Crocodile Tears – Are the Bishops Really Sorry

Oxymoron Introduction

Dear Reader,

I have some questions to ask you.
Now that Cardinal Law has admitted his mistakes and resigned his position as Cardinal Archbishop of Boston, do you feel justice was served and the “problem” over? Also think about the other 195 dioceses in the United States – they too have expelled their culprits and called for open cooperation with law enforcement authorities. Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, announced that the Bishops have come together and recognized the grave situation of the fallen priests and the wrecked lives of their victims due to pervasive child abuse. In June 2002 the American bishops published The Charter for the Protection Of Children and Youth. Below are experts. The full text can be found at https://www.usccb.org/offices/child-and-youth-protection/charter-protection-children-and-young-people

• From the depths of our hearts, we bishops express great sorrow and profound regret for what the Catholic people are enduring.

• We, who have been given the responsibility of shepherding God’s people, will, with God’s help and in full collaboration with our people, continue to work to restore the bonds of trust that unite us.

• The loss of trust becomes even more tragic when its consequence is a loss of the faith that we have a sacred duty to foster. We make our own the words of our Holy Father: that sexual abuse of young people is “by every standard wrong and rightly considered a crime by society; it is also an appalling sin in the eyes of God”
(Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers, April 23, 2002).

• Let there now be no doubt or confusion on anyone’s part: For us, your bishops, our obligation to protect children and young people and to prevent sexual abuse flows from the mission and example given to us by Jesus Christ himself, in whose name we serve.

The Charter also defines abuse, as an offense against the virtue of purity to the minor:

• The norm to be considered in assessing an allegation of sexual abuse of a minor is whether conduct or interaction with a minor qualifies as an external, objectively grave violation of the sixth commandment (USCCB, Canonical Delicts Involving Sexual Misconduct and Dismissal from the Clerical State, 1995, p. 6). A canonical offense against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue (CIC, c. 1395 §2; CCEO, c. 1453 §1) need not be a complete act of intercourse. Nor, to be objectively grave, does an act need to involve force, physical contact, or a discernible harmful outcome . . .

The Articles of the Charter call for constructive measures on many fronts, instituting disciplines and procedures, which for the most part, should have been in place long ago.

---

Regarding a safe environment for children, the Charter had this to say:

Protect the Faithful in the Future

ARTICLE 12

Dioceses/eparchies will establish “safe environment” programs. They will cooperate with parents, civil authorities, educators, and community organizations to provide education and training for children, youth, parents, ministers, educators, and others about ways to make and maintain a safe environment for children. Dioceses/eparchies will make clear to clergy and all members of the community the standards of conduct for clergy and other persons in positions of trust with regard to sexual abuse.

ARTICLE 7

Each diocese/eparchy will develop a communications policy that reflects a commitment to transparency and openness. Within the confines of respect for the privacy and the reputation of the individuals involved, dioceses/eparchies will deal as openly as possible with members of the community. This is especially so with regard to assisting and supporting parish communities directly affected by ministerial misconduct involving minors.

ARTICLE 5

We repeat the words of our Holy Father in his Address to the Cardinals of the United States and Conference Officers: “There is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who would harm the young.”

The bishops also appointed a committee called the Office of Child and Youth Protection. It is headed by Kathleen McChesney, an ex-FBI Special Agent, to manage the Church crisis. The Committee, in turn, commissioned an independent audit group, (Gavin Group) to study the compliance of the bishops with their Charter of 2002. The report of this study, issued by the Office of Child and Youth Protection, can be found at: Protection of Children and Young People | USCCB

The questions before us are: Is compliance to the Charter adequate, comprehensive, and appropriate? Does it conform to Canon Law? Are you satisfied? Are the bishops sincere? How binding is the Charter of a Bishops’ Conference on a particular bishop or pastor? A subject not addressed in the report is: Are the seminaries free from the homosexual dominance? Do you feel safe in contributing to your Archdiocesan Annual Fund as well as the many charitable programs the Church manages? Are you comfortable sending your child to a Catholic school? Do you trust the Catholic school system enough to provide a true Catholic education? Does the Catholic school still provide fine character development, instruction in the teachings of the Catholic Faith and academic excellence in teaching secular subjects? What about the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine programs in the parishes? Is the scandal over, or not?

Do you think that something else might be going on in the Catholic schools and catechism programs – something that may continue to keep the children at risk?

Allow me to reflect on my own questions. I am very uncomfortable with the sincerity of many Catholic Bishops and the general direction in which the Catholic Church is moving.

The bishops have not addressed the problems of homosexuals in the seminaries. Statistical reports indicate that the rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child abuse is enormous. By ignoring this fundamental cause of child and adolescent abuse, the Bishops have also ignored the cause of the crisis in the Church. (Regent University law Review, Vol. 14:283, under CRAFTING Bi/Homosexual Youth) as reported by David Vise.

I am also disturbed at the compulsive nature of the Charter and the Committee. It indicates that the bishops march lock step when there is no Church law supporting a binding nature of a conference or meeting of bishops. Each bishop must remain free to pastor his flock, and to honor Cannon Law as it applies to his priests and the faithful, accountable to the Pope (The Vicar of Christ) and ultimately to Christ Himself.

A statement from the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, under Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, said it had “ serious pastoral reasons” for not being in compliance with everything that the auditors sought. The statement noted that the U. S. Bishops’ Charter is “an advisory document” not binding on individual dioceses.”

Although the above quotes from the Charter sound well thought out, they are sufficiently abstract to raise red flags over their implementation. In actual fact, The Office of Child and Youth Protection’s response to Article 12, regarding a safe environment for children, has been to require dioceses to adopt safe environment programs, administered by the same chancery officials who have ignored the pleas of parents regarding sex education programs for decades! These programs are another form of classroom sex education being foisted on our children. In the name of sanity, they are indeed, child abuse. Parents must band together to say, “Stop! Enough is enough!”

Look at the report of a parent at a meeting in the diocese of Arlington, VA held on the child abuse program called “Good Touch, Bad Touch.”

“But I think the worst part was the program’s fundamental principle: The manuals explain that youngsters will feel ’embarrassed’ when they use the words ‘sexual abuse,’ but the method insists on using them, allowing ‘child abuse’ as a substitute term only as a last resort and only for the pre-K.

The social worker explained that the training emphasizes repetition so the pre-K children will be ‘desensitized’ from the ‘shame’ they feel when they discuss such a sensitive topic. Well, in my book, that’s the language of the culture of death. Catholic teaching would call it an attempt to destroy the child’s holiness, to assault his sense of modesty, and to traumatize him for life.”

In the face of all this, Nolan (Bishop Lavorde’s representative) soldiered on, insisting that “the rule now is not to have additional meetings,” that the deadline for adopting a “safe environment program” loomed, that the Charter required one that did not have parents as teachers, and that she would deliver all the concerns addressed that night to the bishop.”

Unfortunately, the current state of affairs has not changed. Fr. O’Shaunessy says it well:

“I define as corrupt, in a sociological sense, any institution that has lost the capacity to mend itself on its own initiative and by its own resources, an institution that is unable to uncover and expel its own miscreants. It is in this sense that the principal reason why the action necessary to solve the gay problem won’t be taken is that the episcopacy in the United States is corrupt, and the same is true of the majority of religious orders. It is important to stress that this is a sociological claim, not a moral one.” (The Gay Priest Problem)

(It is also important to recognize that there are some exceptional Bishops who have not mandated classroom sex education or safe environment programs. Many Eastern Rite bishops, and certainly Bishop Bruskewitz, recognize that the responsibility to pastor their flocks is theirs alone.)

I write the following story to make parents aware of the run around I experienced with church officials in the Archdiocese of Boston and to show the common nature of classroom sex education with the new safe environment programs, in the hope that children may indeed be spared. My goal is to first summarize my experience in this introduction, and entice the reader to read the actual letters, which transpired between the Archdiocese of Boston, Cardinal Law, and me. These letters show both the depth of the Church’s crisis and the arrogance of management, which has gone unchecked for far too long.

Since the mid 1980s, as mother of four children in Catholic schools, I became aware of dangerous, invasive sex education programs, which focus on children’s emotions, and invade their privacy. While parents, on some occasions, were given lip service that this education was necessary to bring their children up chaste in an increasingly unchaste world, it took little research into these programs themselves to see that the opposite was true.

The sex education programs were sexually graphic. They used a faulty method of education called “values clarification” which urges children to share their most intimate feelings and create a personal value structure independent of family and traditional Church teachings. Some of these programs were administered to very young children. Their innocence is never recovered.

Dr. Melvin Anchell, renowned child psychiatrist, explained In What’s Wrong With Sex Education?: Preteen and Teenage Sexual Development and Environmental Influences (Catholic Central Verein Central, 1993, SBN: 0962625744)

“Nature causes direct sexual energies in the 6 to 12 year old to become dormant.” (p. 16). He states that interference by means of sex instruction during that age period renders a child ineducable (p. 17). Anchell further states that compassion which “is essential for the control of cruelty impulses in the human” is underdeveloped when the latency period (6-12) is disturbed. “If compassion fails to develop during latency due to direct sexual energies being kept stirred up by school sex teachings, it is most likely not to develop at any other time in life. Persons whose compassionate feelings are destroyed during latency by sex education are frequently devoid of this emotion.” (p.19)

Dr. Anchell states that latency “is also responsible for strengthening inborn mental barriers that control base sexual and aggressive instincts. These mental barriers, or `restraints,’ consist of shame, disgust, moral ideas, aesthetics, pain, horror, etc. These barriers are inborn and are essential for controlling raw, sexual, aggressive and brutal instincts. . . Instead of strengthening these controls, however, school sex courses use every educational technique known to break down these mental barriers.” Anchell states that youth need such barriers to be effective later in life and that these barriers must be strengthened by family, school and religion (p.20)

These barriers are broken by psychotherapeutic values clarification techniques being used in the classrooms that reeducate and indoctrinate children into believing that they can make decisions or choices on their own based on feelings and emotions rather than on any higher authority, a parent or God. This thwarted sense of direction not only makes a child self-centered and selfish, but because children (and even adults) need direction in their lives, children turn to their peers, establishing a strong, unhealthy peer dependency. . .

Today’s sexually educated female, who fails to abide by her natural feminine inhibitions, and is led by sex teachings and peer pressures to prematurely engage in sex, reacts with feelings of disappointment, coldness and emptiness. Due to engaging in intercourse prematurely, her feminine psychology fails to develop her feminine emotions (which) become dry and sterile and a life-long conflict develops between her and the inner femininity and motherhood feelings. (p. 24)

(Information from Dr. Anchell’s book from the Fall 2003 Newsletter of Mothers’ Watch)

---

My own story begins in 1987, when my 12 year old son was a student at the Fessenden School in Newton, Massachusetts. He was assigned a sex education program authored by Mary Calderone of Planned Parenthood and SEICUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S.).

The program included a film, produced by McGraw Hill, South Bend, IN 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 – parallel masturbation. The message was that pleasure could be obtained but the “pitfalls” of pregnancy could be avoided. It then moved on to contraceptive instruction and abortion options. Of course I withdrew my child from this sex education program and alerted other parents.

The following year, I enrolled my son at St. Sebastian’s Country Day School in Needham, Massachusetts. Cardinal Law was President of the Board of Directors. At peace, for only a couple of months, I was shocked to learn that the Catholic school to which I had turned for holy teaching was in fact implementing, for all students, a sex education course based on a book called Understanding Sex and Sexuality by Nancy Hennessy Cooney and Ann Bingham. (Ms. Cooney, is one of the individuals who signed the “Solidarity Ad” in the New York Times, March 2, 1986, which held that abortion could sometimes be a morally valid choice.)

Next followed an ineffectual meeting with the then-Headmaster of St. Sebastian’s, Father Reipe. Eventually I talked with Cardinal Law at a social reception. I spoke with him about Fessenden and, in particular, St. Sebastian’s. I complained about Headmaster Father Reipe not being concerned about the textbook’s author. She was pro-abortion and linked to the Planned Parenthood crowd. I told Cardinal Law I would write a critique of the textbook so he could see for himself what was happening at St. Sebastian’s. I believed he would do something. I followed up and submitted the information to him. Unfortunately he did not intervene at St. Sebastian’s. I forwarded that critique to Cardinal Gagnon of the Pontifical Council for the Family, in Rome.

Other families also wrote to Rome complaining of the “New Creation Series” as well. By the summer of 1989, Cardinal Gagnon condemned the “New Creation Series.” The Cardinal was not supported by his brother cardinals at Rome’s Congregation for Education and the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. Cardinal Gagnon urged parents to write in protest. I did by writing Cardinal Ratzinger in August 1989.

During the1990-1991 school year, I again sought assistance from the Archdiocese. My son, Tim, was assigned to take a sex education course in the seventh grade at Belmont Massachusetts public Middle School. He was 11 years old. After excluding him from this class, and complaining to the teacher and principal (to no avail), I sought the assistance of three local pastors in Belmont. None came forth. Instead they advised me to write to the Education Office of the Archdiocese.

I received no help from the Chancery offices of the Archdiocese. I begged several priests and nuns there to make a statement condemning this Belmont program. They refused. I tried to have an article about the problem printed in The Pilot. Nothing was printed. Ironically, I learned that members of the Parish Council at St. Joseph’s in Belmont actually helped to write the sex education program! No reprimand for such activity was forthcoming.

Instead of assistance, I was shuffled around from office to office in the Archdiocesan administrative maze. Each office affirmed the principle and validity of conducting classroom sex education programs. Several people endorsed the programs themselves and pointed to the American Bishops for their support of such a position.

The absence of the Catholic clout resulted in my inability to persuade the town selectmen that this course should be removed, or even that parental permission should be required. Our Catholic children in public schools are still being desensitized and taught an ethic contrary to the teachings of the Church.

Too little too late. The Boston Pilot, as well as the Belmont newspaper wrote up the story of my challenge to the Town of Belmont. By then, the horse was out of the barn.

From 1990 through June 1991, I learned that the problem of sex education in the Catholic school was no local Boston problem. In fact, the National Council of Catholic Bishops in November 1990 ratified a new statement entitled Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Life Long Learning.

By renaming sex education, “chastity education,” the Bishops mandated that these programs were to be implemented in all Catholic schools throughout America. Even more upsetting, I learned that many pro-life groups embraced the idea of promoting so-called chastity programs despite the values clarification methodology. They appeared to be ignorant that these programs immersed children in sexual imagery, and associated sex with problems, disease, and death rather than sacramental mystery and babies. This is still the case today. Pro-life groups would do well to understand that chastity education is actually a cause of teens choosing abortion.

I then wrote several letters to pro-life groups with neutral responses. However, to my joy, James Likoudis, President of Catholics United for Faith, wrote a scathing review of the Bishop’s Document, Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Life Long Learning.

By June 1991, after meeting with Cardinal Law again at a pro-life dinner, I insisted that he take a leadership position and correct his subordinates who, with impunity, were disregarding the doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Faith. On June 24th I submitted a rather long letter to Cardinal Law summing up our conversations and correspondence over the previous years. My letter asked Cardinal Law to remove the offensive material and included suggestions of appropriateness in keeping with Catholic teachings.

By July 12th the Cardinal wrote that he was going through the material and consulting with Father Steele of the Education Office and Monsignor William Murphy (now Bishop Murphy, Rockville Center, Long Island, NY). On about July 15th I wrote back to him stating that I appreciated his consideration.

Sometime after July 12th, but before August 12th, 1991, I remember having a phone conversation with Monsignor Murphy. I had known “Father Bill” for several years and held him in great respect and personal affection. I remember in the conversation that “Father Bill” admitted to me that the sex education programs were objectionable and gave me reason to believe that something would be done.

However, the letter I received from Monsignor Murphy on August 12, 1991 was quite the opposite of our phone conversation. He explained he had met with Father Steele of the Religious Education Office and together they spent the morning pouring over the material submitted to Cardinal Law. Monsignor Murphy was satisfied with the status quo: the teachers, the methods, the books, the curriculum and the faith content.

He enclosed a document, Suggested Guidelines for Sexual Education in Catholic Schools. The Guidelines were in a developmental stage and issued from the Religious Education Office. Considering the work I had done, this letter from Monsignor Murphy was exceedingly disappointing. I had worked hard to concretely demonstrate to the Archdiocese that its sex education programs were authored by dissenters, taught by ignorant teachers and inflicted harm on innocent school children.

On September 11, 1991, I responded to Monsignor Murphy with a letter and a formal criticism of the Guidelines had sent me. On December 6 Monsignor Murphy wrote back to me saying that he felt he had finished his job, and was confident in the system.

I promptly wrote to Cardinal Law once again, placing the matter squarely on his shoulders. (Included of course, were Monsignor Murphy’s letter and my critique of the Guidelines.) I also submitted an alternative suggestion: sex education in the classroom would be stopped, and an Archdiocesan course for parents substituted. This course would present the family encyclicals and the sacrament of marriage. It would restore the reverence, mystery and reserve necessary when approaching the sexual sphere.

At that time, I felt it was important to show Cardinal Law that I was not the only person to object, and so some parents got together and drafted a petition to Cardinal Law which called for a ban on classroom sex education.

On January 30, 1992 Monsignor Murphy apparently believed that it was necessary to cover his work to date by writing to tell me that we didn’t disagree at all about the virtues of purity and chastity. He said that he just had confidence in the Archdiocesan staff – that they are educated and competent, and could overcome any problems.

Cardinal Law, by February 4, 1992, must have felt uneasy. My letters would not go away, and now there were more of us protesting. He wrote to me and asked two questions.

1) Are you opposed to any type of education on human sexuality in classrooms of Catholic schools or in religious education programs for students not attending Catholic schools?

2) Could you give me specific references as to titles of text used in Catholic schools of this Archdiocese that you find to be questionable, as well as specific references within those texts to materials that you find objectionable?

I was surprised. After all that had transacted between us these several years, Cardinal Law could not make the distinction between chastity/sex education programs and the proper formation in chaste love which is appropriate in the Catholic home, classroom and Church.

I wrote a condensed answer to him by April and told him that I was writing a detailed letter/book to him, which I called, Catholic Sex Education is an Oxymoron. The writing was finished by late Fall of 1992 and sent to Cardinal Law. The letters and critiques following this introduction made up a large part of that original book.

During the years 1992-93, the Archdiocesan newspaper, The Boston Pilot, under the Directorship of Dr. Leila Little, published a glowing review of a particularly invasive sex education video program called, In God’s Image by Patricia Miller. During the writing of Oxymoron, I took time to write a mini-critique of the Pilot’s article. The Pilot refused to print my critique. I challenged the Boston Pilot to print only the portions of my critique that quoted the papal encyclical of Pope Pius XI (1929) and the decree of the Holy Office from 1931, which clearly forbade what In God’s Image was promoting.

The response from Father Peter Conley, the Editor-In-Chief of the newspaper was simply nasty. On April 7, 1993 he wrote:

Dear Mrs. Grayson:

Your second unsolicited manuscript, which you insist the Pilot publish, arrived this morning.

I choose not to publish it.

With every good wish for a happy Easter,

Sincerely,

Father Peter Conley

Eight months after sending Oxymoron to Cardinal Law, the Cardinal again wrote to me on September 2, 1993. Ironically, he advised me that he was asking the new Vicar General of the Archdiocese (Monsignor William Murphy!) to form a committee of six people of Monsignor Murphy’s choosing to review Oxymoron.

Obedient to Cardinal Law, Monsignor Murphy complied and requested six copies of Oxymoron be sent to him. The “kangaroo committee,” which included, I believe, a lesbian feminist nun, produced a “kangaroo response.” And I produced a critique of their response, which brings us to late fall 1993.

My reaction was apparently the last straw for Monsignor Murphy. He wrote to me saying that the Archdiocese had given me a fair hearing and that he now requested that I quit. He instructed me to stop my inquiries to Cardinal Law and all members of his staff.

I remember telling Monsignor Murphy that I would honor his request to cease writing to the Archdiocese. Writing had not produced the effect I desired – banning sex education in the classrooms of the Archdiocese. However, I told Monsignor Murphy, “from the depths of my soul,” that I would not cease to expose the corrupt sex education programs that robbed our children of their innocent years – programs that operated under the guise of “good,” but in reality were destroying our Church and generations of our youth.

Despite the Archdiocese’s termination of dialogue with me, the fight to ban sex education continued in Boston. Robert Delery and Dr. Gerald Benitz, of Our Lady’s Crusaders for Life, published their Newsletters and personal letters about sex education and the Archdiocese’s refusal to act. Some of their letters were addressed to Rome. (See Appendix A for copies of their correspondence. Appendix A also includes an essay I wrote called, The Role of the Catholic School in Education for Chaste Love. This was written to silence the claim of sex educators that proponents of the “ban” are prudes who think the Catholic School should say nothing about sexual morality.)

During 1993 I moved from the Boston area to Minneapolis, Minnesota. There, I discovered more sex education operating in that Archdiocese which I exposed to both parents and educators and to the adjunct bishop, now Archbishop Harry Flynn. Several letters transpired within that diocese, which is still struggling with the sex education issue and the homosexual agenda in the classroom. However, with the support of a faithful chaplain, at the school attended by my son, the offensive sex education program, (entitled, Catholic Values in Sexuality by Fr. John Forliti) was eventually eliminated.

In 1993 I forwarded copies of Oxymoron and various letters, to the Papal Congregation called the Pontifical Council for the Family in Rome. I also wrote to His Holiness Pope John Paul II, addressing the lack of leadership on the issue sex education in the classroom. I was politely thanked by the Vatican for writing and informed that their preference was that these “matters” be settled by respectful dialogue on the local level. The issue had come full circle and I painstakingly knew how a caged hamster in a revolving exercise wheel must feel.

In January 1994 I was given an enormous opportunity. I traveled to Rome and visited a priest, Don Claudio Barbut, at the Pontifical Council for the Family (PCCF), and met person-to-person with Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, himself, at the Congregation For The Doctrine of the Faith.

Don Claudio of the PCCF was very sympathetic to the issue and said they welcomed critiques. He confessed that Cardinal Trujillo had received many letters criticizing the classroom sex education programs. He hinted that Cardinal Trujillo felt that parents and educators needed concrete guidelines to straighten things out.

At the meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger it was clear that he was aware of the erotic content and dangerous methodologies of the various sex education programs. He understood its significance in relationship to the purity of the institutional Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger was sympathetic when I told him that “opting out” of these classes was not a satisfactory solution because when the child is excused from class, he is embarrassed and single out. Besides, the child hears the whole content rehashed in graphic terms on the playground, and in the lunchroom. I told the Cardinal, “I come with the tears of mothers.” He nodded and nodded and then softly spoke. He told me, “Unfortunately I am not always in a position to do as I wish.”

“Wow! If not you, who?” I thought to myself.

But I was polite. He obviously cared. He obviously grieved. The busy man that he is, he gave me his time. He reports to the Pope.

What to do? My Roman trip forced me to understand that the Church was not working. The salt of the earth has lost its savor – authority failed. Letters simply remained in perpetual motion. Clearing the dead wood was just not going to happen. How sad, I thought, that priests were not given management courses in the seminary. Instead, they are subjected to sex education courses which would make a prostitute blush.

I went home to Minneapolis and founded a federally tax exempt, grass roots organization called the Veil of Innocence. (www.veilofinnocence.org). Its web site arms parents with the information they need to utilize Church teachings effectively when meeting with educators, pastors and bishops. The material is available to be copied and used as long as the copyright is attributed to Veil of Innocence. Topics include: Sex Education Programs, Safe Environment Programs, Papal Encyclicals and many Church and Family Issues. There, you can sign a letter to the bishops expressing your “zero” tolerance of the corruption and the need for reform.

On December 8, 1995, the Feast of The Immaculate Conception – in honor of Our Lady – Cardinal Trujillo, of the Pontifical Council for the Family, published a weighty document, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education Within the Family. It is a worthy instruction, but sometimes the writing is abstract enough to confuse the reader because the term, sex education is used in varying contexts with multiple meanings. Predictably the Bishops, their staffs, and educators, disregard this document, just as they have disregarded previous Papal writings. Cardinal Ratzinger’s words still ring in my ears; Unfortunately I am not always in a position to do as I wish.

When the child abuse scandal made headline news around the country, my friends came to me and said, “You knew didn’t you!? You knew Cardinal Law and what was going on!” I told them I had no rational explanation how a trusted Cardinal, a Prince of the Catholic Church, could knowingly allow, and continue to allow, the violation of children over and over again. Based on the letters I had written to the Archdiocese, and even forwarded to Rome, I knew that the Catholic Church was experiencing a crisis of enormous proportion. However, I had no knowledge of individual cases of molestations of children by priests that have come to light over the past three years.

In retrospect, it was not unpredictable. I knew from the mid 1980s that seminaries were dominated by homosexual professors and students. Dissent from Catholic Church teachings was commonplace. (See Michael Rose’s Goodbye Good Men: How Liberals Brought Corruption into the Catholic Church, Regnery Publishing, Washington DC, ISBN 0-89526-144-8 © 2002) I also knew that the sex education programs almost always included a homosexual agenda (i.e. describing homosexuality as just another alternative lifestyle). It has been found that the children most at risk when exposed to the sex education programs are those who come from weakened family structures. I felt that these children were prey for homosexuals.

It particularly angered me when priest after priest would say to me, “Well, maybe your family can educate your kids in sexual matters, but it’s different age now and most kids don’t have, or do not come from a solid family structure.” I responded that sex education programs invade the privacy of the well-brought up kids, but are more damaging to children who lack proper parental structuring. These are the children who need individual attention and solid faith instruction.

In responding to my original questions regarding those in charge of the Catholic Church in America, I believe they have given us no reason to trust them and their administration. Sex education programs, and their dangerous contents, have only increased in the last 18 years since I began my letters to Cardinal Law. This is true despite the fact that Cardinal Trujillo, of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has written Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality to protect parents’ rights and give educators a tool to remove harmful programs. Sex education programs, which in reality are institutional child abuse, continue.

There is a second reason why I know there is no real reform in the Church. Since the sexual crisis was exposed, the Bishops have responded by mandatory Safe Environment programs which are being incorporated into the long-term mission of the archdioceses. These programs go by various names such as Talk About Touching, in of all places, the Archdiocese of Boston! One is called Safe Environment and Prevention of Sexual Abuses used in Dallas, Newark, Austin and Manchester, NH. Another one is named Protecting God’s Children implemented by the Catholic Risk Retention Group. Good Touch, Bad Touch has previously been mentioned. In the name of the American Bishops, Kathleen McChesney, Director of The Office of Child and Youth Protection, monitors compliance to these programs in accordance to Article 12.

My letters to Cardinal Law, and the Archdiocese, never succeeded in having even one of the 16 school Classroom Sex Education programs I objected to (and critiqued) removed. Although Cardinal Law went through some management hoops and paces, the truth is that he personally knew the dreadful content of these sex education programs and chose to do nothing about them, just as he chose to do nothing about the molestation of children in the Archdiocese by his own priests. Now, his predecessor, Bishop O’Malley, continues in Cardinal Law’s footsteps, foisting sex education and safe environment into the minds of the littlest children. Both constitute child abuse and sexual harassment, by the Bishops very own definition.

---

Conclusion

The following is an article by Dr. Judith Reisman, an internationally acknowledged expert on Alfred Kinsey and the links between sex education, sex abuse, and pornography. Dr. Judith Reisman is president of the Institute for Media Education and is the author of Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences. The article was published and copyrighted in The Wanderer on December 18, 2003. Dr. Reisman’s web address is http://www.drjudithreisman.org/

Patrick Buchanan remarked recently upon the recent judicial mandate for homosexual marriage, saying: “Let the counterrevolution begin where that first revolution began, with a new Boston Tea Party.”

Boston may also toss some “Talking About Touching” tealeaves in for the “child safety” program mandated and implemented – but widely resisted by both priests and parents – by the Archdiocese of Boston for the Catholic children in parochial schools and religious education programs. Catholic critics say the Archdiocese’s ruling contravenes Catholic law just as Chief Justice Margaret Marshall’s “gay marriage” ruling contravenes the commonwealth of Massachusetts’ constitution.

After decades of government and media-endorsement, eugenic “sexologists,” hiding inside the Trojan Horse of “sex education” have stealthily entered our public, private, and parochial schoolrooms. So “schooled,” a sex cult now pervades our churches, courts, legislatures, and public and private school systems.

Catholic parents in Boston are implicitly told to trust the disciples of Alfred Kinsey with their innocent children. Sexual subversives, charged with creating sweeping rates of child sexual abuse, will further train Catholic children on how to be “safe” from sexual abuse. That is not likely.

The “Talking About Touching” program, Catholic parents should know, is endorsed by such inveterate opponents as Planned Parenthood and SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the United States), and was originally designed by COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics – a sex workers’ rights organization of strippers, phone operators, prostitutes, and porn actresses).

As a sympathetic non-Catholic, I find the endorsement of a sex program pioneered by prostitutes bizarre. Most Wanderer readers now know that the alleged “safety” program cynically shifts the burden of ending child molestation from adults to children.

Domenico Bettinelli Jr. reported that in the “Talking About Touching” (TAT) introductory video, a child of about five years old is scripted to ask, “Mommy, what is sex?” The “mother’s” lines read, “Sex is when two people get undressed and rub their private parts together.”

Following the TAT presentation, one father observed, “There was no mention of chastity or love, that the two people should be married, or even that they should be of the opposite sex – whether the child (in the video) was an actor or not, I knew that the child had just been sexually abused.”

Other examples abound that reveal TAT’s creation of damaging distrust of all authorities, its violation of parents’ rights and its premature sexualization of small children (“he starts to rub your bottom”; “He stroke[s] you on the back and bottom”; “he tries to touch your private parts,” etc.)

Bettinelli was, as they say, on to something, Why would “sex workers” want to eroticize children and eliminate marriage from their hearts and minds?

Well, obviously COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics), progenitor of the Committee for Children which produced TAT) profits from eroticizing as many children as possible. Some percentage of “young flesh” will eventually be recruited into their sex “business.” As disciples of Alfred Kinsey, Planned Parenthood, SIECUS, and almost all accredited sexed teachers may also be classified as sex workers. For, both P.P. and SIECUS were early recipients of Playboy monies, the pornographic genre that had normalized prostitution, homosexuality, incest, child sexual abuse and all of the sexual perversions recommended by the sexual liberationists now celebrating Playboy’s 50th anniversary. . .

If any diocese forces the Planned Parenthood/SIECUS/COYOTE endorsed sex program, “Talking About Touching,” onto schoolchildren, someone needs to ask if the TAT program is in violation of the RICO law (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations law, 1970). Those who operate or manage an enterprise through a “pattern” of racketeering activity may violate RICO. “Any group may be a RICO enterprise regardless of whether its members wear pinstripes, poster boards, fatigues, or hoods.” (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act.)

“Racketeering activity” includes “bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter” (relating to sexual exploitation of children). “Enterprise” includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity.” Yet, any union or group of individuals associated in fact, although not a legal entity can be subject to RICO.

RICO allows the courts to attack an “enterprise” that engage in a “a pattern of racketeering.” “Talking About Touching” endorsers, COYOTE, Planned Parenthood and SIECUS have long promoted a “pattern” of sexual promiscuity and pornography (pictorial prostitution) to children – seeded by the pornography industry and funded by the state.

Because of my long correspondence with Cardinal Law of Boston, I feel it is a good time to publish the series of letters between us, which began in the mid 1980s. These letters are historical documents, which reveal the mindset of the Archdiocese of Boston relating not just to sex education, but also to the stonewalling of parents and blatant disrespect of the teaching of the Catholic Faith – a church founded on humility. The response to my letters reveals an Archdiocese steeped in arrogance. Reading these letters should provide a thorough immersion into sex education programs still affecting our children. A critique of the Bishops’ current response to the sexual crisis, via child abuse programs, reveals that these programs are simply another generation of impure sex education.

It is my hope that parents will no longer tolerate the Catholic School to operate “as is” with monies from unsuspecting families. We can no longer afford to be naive and keep repeating the same mistakes and failed programs of the past. We may not be able to change this generation of Bishops and their subordinates who manage the Archdiocesan bureaus, but we can limit their affect by withholding our monies and excluding our children. We can expose their programs in the all forms of the media. We can hold public meetings. We can report known instances of sexual abuse, whether by an individual, or by classroom sex education (or child abuse programs) to the police. We can bring law suits. We can employ Cannon Law.

True to my words to Bishop Murphy in the middle 1990s, I am even more committed to the protection of children. I want to make the public aware that Catholic schools, and the programs run by the United States Catholic Conference, are not committed to moral education, instruction in the Catholic faith and academic excellence. Instead, they have been infiltrated by sex education and child abuse education programs which continue to multiply faster than they are able to be critiqued.

Let us reflect once again on Fr. O’Shaunessy’s words:

I define as corrupt, in a sociological sense, any institution that has lost the capacity to mend itself on its own initiative and by its own resources, an institution that is unable to uncover and expel its own miscreants.

In 1960, Pope Paul VI was aware of the corruption when he said, “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church”

Perhaps in an institutional sense, we have before us an institution apparently unable to heal itself. But, with the grace of Christ, residing in the Church in all its members, the laity, working and praying together with the pure clergy, can heal this institutional ailment from the outside in, from the grassroots up, with rosaries and Holy Mass, and adoration of The Blessed Sacrament. We must remember that Christ said that it was on Peter that He built His Rock, the Church, which is His Pure and Undefiled bride. The gates of hell will not prevail against her.

I entrust this work to Our Lady of Fatima, who promised that in the end, the Pope would consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart in union with all the bishops throughout the world. Russia will be converted and there will be a period of peace. That peace spells the end of classroom sex education (CFE) and safe environment programs.

Therefore, It is my hope that reading these letters makes your blood boil enough to take action, as well as to fall on your knees and pray for the consecration of Russia and for the protection of the innocence of our Children.

To read the Church Teachings, the complete letters, and the critiques which were part of the tomb, “Catholic Classroom Sex Education is an Oxymoron”, and submitted to Cardinal Law while he was in Boston, return to the the page, Crocodile Tears and Sex Education- which page is the parent page for the parts of that book.