Pervy sex ed scandalizes kids

[nordskoven]

chronicleofameanderingtraveller.blogspot.com/2006/03/virtus-alternatives.html

TaT and Virtus are among the programs spawned by that same reliance on sex experts that has bankrupted dioceses. These mandatory programs are sparking protests by scandalized priests and parents across the nation. Here’s a sample from the TaT lesson plan:

In a 3rd grade class, the students would be given the following story:
This is Kerry. She is worried about something that happened to her last week when she spent the night with one of her friends. Her friend’s older brother came into the bedroom, put his hand under the covers of the bed Kerry was sleeping in, and touched her vagina (private parts). She said, “Stop that!” in an assertive voice. He stopped, but then he told her to keep it a secret. Kerry is wondering what she should do.
Teacher’s Question to the Children: How do you think Kerry felt when her friend’s brother touched her vagina…

In the 1st grade, children would receive this instruction:
Cole and Mai are playing at the beach. When they go to the beach, they wear bathing suits. Their bathing suits cover up the private parts of their bodies. On boys, the bathing suit covers his penis in front and buttocks or bottom in the back. Those are his private body parts. The girl’s bathing suit covers her vulva, vagina, and breasts in front, and buttocks or bottom in the back. These are her private body parts. A 2nd grade class would be presented with this example:
This is Alex. He was visiting his aunt and uncle. Alex and his uncle were watching television and eating popcorn. His uncle told Alex that he had a special game he could play. He called it the “touching game.” He said, “Let’s take off our clothes and touch each other’s private body parts.” Alex knew this game wasn’t safe, so in a strong voice he said, No, I don’t want to do that. Then he got off the couch and left the room. When he got home he told his mom and dad what had happened. Alex’s parents were glad that he said “No” to his uncle. They were also glad that Alex had told them what his uncle said to him.

 

[Magicsilence]

chronicleofameanderingtraveller.blogspot.com/2006/03/virtus-alternatives.html

TaT and Virtus are among the programs spawned by that same reliance on sex experts that has bankrupted dioceses. These mandatory programs are sparking protests by scandalized priests and parents across the nation. Here’s a sample from the TaT lesson plan:

In a 3rd grade class, the students would be given the following story:
This is Kerry. She is worried about something that happened to her last week when she spent the night with one of her friends. Her friend’s older brother came into the bedroom, put his hand under the covers of the bed Kerry was sleeping in, and touched her vagina (private parts). She said, “Stop that!” in an assertive voice. He stopped, but then he told her to keep it a secret. Kerry is wondering what she should do.
Teacher’s Question to the Children: How do you think Kerry felt when her friend’s brother touched her vagina…

In the 1st grade, children would receive this instruction:
Cole and Mai are playing at the beach. When they go to the beach, they wear bathing suits. Their bathing suits cover up the private parts of their bodies. On boys, the bathing suit covers his penis in front and buttocks or bottom in the back. Those are his private body parts. The girl’s bathing suit covers her vulva, vagina, and breasts in front, and buttocks or bottom in the back. These are her private body parts. A 2nd grade class would be presented with this example:
This is Alex. He was visiting his aunt and uncle. Alex and his uncle were watching television and eating popcorn. His uncle told Alex that he had a special game he could play. He called it the “touching game.” He said, “Let’s take off our clothes and touch each other’s private body parts.” Alex knew this game wasn’t safe, so in a strong voice he said, No, I don’t want to do that. Then he got off the couch and left the room. When he got home he told his mom and dad what had happened. Alex’s parents were glad that he said “No” to his uncle. They were also glad that Alex had told them what his uncle said to him.

In the U.K, “Year 3” is 7/8 year olds. Does 3rd grade correspond in the same manner?

In Christ.

Andre.

 

[computerguy]

Magicsilence:

In the U.K, “Year 3” is 7/8 year olds. Does 3rd grade correspond in the same manner?

In Christ.

Andre.

I believe so. When I was in third grade, I was around 7 or 8. California, USA.

 

[Benedictus]

Magicsilence:

In the U.K, “Year 3” is 7/8 year olds. Does 3rd grade correspond in the same manner?

3rd grade would be for those who are about 9 years old.

 

[Island_Oak]

It’s an ugly world out there…made uglier by the recognition that some of the most perverted violations of children happened at the hands of Catholic priests. Is it too bad that it now costs some measure of innocence to be lost by our young children? Yes. But as a mother I can say with full confidence better that than repeating the tragedy we have already been through. The heirarchy of the Church demonstrated its willingness again and again to bury the scandal or reassign priests instead of facing the evil–right up until the attorneys started digging up facts and it started costing $$$. As the adults responsible for the welfare of children, there is no going back and recapturing the innocence many of us enjoyed in our youth. We know too much. We can no longer afford to leave our children vulnerable to the lures and tricks employed by sexual predators–whether the threat comes from strangers, neighbors, relatives, teachers or priests.

 

[Melissa]

Well–typically, children start Kindergarten at age 5 and turn 6 sometime during the school year. First grade follows (at age 6, turning 7 during the course of the year), and add another year for each grade, so 2nd grade would be 7-8 yo children (and 8yos who’ve just turned … like my middle boy’s birthday is April 29, and he will be 8 this year, and in 2nd grade. So, your typical third grader would be 8 or just slightly past that 9th birthday.

The content is far too explicit for such young children who simply do not need to know about the perversions that are out there (and which odds are, they will not encounter). Furthermore, the program has the distressing tendency to put the burden of avoiding abuse on the child. Far better would be to say that if someone makes you feel uncomfortable, it’s ok to be rude in getting away, and go to one’s parents … even if the child doesn’t know why they feel uncomfortable. Let Mom and Dad handle the situation … that’s one of the reasons why children have parents.

Now, to be clear, I’m not opposed to children learning the proper names for their own genitals (boys learning ‘boy parts’; girls learning ‘girl parts’)… in fact, I have taught my sons the proper names for their parts from the beginning (mainly because I felt too goofy to be able to get any of those kiddy slang terms out of my mouth), and so when I had a daughter, I knew I’d be doing the same with her. But such education is to be the province of the parents (and I’m sick and tired of the canard about parents who ‘won’t teach’ as the excuse for mandating the removal of parents from the education loop on this topic). It should not take place in a classroom setting, and especially not in a mixed-gender classroom setting.

It is possible to opt out. This has been brought in (under the name of “Protecting God’s Children”) in my diocese, and my middle son will most definitely not be participating. We still haven’t made a definite decision about oldest son (age 12)–that lesson is about internet safety, and while I have no objections to the content, it’s totally irrelevant to my son who simply is not allowed on the internet except for a few pre-approved web-sites (that would be pre-approved by me–I am the “internet parental control”), not allowed to go into chat rooms or use chat software, nor does he get email except for the occasional e-card from my parents (sent to my address with his name in the subject space). To give you an idea (I have the actual lesson plans for 2nd and 7th grade), here’s an example they’re supposed to talk about in small groups: “You create a screen name by using your first name, last initial and birth date to make it easy for you to remember. It is easy to remember, but is this screen name a good idea? Why or why not?” So, I went to oldest son and read this out to him, and only got five words in when he interrupted with “What’s a screen name?”

Basically, the stuff they’re presenting to 11-13yo children is stuff that I think should be presented to parents in a “before you let your child go on-line” class. Instead, this class seems to assume the children are having the sort of access that no one in my circle would allow their child before 16-17. There is simply no substitute for parental involvement, as it is quite frankly my experience that the kids pushing into adult content like to think that they’re “mature enough to handle it” and that all these silly rules are to protect the ones who aren’t.

 

[Eileen_T]

I agree with Melissa that this is for the parents to talk to their children about, not classroom stuff. AND that the content is too explicit.

This is about breaking down barriers of modesty.

I personally know a family where, after being exposed to this sort of ‘education’ a boy went home and ‘investigated’ his sister to see for himself the different things he had been taught about. The girl told her mother and it was sorted out although the father practically rejected his son from then on.

It wasn’t until much later that the mother realised where his curiosity had sprung from. She refused to allow her other children to participate in such classes and was hassled by teachers for her decision.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

It saddens me that our culture and many parishes are insisting our children protect themselves rather than insisting parents protect their children.

 

[JMJ_Theresa]

Elizabeth B.:

It saddens me that our culture and many parishes are insisting our children protect themselves rather than insisting parents protect their children.

I definitely think that these sex ed courses are the culture influencing the parishes. It is the Church’s teaching that parents should be the primary educators of these topics. The Church should be arming the parents with good catechesis on human sexuality, not pre-empting the role of the parents.

It is our culture that wants to take the role of the parents and thrust them onto the institutions. There is an inherent lack of trust in parents.

I think the virtus program for the parents is a good idea. But directly teaching the children is very, very bad. Our archdiocese has implemented the adult portion of virtus. I’m praying that they find a way to not implement the children’s portion even if it means we are in noncompliance.

Those priests who violated the young of our Church have extended their evil beyond their primary victims. I’m sure the devil is very pleased.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

I can’t believe there are people objecting to these classes. These aren’t sex classes. If anything, they could stop some children from having sex. These classes aren’t here to steal the innocence of children. They are there to protect it. These classes are there to protect children from child predators; to keep them from being victims of another pedophile. Please, teach these kids that there are some places an adult shouldn’t be touching them.

 

[otm]

chronicleofameanderingtraveller.blogspot.com/2006/03/virtus-alternatives.html

TaT and Virtus are among the programs spawned by that same reliance on sex experts that has bankrupted dioceses.

I have no bone to pick with you concerning the classes and the fact that they appear to be unnecessarily detailed for the age group.
However, I can say with certainty that our diocese was not bankrupted for reliance on sex experts.

It was bankrupted because two victims filed suit and asked for well over 50 million dollars between the two, and there were numerous other suits which would follow. There simply was not enough cash and cash equivalent to be able to pay the claims against the diocese. The bankruptcy was filed in order to slow the process down and provide some order to it, and to allow a portioning of the funds which were available to a larger number of victims, rather than getting caught in a “first to the courthouse takes all” approach. It wasn’t sec experts, but victims willing to sue for the damage done to them that cause it.

 

[Kirane]

otm:

I have no bone to pick with you concerning the classes and the fact that they appear to be unnecessarily detailed for the age group.
However, I can say with certainty that our diocese was not bankrupted for reliance on sex experts.

It was bankrupted because two victims filed suit and asked for well over 50 million dollars between the two, and there were numerous other suits which would follow. There simply was not enough cash and cash equivalent to be able to pay the claims against the diocese. The bankruptcy was filed in order to slow the process down and provide some order to it, and to allow a portioning of the funds which were available to a larger number of victims, rather than getting caught in a “first to the courthouse takes all” approach. It wasn’t sec experts, but victims willing to sue for the damage done to them that cause it.

That’s your opinion. Unanswered is why were there victims in the first place?

 

[Melissa]

CrossoverManiac:

I can’t believe there are people objecting to these classes. These aren’t sex classes. If anything, they could stop some children from having sex. These classes aren’t here to steal the innocence of children. They are there to protect it. These classes are there to protect children from child predators; to keep them from being victims of another pedophile. Please, teach these kids that there are some places an adult shouldn’t be touching them.

Sorry, I couldn’t possibly disagree more vehemently. I have read the lesson plans for second graders, and I considered posting a snippet from those plans, but I am refraining out of deference to the board rules that content be suitable for children as young as 13. Yes, the material is that graphic and totally inappropriate, and therefore innocence-stealing–and they want to present this content to children of ages 7 and 8 when I think it’s too graphic for a child of 13. We do not need to “protect our children” by victimizing them first.

You can teach children that they shouldn’t be touched by adults in some ways without getting graphic. My children know that (post toilet training) the only people who should ever touch their private parts are themselves while washing or toileting or the doctor during a full checkup or if I tell them ahead of time (I’d know if the suspected issue involved private parts before taking them to the dr). They know that no one should ask to see them naked or show himself to them. They know that if they think someone is creepy or makes them feel weird, they aren’t going to be made to stay around that person, that they need to come straight to me or their dad and we will handle it. They know the difference between a secret and a surprise (a surprise is a secret w/ an ‘expiration date’ ).

 

[LeahInancsi]

Wasn’t life grand growing up in the 50’s and 60’s?

It’s situations like this that make me grateful I never had children.

 

[MaryD7]

I wish I had been in a program such as this then maybe I wouldn’t have been a victim for years. I had NO one to talk to and sexual predators have a great way of making a child feel at fault or that their family would be in great danger if the child ever rats them out.

My abuse started much younger than the third grade so don’t think that it’s so innocent out there. If fact, with the proliferation of child pornography on the internet I wouldn’t be surprised to find a uptick in abuse cases (based on mere speculation … no facts).

If parents are making there children aware of good touch vs. bad touch then great. But if parents stick their head in the sand and say that it won’t happen in my house so why bother then parents are doing their children a great diservice.

My father still feels sick to this day that he never knew about my abuse. I try to explain that it wasn’t his fault … it was the abuser’s fault but he still feels that he should have done a better job of protecting my welfare.

 

[nova147]

Melissa:

I have read the lesson plans for second graders, and I considered posting a snippet from those plans, but I am refraining out of deference to the board rules that content be suitable for children as young as 13.

You can teach children that they shouldn’t be touched by adults in some ways without getting graphic.

Without having seen much of this material (and I understand and appreciate your reasons for not posting links), I’m not sure what to think. The material posted for the first grade group seems to me to be fairly innocent. Telling children that they have private parts, what they’re called, and where they are is a good idea, IMO. It should be happening at home, as you are doing, but if it isn’t, then I don’t think I have a problem with schools teaching it. I’m not sure how much further they need to go, however. It is one thing to tell children about good touches and bad touches in a factual way (these are your private parts, no one should touch them, etc) and another to give young children scenarios. The OP seems to show some scenarios, which concerns me because young children naturally act out what they hear. Does all the curriculum have this kind of content? On a side note, how do you, as a parent, get info from the school about what they are teaching? My son is 18 months, so I’ve got a while, but I’m getting worried already!

 

[LeahInancsi]

MaryD7:

I wish I had been in a program such as this then maybe I wouldn’t have been a victim for years. I had NO one to talk to and sexual predators have a great way of making a child feel at fault or that their family would be in great danger if the child ever rats them out.

My abuse started much younger than the third grade so don’t think that it’s so innocent out there. If fact, with the proliferation of child pornography on the internet I wouldn’t be surprised to find a uptick in abuse cases (based on mere speculation … no facts).

If parents are making there children aware of good touch vs. bad touch then great. But if parents stick their head in the sand and say that it won’t happen in my house so why bother then parents are doing their children a great diservice.

My father still feels sick to this day that he never knew about my abuse. I try to explain that it wasn’t his fault … it was the abuser’s fault but he still feels that he should have done a better job of protecting my welfare.

I think this is the reason for this type of explicit education. I am fortunate that I was able to be naive for so long and not to have suffered at the hand of someone who would take advantage of me.

God bless you.

 

[otm]

Kirane:

That’s your opinion. Unanswered is why were there victims in the first place?

Because there were homosexual priests, and there was a breakdown in moral theology after Vatican 2 when moral theologians got on the track that philosphy (in the field of ethics) was on - situational ethics. This lead to self-justification on the part of some of the abusers tha tthey were doing no wrong. Tghe source, however, was not from sex experts as the OP opined, but goofy theologians who were held up as experts.

what most people dosn’t seem to realize is that the large majority of cases that we are now facing are cases we are just beginning to hear about.

If we are just beginning to hear about them now, how was a bishop who had not heard of the case send the abuser whom the bishop did not know was an abuser to the experts who didn’t give advice on the abuser they did not see?

I am well aware that there were priests treated by psychologists 20 or 30 years ago, at a time when the psychologists thought they could cure the priests, and that some of the priests then re-abused. However, many of the abusing priests did not abuse large numbers of vicitms; and some priests who were treated appear to not have abused further.

 

[Liberalsaved]

Sex ed is a necessary defensive reaction to the actual perverts. Meanwhile you’re trying to fight the solution and not the problem.

 

[LeahInancsi]

otm:

Because there were homosexual priests, and there was a breakdown in moral theology after Vatican 2 when moral theologians got on the track that philosphy (in the field of ethics) was on - situational ethics. This lead to self-justification on the part of some of the abusers tha tthey were doing no wrong. Tghe source, however, was not from sex experts as the OP opined, but goofy theologians who were held up as experts.

what most people dosn’t seem to realize is that the large majority of cases that we are now facing are cases we are just beginning to hear about.

If we are just beginning to hear about them now, how was a bishop who had not heard of the case send the abuser whom the bishop did not know was an abuser to the experts who didn’t give advice on the abuser they did not see?

I am well aware that there were priests treated by psychologists 20 or 30 years ago, at a time when the psychologists thought they could cure the priests, and that some of the priests then re-abused. However, many of the abusing priests did not abuse large numbers of vicitms; and some priests who were treated appear to not have abused further.

The Church is liable for the damage done by priests the first time they abused whether they are homosexual or heterosexual. It’s too late to unring the bell with treatment. A priest is in one of the most trusted positions in our society. Each time after the first only increases and spreads the damage, it doesn’t make the first incident any less wrong.

The only way to get the Church’s attention was to bankrupt them. As far as we know, they’re still hiding priests who are guilty of one of the most egregious crimes known to man.

Several years ago, the Dallas diocese paid damages to eleven families. Only ten of the victims were still living, the eleventh commited suicide as a result of the abuse. That young man lost his salvation to a monster.

There’s rumbling in the Fort Worth diocese that there is an abusive priest, but as usual, the Church is trying to sweep is under the carpet.

You can’t blame the victims because they have to file lawsuits and bankrupt a diocese to get something done about the problem and even then, there’s no guarantee it won’t continue.

BTW, is Vatican II the scapegoat for everything? Vatican II didn’t do anything to lessen moral theology. Priest have always taken a vow of chastity (to say the least) and they still do. What’s changed?