, at another time, to “close his eyes” and imagine something “going on at home” (Guided Imagery Technique).

The Teacher’s Manual tells the teacher, “Mention that God gives everyone feelings as a gift and that feelings are good because they can help everyone grow and change and help others.” It then instructs the teacher to have the students “draw a face to show how you feel” after which the students are to show their pictures and name the emotions they drew.

The teacher is then instructed to print “TALK ABOUT IT” in very large letters where the class can see it. The teacher is to ask the students what they should do when they are feeling sad, first, then angry, afraid, and happy. After each emotion is named the students are to shout, “Talk about it!” The students then pick a time they felt sad, angry, or afraid and draw the face that indicates how they felt and act it out. (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 17)

Besides the role playing, notice the shouting techniques associated with this conditioning exercise. Shouting is used in prison camps and boot camps to achieve a desired objective.

Chapters 5 and 6 are those with the Respect for Life theme. The first page of the chapter in the text talks about taking care of one’s body because it is a gift from God (p. 21). The Teachers Manual instructs the teacher to ask the students to volunteer their “family’s rules for face-washing, bath-taking and special actions they follow when someone has a scrape or a cut.”
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, p. 15)

Interestingly, the Canadian Bishops have endorsed a “Catholic” sex-ed program called Fully Alive, which depicts a family sharing a bathroom together in various states of disrobing. This attention called to bath rules opens the bathroom door, which door, of course, leads straight to the bedroom.

COM/HLI traces a gradual, deepening intrusion into family life with the following excerpts from Benziger. Role playing, guided imagery, and group sharing continue:

Grade 2

In grade two, the students put family names on popsicle sticks and have the sticks act out what the different members of the family do (Teacher’s Manual (TM) 2 p. 16).

Grade 3

In grade 3 the children draw “Who we are,” “What we share,” and “Where we live” in the boxes provided. Students are to make up “Family Trees” (p. 19) and tell the class about any famous relatives they have. The students also keep a journal booklet which they entitle “My Family and Me” and are instructed to draw pictures or write about something “personal” which is to “be kept private” (TM 3 p. 21).

… After a lesson on divorce, the students are asked to “share” their “thoughts and feelings about living in a single-parent family” (TM 3 p. 16). Not only is this intrusive into family privacy, but may be emotionally traumatic for a student whose parents have broken up. It will turn the student’s thoughts toward the missing parent and the sad memories that accompanied the break up. Teachers are not trained to undo the emotional trauma that this kind of prodding could uncover.

In the following teacher instruction which is part of the same lesson, the student is to be asked, “Do you look forward to growing up? Why or why not?” (TM 3 p. 16). After conjuring up what may have been very depressing thoughts, the results could be that the child may have a bleak view of the future.

The third grade text has the students write a story or draw a picture about your favorite family meal. “Tell or show who was there, what you ate and why your family was celebrating” (p. 13). Then in the Teacher’s Manual (TM) the students are to be asked, “Which person [at the meal] is your favorite? Why?” (p. 19)
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992)

The divorce business is identical to my son Ted’s, experience at Fessenden. I have firsthand experience at how he reacted and he wasn’t even suffering from a divorce experience!

I am particularly appalled at the question of, “Who is your favorite person?” I can’t think of a more damaging question in relationship to family unity. Aren’t children frequently comparing themselves to their brothers and sisters, wishing they were the favored child, while simultaneously claiming unfair treatment if parents act in any way they perceive as favoritism? Isn’t this the essence of the moral challenge to the child — to love and offer himself to his brothers and sisters, and to honor his parents and submit himself to parental authority? In reality, in relation to all of us, with God as our Father, we are really living this same challenge. We are not to compare our lot in life with that of others. We are to love our enemies as well as our friends because we all belong to God. We are expected to give an accounting of our own lives and respect God’s judgment and authority in God’s administration of justice and mercy.

Grade 4

Under “health habits,” the family’s eating habits are scrutinized, as well as how often the family bathes! (TR p. 64) Questions about favorite friends, and about friends of the opposite sex are asked. Questions about the children’s teenage brothers and sisters are brought up, always asking for children to share their feelings. The Teacher’s Manual says that this material might induce some children to raise questions about homosexuality.

Grade 5

All this feeling and sharing is part of the desensitization process of, course. By grade five, age ten, the child is supposed to be quite comfortable with the body changes discussed in chapter four, inclusive of the vocabulary words: puberty, hormones, androgen, estrogen, reproductive system and pubic hair. COM/HLI writes:

For example, after reading about all the places hair grows and other things that grow or change, the teacher is to “let those students who have older brothers and sisters share what physical changes they noticed as siblings became teenagers” (TM p. 26). Can you imagine what discussions that could trigger, not just in the classroom, but on the playground, the school bus and so on?

The chapter tells about the reproductive system, sperm cells, egg cells, facial hair, breasts, pubic hair, perspiration and that’s only a sample of what is to come (TX pp. 26, 27).
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992)

As expected, parents haven’t escaped the classroom scrutiny either. As if the physiological changes of brothers and sisters weren’t enough, our fifth grade students are instructed to:

“…interview a parent, or other adult they feel close to, on how they first learned the facts of the human reproduction system.” Then they are to share this information with the class (TM p. 33).

Explicit sex

In all the chastity series, sex is the vehicle used to depersonalize the child. He is gradually conditioned to talk about everything private until he really owns nothing, not with regard to his body, his family, his thoughts, or his soul. Our sexuality is the very symbol of what is private and sacred, belonging to God. Below is the explicit sex sample from Benziger which takes this sacred gift away from the person and makes it public property. COM/HLI reports it with skill and acumen (Grade 5, Chapter 5):

Chapter five goes into “Physical Fatherhood” and is perhaps the worst chapter in the entire series not just in what it says, but in what it does not say. First, note that the following information about males is for students ten to eleven years old who ride bikes, play hide and seek, play with toys and nonsense games and love adventure, and it is for little girls who play with dolls, play hopscotch, help in the kitchen and dream of being old enough to wear make-up and high heels.

This is what they will learn. There is a vocabulary list which defines 16 terms for male sex parts and functions and adds the term “Abba” which is defined as a “term of endearment for one’s father; Jesus used this form of address for God” (TX p. 34, 35). The text states that the students have learned about the many systems; blood, muscles, skeleton. Now they are to learn about the one that is completely different in the male and female. These other [sic] “systems,” however, were mentioned very briefly with each system getting hardly a good sized paragraph with no detail given. Note the following excerpts of explicit detail given to the male reproductive system: (Catholic doctrine teaches, of course, that human beings do not reproduce, they procreate. [sic])

The two main organs…are the testes and the penis …[The]…testes are about the size of small olives…they descend into…the scrotum.

[The] scrotum hangs down between his legs at the front of his body.

shaped head…[and] a tail that moves back and forth, so it can swim in the fluids of the body.

The penis is a fleshy, tubelike organ located between a male’s legs, in front of the scrotum. It is made up of spongy tissue. Most of the time the penis is small, soft and flexible.

At certain times, blood flows into the penis and causes it to become longer, wider, and firmer. This is called an erection, in order for the sperm cells to leave the father’s body, the penis must be erect (TX pp. 34-35) (emphasis in the original).

There are “Questions” about the male organs and the sperm cell to be answered. And although much of the “Activity” sections in the program calls for personal revelations, this one lists the following words whose definitions are to be written down: Testes, Scrotum, Erection, Foreskin, Urine, Circumcision, Sperm and Penis (TX p. 35).

The Teacher’s Manual instructs the teacher to slowly read each paragraph from the above while the students look at the diagrams in their texts and locate the parts. The teacher is also supposed to stop after each paragraph for comments and questions. “Correct terms” are a must and students are even directed to write about “learning about using correct terms” and share with the class (TM p. 32).

The text continues with more detail:

…a father and a mother are needed to pass on the gift of life.

The father’s body must have a way to give the sperm cells to the mother’s body. Her body must have a way to receive them.

…sperm cells are collected in…the epididymis…[and] travel through a tube known as the vas deferens and are stored in…the seminal vesicle.

[The] prostate gland…adds a milky substance to the sperm, creating a liquid called semen…[which] travels through theurethra…[and] is then released from the body through the end of the erect penis.

Semen is released from the man’s body in a series of spurts…called ejaculation. Semen may contain more than 100 million sperm cells…

Without the boy’s being very aware of it, his penis may become erect and an emission…may take place. This release is sometimes referred to as a nocturnal emission, or “wet dream” (TX pp. 36-37) (emphasis in original).

Not only are the innocent little boys going to be told that they have little tadpoles with heads and tails in his body and that swim, but that they have 100 million of them. (The one pictured on page 35 in the text is big and creepy looking.) How is a little boy going to feel about this knowledge? Suppose this upsets him. He is also learning that the only way to get rid of these “tadpoles” is through an erect penis. Where will that lead?

Again there are more “Questions” about semen, ejaculation and nocturnal emissions and words that call for written definitions. They include: Testes Epididymis, Vas deferens, Seminal vesicle, Prostate gland and urethra (TX p. 37).

The Teacher’s Manual again urges the teacher to teach students to correctly pronounce the terms and asks students to share what they know about reproduction of plants and animals (TM p. 32).

The students are to write down questions that they have for the teacher (p. 32).

Students are directed to write a paragraph on whether students their age understand the reproductive system and then they are to share and discuss “How lack of knowledge about one’s own body could be harmful” (TM pp. 32-33). Is this to prepare the students to defend what they learned? Or, perhaps it is to be a means for the children to convince themselves that this public bombardment of sexological, biological and urological information that has invaded their most private person at a very private time in their life (latency) has some redeeming good.

The youth just don’t need all this. It takes only a few minutes of the parents’ time to explain what the child needs to know when he is ready and asks. This is far too much, far too public.

The students are to be directed to form small same-sex groups to discuss their thoughts and feelings about what they learned with one another (TM p. 33).

The chapter even covers jokes about sex and magazine ads. The students are to sit in groups and search through magazines for ads that use “males” as sex objects and then discuss their feelings about that (TX p. 38 & p. 33).

The chapter has been very embarrassing, very destructive of purity and personal modesty — very intrusive into personal and family matters, but it gets worse. The “Faith Dimension” section of the chapter says: “Emphasize that the concept presented here is fatherly love, which may be expressed by any man” (TM p. 33).

The text states, “Even though God is neither male nor female. [period in original] Jesus called God Abba — `Father’” (TX p. 39). God is not referred to as a Person of the Trinity, “God the Father,” but as genderless and a source of fatherly love. This will become very confusing, not just in this chapter but also in the next. (emphasis added)

The students are to talk about “terms of endearment they use for their fathers.”

The students are also to “meditate for a few moments on God’s fatherly love.” Then it suggests that the students say the “Our Father” (TM p. 33).

Just these few examples make it difficult to see what is subtly going on here, but think about this. By this time the children will be struggling with all sorts of impure thoughts and pictures of genitals in their dear minds. Then the lesson is going to bring “fathers” into the picture and not just their father, but they are assigned to “meditate” on “God’s Fatherly love” and, just after that, the Our Father prayer is also to be said. Thus the children are led to a point where, when they think of the person “Father” whether on earth or in heaven, they cannot help but be reminded of this lesson and unwillingly wonder about their sexual plumbing that identifies them as “father.” The children will sense the wrongness of their thoughts and be confused and will probably be unable to express their confusion or else be too embarrassed to do so.

Chapter six is about the female reproductive system and violates the girls as Chapter 5 violated the boys. (COM/HLI, unpublished draft # 1, critique of BFLP, 1992, pp. 37-41)

COM/HLI comments that the fourth chapter of the female section refers to God’s motherly love, as a “Mother hen,” and brings in the Hail Mary in a similar fashion that the Lord’s Prayer was used in the previous chapter.

A student who has experienced this kind of invasion in the Bridgeport, Connecticut public school system, told a parents’ group that she felt she had been psychologically raped. It was like losing one’s virginity, albeit by a stranger. Moreover, it was an unwilling experience. By the time this student was able to verbalize this horrible experience, years had passed. Benziger accomplishes a rape of the mind, as well as a “para” rape of the body through its privacy invasion and its raw exposure to “gut” sex in every falsely conformed detail, and in every form of perversion.

Why?

As explained before, the purpose of sex education is to replace the worship of God with the cult of man, where man names for himself what is good and what is evil.

Faith and family undermined

Faith and family are obstacles to the objective stated above. Faith, Benziger-style, must be made to appear abstract and unclear — soft and fuzzy. No demands are called for by Faith, just general suggestions. Traditional family values (e.g., virtue and Faith) must be removed from any authority position — making it impossible for parents to pass on tradition. In some paragraphs in Benziger, Faith gets skewed and family gets undermined simultaneously. For instance, in grade four, chapter two, the Teacher’s Manual says that its purpose is:

…To help the students grow in understanding of how the Church Rules — especially the Fourth Commandment — are a guide for family living.

As background it quotes Gaudium et Spes “By means of love, respect and obedience toward their parents, children offer their specific and irreplaceable contribution…(#48)” The meaning one would immediately grasp is then diminished with the following statement to the teacher. “This does not mean, however, that parents, should raise their children to be non-thinking entities who obey without reflection. The children should always know that they have the freedom to choose how they will act…(TM 4 p. 17).” (emphasis added) (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992)

The fourth commandment doesn’t even appear until the end, and is explained away primarily as doing chores and thinking for oneself about rules and choices (TX 4 p. 17) (TX pp. 12-14). Nowhere does it say that disobedience of the fourth commandment is a sin.

COM/HLI reports:

The Teacher’s Manual instructs teachers to review The Commandments of the Church if time allows. It also mentions the Sacrament of Reconciliation for “when you have made a wrong choice” but again does not mention the word sin. Teachers are directed to include lots of “sharing” activities where students talk about choices, both their best choices and wrong choices. In essence, the classroom becomes a place for “open confessions.” If the students confess to one another, they will see little or no need to go to confession.

The Strand activity at the end of the two chapters once again encourages the private and personal family journal where answers to questions reveal “attitudes, feelings, values, and beliefs rather than facts or information” which are to be written. Although confidentiality is initially expressed, the same questions for use in the journals are also suggested for creative writing or class discussion (TM 4 p. 20). So much for privacy. (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992)

The words of the Ten Commandments are scattered throughout Benziger, but never taught. In fact, when the students are finally instructed to read them, they are also instructed to write how they feel about them — or they might like to put them in their own words. Likewise, traditional prayers, rather than memorized, are to be rewritten or serve as a basis for composing one’s own prayer. However, a Sioux Indian prayer is to be orally professed according to Benziger instructions.

Another combined sample of method role playing, as well as subtle undermining of faith and family occurs with the following:

…One of the scenarios, a group is to discuss reads: “You cheated on your math test. No one caught you. You feel guilty.” The Manual then asks: “How will you choose to act on your feeling?” (TM p. 39). Nowhere does it say that this act was dishonest and therefore is sinful. Instead it is telling the students that wrongful acts can be resolved through group discussions. If they are settled that way, the child will never feel a need to go to confession and receive the sacrament of penance. The small group activities are dangerous to the souls of these innocent children who are being confused by all this group therapy play.

The student text tells the students “Jesus Had Feelings.” It says that the Bible tells about Jesus’ feelings, that “Jesus always chose the right way to act on His feelings” and that “Jesus enjoyed meals with His friends. At the last Supper, He prayed that they too, would be filled with this same joy” (emphasis in the original) (TX p. 53). Jesus is God, He is a Healer, He is a teacher. He is not a chooser of feelings. Isn’t this text even implying that our Lord “enjoyed” the sacrifice meal, the Last Supper? (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1,critique of BFLP, 1992)

Sometimes BFLP isn’t so hidden in its design to break the bond with the family. In grade six, the text states,

To the extent that you accept your family’s cultural and social preferences, you identify with your family. To the extent that you do not accept these preferences you express your individuality. Both patterns of behavior are healthy. Only you can choose for yourself how you will respond (TX p. 9).

Even in grade one, the table is set to establish the habit of questioning and breaking rules. COM/HLI writes:

The review also has a small section called “Silly Rules” which says: “Sometimes people make rules and laws that are very silly. But until someone changes them, they just go on being laws.” It then mentions “some of the “silly” laws in America” which may sound silly to the general public (TM p. 59). However, all laws have a purpose and it would have been more educational if the explanation included that rather than arbitrarily poking fun at the “silly” laws. What is the message in this lesson on laws anyway, that laws can be silly and ignored?” (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992)

Sneaking around parents

I am exceedingly concerned with the sneaky manner in which BFLP “goes about infecting the students.” For instance, the grade four student’s book contains no graphic sexology. The Teacher’s Manual, however, suggests that they use grade six material (intercourse section) with grade four children. Parents looking at their children’s books do not know what’s actually being presented. The marginal notes are full of Commandments, Rules, rosaries, etc., but the underlying text doesn’t follow up — or worse — twists the meaning, such as the Golden Rule redefined to mean a need to concentrate on loving oneself.

Androgyny

Benziger is subject to the same familiar androgynous approach to male-female sex differences. A grade five work sheet recites “The difference between men and women are not in what they are, but in what they do. The text says that there are no rules about what a woman likes to do (Grade 5 p. 41).” By grade seven, the language becomes refined “Sexual stereotypes can produce restrictive roles for men and women.” It is, of course, a short skip to the liberated woman, out of the home, out of the baby business, and on to important things, like ordained priesthood. BFLP functions as a working paper to argue access to power positions within the Church for women. If women wish to “be like God and rename man,” they need some religious credentials and Benziger helps the process along.

Intercourse, marriage and babies

The liberated woman needs sex separated from babies and sex separated from marriage. COM/HLI has found that Benziger provides for that. In grade five, just because the eleven year old child is such a perfect age to reform and restructure, we find the description of intercourse repeated several times. Benziger writes:

… The husband places his penis in the wife’s vagina and sends millions of sperm cells into her body (TX p. 57).

COM/HLI comments:

So this is not new to the students, just more repetition with a few more added details.

The subtleness in the above description of intercourse is obvious. It leads one to easily believe that if the sperm were blocked, say by use of a condom, it would not be considered intercourse. The Teachers Manual then adds to the confusion by saying that “the two purposes of sexual intercourse within marriage” — giving love and giving life — are always interrelated. It never says that intercourse outside of marriage is wrong and sinful. The students are to talk about songs, movies, TV and radio that `seem to say that sexual intercourse is not so special or private’ (TM p. 44). Here again no mention of thewrongness of sexual activity outside of marriage, just a notion that intercourse is just special and private. What is subtly being said is that only in marriage is intercourse for procreation.

On the previous page, in a marginal note, marriage is mentioned as having certain expectations, whereby the couple is expected to remain faithful, expected to be open to children, and expected to pass on their faith. Nowhere does it mention that marriage is a vow or promise to God. The wedding day is mentioned only as a “celebration of marriage,” just a lot of flowery words (TX p. 54).

There are only brief allusions to Catholic teachings, but they are without substance. They seem almost out of context with the overall secular and political attitudes being fostered.

A chart in the text details eight stages of fertilization from the release of the egg to cell division to implantation (TX p. 56). Although the body of the text states that when egg and sperm combine, “a new human life begins” that is not mentioned in the description on the chart. Furthermore, no time spans are given for the process from fertilization to implantation leaving the student with just ideas of cells dividing to form “a cell cluster…from which the baby’s body will develop” (TX p. 56). Without the inclusion of a process could take weeks or months rather than hours. If young girls are left with the impression that the baby is just a cell cluster, it plays into the hands of the abortionists who deceive young women by telling them that abortion is simply removing a mass of cells.
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, critique of BFLP, 1992, pp. 45-47)

Even in grade three we find Benziger rewriting science to fit an abortion agenda.

Chapters seven and eight have the theme Catholic Christian Sexuality. The introduction to chapter seven tells the students four signs of being alive, (1) “is growing and changing,” (2) “means taking in food from the outside,” (3) “means moving by one’s own power” and (4) “means making new life” or reproduction (TX p. 48). The above signs of life are deceptive. Look what these innocent students are being taught. A baby in the womb is very much alive, but it cannot take in food from the outside. Who’s side is Benziger on? The pro-abortionists are always trying to make an issue over disagreeing when life begins.
(COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, review of BFLP, 1992)

Note the use of the word reproduction under the title Catholic Christian Sexuality. To the feminist or the humanist or modernist (however one wishes to call them), who can rewrite the nature of male/female, rewrite the Commandments to fit into the feminist agenda, what’s a little rewriting science?

To the modernist, it is not shameful to relabel human procreation to be called human reproduction. Just because there is no such thing as human reproduction, well that’s a small matter!

Sexual attraction as the basis for marriage

When Benziger speaks about single adults, the text alludes to sex as the basis for marriage, stating that the reason people do not marry is because they may not feel a strong sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex. This does not offend the feminist, or the homosexual. COM/HLI comments:

… This tells the students that there are no spiritual aspects to love, and no real enjoyment in the company of one that they love, and reduces marriage to satisfying lustful desire (T. p. 51). (COM/HLI, unpublished draft #1, review of BFLP, 1992)

Benziger can hide the truth, stretch the truth, omit the truth, and simply ignore the truth. Moreover, Benziger knows how to do this truth-doctoring very well — given its skill in privacy invasion and soul stripping. The children are left with no defenses. No wonderBenziger, and the rest of these sex programs are the pride and joy of the homosexuals, the feminists, and all those who take pride in dissenting from the one true Holy Catholic Church. The fact that Benziger can destroy a child and deliver him into the hands of the devil is so sad, so very, very sad. It’s just as sad that the parents don’t realize this and that the pastors of the Churches do not use their authority to expose the lie.

Neutering God

However, what is maybe the most sad, for someone who really loves God, who worships Him as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is to watch Benziger neuter God. Benziger plays into the hands of those liturgists who call for nonsexist language. Mary Daly’s war cry, “If God is male, then male is God,” has a simple solution: neuter God.

As alluded to earlier, the children have been prepared for this, by the methodology and by the truth twisting which has been explained already. So, in Benziger, at the seventh grade level, we find the text teaching our children:

Although God has been traditionally described in masculine terms, Father, King, Lord; this does not mean that God is male. God, as a Divine Being, does not have a gender. Gender means a person’s identity as male or female (BFLP, Student Text, Gr. 7).

The worksheet question asks the student to respond, “Who is God for me?”

Benziger ignores the fact that the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., defined God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Male identity of God is rooted in Scripture and Tradition. When one neuters God, one loses His protection, His authority, His Hope…

I believe it is time for those who teach from Benziger to remember the words of Pope St. Gregory the Great: “God, who promises us forgiveness, never promises us tomorrow.”

The adult child

It might be difficult to believe that I had to be selective about my Benziger samples, but I was. One whole series of samples I have omitted relate essentially to sadness. Benziger does its best to lay the burdens of the adult world on the shoulders of the child. It plunges the young child into the problems of homelessness, hunger, world population, demography, sickness, divorce, and death. It’s almost as if the writers of BFLP have not addressed the mystery of love, suffering, and hope of redemption in their own personal lives and therefore, burdened by the world’s sorrows, they wish to “dump” them on the child. The child is socked with a guilt trip, which becomes quite personal at times, such as in divorce, when the obvious conclusion the child draws is that his parents’ divorce is his fault.

To conclude Benziger, I thought I would disclose a sample which appears in both editions of the Benziger Family Life Program, grade seven, (p. 58, old edition); (p. 53, new edition).

Sex Education — Needed or Not?

… Some people go through life never learning to deal with themselves as sexual beings. And as a result, they have problems. Some people think the way to combat ignorance is to teach sex education in the classroom. Other adults oppose such sex education. Because you are in the class, you come from a family which believes that you should have facts about your sexuality, and that you should learn about the Catholic teaching on such matters. How would you answer the following newspaper letter, based on what you have learned about the Catholic teaching on sexuality?

Dear Editor,

I may be old-fashioned, but I can’t see teaching sixth and seventh graders sex in the school room. They are a long way from needing that kind of information. Why rush them? If you start putting sex into their heads, first thing you know, they’ll start experimenting. No wonder we have so many unmarried mothers among teenagers.
Concerned in Illinois

I would answer that parental letter by first saying that there is no purpose in discussing what has been forbidden by the Magisterium of the Church, and of course, that the Benziger Family Life Program should be renamed, the Benziger Anti-family Life Program: an Experience in Sharing Feelings about Myself, My faith, and My family.

Furthermore, if I were the student in that Benziger classroom, being asked for my comments, I would conclude by saying, “That’s one smart parent!” and I call that parent, “Dad.”