Talking About Touching, again!

[iamrefreshed]

Iamrefreshed:
If that program contradicts what the Church teaches, then exactly how do you reconcile that?

Is this a fact or are you asking me a supposition?

Would it be ok to show kids porno if it includes teaching them HOW to say NO?

Of course not. That’s really a senseless comment and less than kind.

If you say it’s ok to contradict Church teachings on this subject, then is it a surprise that we have Priests and Bishops who rejected Church teachings when it came to abusing children? Is that a bit of a leap? Yes, but if we are going to expect Priests and Bishops to follow Church teachings and respect our children, should we not also be saying we too support the teachings of the Church? The Church opposes Sex education in the classroom. These programs are Sex Education wrapped up in a different wrapping.

I answered based on the programs pointed out by the OP. They are not “sex education” courses. As I stated I have not seen them but in researching them they appear to be course designed to teach a child when touching is inappropriate. Is this not your understanding?

Why is it that no one has any faith in parents anymore? These parents pay tuition to send their kids to a Catholic school. They are clearly parents who care about their kids. Please don’t underestimate all parents. It was NOT the fault of the parents OR the children who were abused by our Priests.

Maybe my faith in parents is a little shaky. My catholic FIL sexually abused his own daughter, my wife. I don’t just see this as a priest issue. I see it as a child protective issue.

Just because a child goes through this program doesn’t guarantee they will say no. The burden doesn’t belong on the child’s back. The burden belongs right where the abuse is coming from. It’s coming from Priests and Bishops who for YEARS have OPENLY dissented from Church teachings.

The burden may fall on the childs back God forbid. As I stated, I don’t just see it as a priest issue. Uncles, babysitters, brothers, sisters and most disturbing parents commit more child abuse than any clergy ever did.

If you want to make parents responsible, why take responsibility away from them? Why not offer a class after school that parents could take IF they want to take the class that teaches THEM how to talk to their children about safety. If a parent is clueless, then they can have the option of seeking help through the Church. This is what the Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuailty suggests. THe Church should ONLY be there if the parent is UNable to perform their parental duties. NOT in REPLACEMENT of the parent.

It’s hard to disagree with you from the perspective of a sane and loving parent. Unfortunately, so many are not. How is the church to know if the parent is unable to perform such duty. I can guarantee you my FIL would not of let his daughter attend such a class.

If you continue to remove the parent in these most critical roles of their child’s life, how can you possibly say you are fostering and supporting the parent/child relationship.

I would not suggest removing the parent from their role, only enhance it with supplementary education.

This is a sensitive/embarrassing/subject that no stranger has a right to be discussing with MY child.

Yes, it is. You do have the option of removing your child correct?

Sorry, haven’t figured out that multi quote thingy!

 

[iamrefreshed]

The saddest fact of all are people who judge others without the data. How do you know? It is impossible to tell from the postings here what parents say or don’t say to their children. I take offense at your remark because I am not only a frequent poster here but also the one who started this thread.

The intent of this tread is to evaluate the Talk about Touching program not whether parents should or shouldn’t talk about sex.

I in no way said that parents should or should not talk about sex. I only stated that I am all for any program that teaches children about inappropriate touching. I think that was the subject in discussion, no?

As I mentioned earlier, I have experience with childhood sexual abuse. It is a dirty world that I can almost guarantee most have no clue to how widespread it is. That is why I applaud teaching children about touching.

 

[Arwen037]

No, the Protecting God’s Children course was the full one. I kinda felt like the program should be to people looking out for me, not me watching it. Plus, not to say parents don’t abuse kids, but how many times have we heard about parents volunteering in the library, computer lab, or students volunteering at daycare centers abusing kids? How many times do we heard about priests abusing kids, or parents abusing their owns kids? I think they are focusing these programs on all the wrong people.

 

[iamrefreshed]

No, the Protecting God’s Children course was the full one. I kinda felt like the program should be to people looking out for me, not me watching it. Plus, not to say parents don’t abuse kids, but how many times have we heard about parents volunteering in the library, computer lab, or students volunteering at daycare centers abusing kids? How many times do we heard about priests abusing kids, or parents abusing their owns kids? I think they are focusing these programs on all the wrong people.

I was replying to the OP, not Protecting God’s Children

“Has anyone seen these videos: Sam’s Story, Yes, You Can Say No, Katie’s Secret?”

 

[Moms3Angels]

iamrefreshed:
Have you gone through ALL of the materials for Talking about Touching ? Have you gone through the teacher’s manual? Have you gone through what will be shown to children in each grade? I have.

Not only have I gone through it, I also sat down with the administrators at the Lexington KY diocese and voiced my opposition to the program in the Lexington Catholic Schools.

In addition to this, one teacher in a Catholic elementry school in Lexington passed out additional supplemental materials in her classroom that gave explicit sex education to 5th graders WITHOUT parental permission or knowledge.

I guess they felt OUR children should be given explicit information on how to have sex, regardless of whether or not a parent agreed. I guess they felt that parents weren’t doing their job and they had to do it for us. I guess that having boys and girls sitting together while discussing explicit sex education was good for them, regardless of the fact that many were embarrassed and it violated their innocence. I guess since we can’t parent our own children now, they might as well do it all?

When you open the door to this garbage, look out. If you freely hand over your parental rights, look out. If you simply want to allow people you hardly know discuss the most intimate subject of sex with your children, then go right ahead. Stop subjecting the rest of us to this assault on parental rights. If you can’t do your own job, that’s your business and feel free to find someone who can do it for you. But there are plenty of us out here who still take our role as “PARENT” very seriously and do not appreciate teachers/principals or anyone else taking over our job.

Offer us support, stop trying to undermine our relationship with our own children!

 

[iamrefreshed]

Let me make another stab at this multi quote thingy

Iamrefreshed:
If that program contradicts what the Church teaches, then exactly how do you reconcile that?

Is this a fact or are you asking me a supposition?

Would it be ok to show kids porno if it includes teaching them HOW to say NO?

Of course not. That’s really a senseless comment and less than kind.

If you say it’s ok to contradict Church teachings on this subject, then is it a surprise that we have Priests and Bishops who rejected Church teachings when it came to abusing children? Is that a bit of a leap? Yes, but if we are going to expect Priests and Bishops to follow Church teachings and respect our children, should we not also be saying we too support the teachings of the Church? The Church opposes Sex education in the classroom. These programs are Sex Education wrapped up in a different wrapping.

I answered based on the programs pointed out by the OP. They are not “sex education” courses. As I stated I have not seen them but in researching them they appear to be course designed to teach a child when touching is inappropriate. Is this not your understanding?

Why is it that no one has any faith in parents anymore? These parents pay tuition to send their kids to a Catholic school. They are clearly parents who care about their kids. Please don’t underestimate all parents. It was NOT the fault of the parents OR the children who were abused by our Priests.

Maybe my faith in parents is a little shaky. My catholic FIL sexually abused his own daughter, my wife. I don’t just see this as a priest issue. I see it as a child protective issue.

Just because a child goes through this program doesn’t guarantee they will say no. The burden doesn’t belong on the child’s back. The burden belongs right where the abuse is coming from. It’s coming from Priests and Bishops who for YEARS have OPENLY dissented from Church teachings.

The burden may fall on the childs back, God forbid. As I stated, I don’t just see it as a priest issue. Uncles, babysitters, brothers, sisters and most disturbing parents commit more child abuse than any clergy ever did.

If you want to make parents responsible, why take responsibility away from them? Why not offer a class after school that parents could take IF they want to take the class that teaches THEM how to talk to their children about safety. If a parent is clueless, then they can have the option of seeking help through the Church. This is what the Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuailty suggests. THe Church should ONLY be there if the parent is UNable to perform their parental duties. NOT in REPLACEMENT of the parent.

It’s hard to disagree with you from the perspective of a sane and loving parent. Unfortunately, so many are not. How is the church to know if the parent is unable to perform such duty. I can guarantee you my FIL would not of let his daughter attend such a class.

If you continue to remove the parent in these most critical roles of their child’s life, how can you possibly say you are fostering and supporting the parent/child relationship.

I would not suggest removing the parent from their role, only enhance it with supplementary education.

This is a sensitive/embarrassing/subject that no stranger has a right to be discussing with MY child.

Yes, it is. You do have the option of removing your child correct?

Pretty good on the multi quote, huh?

 

[iamrefreshed]

iamrefreshed:
Have you gone through ALL of the materials for Talking about Touching ? Have you gone through the teacher’s manual? Have you gone through what will be shown to children in each grade? I have.

Not only have I gone through it, I also sat down with the administrators at the Lexington KY diocese and voiced my opposition to the program in the Lexington Catholic Schools.

In addition to this, one teacher in a Catholic elementry school in Lexington passed out additional supplemental materials in her classroom that gave explicit sex education to 5th graders WITHOUT parental permission or knowledge.

I guess they felt OUR children should be given explicit information on how to have sex, regardless of whether or not a parent agreed. I guess they felt that parents weren’t doing their job and they had to do it for us. I guess that having boys and girls sitting together while discussing explicit sex education was good for them, regardless of the fact that many were embarrassed and it violated their innocence. I guess since we can’t parent our own children now, they might as well do it all?

When you open the door to this garbage, look out. If you freely hand over your parental rights, look out. If you simply want to allow people you hardly know discuss the most intimate subject of sex with your children, then go right ahead. Stop subjecting the rest of us to this assault on parental rights. If you can’t do your own job, that’s your business and feel free to find someone who can do it for you. But there are plenty of us out here who still take our role as “PARENT” very seriously and do not appreciate teachers/principals or anyone else taking over our job.

Offer us support, stop trying to undermine our relationship with our own children!

You know what moms3, I think you’ve insulted me and my parenting skills enough. Good day.

 

[Arwen037]

Yeah, but Donna Marie asked me to go further into it. I wasn’t responding to you.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Yeah, but Donna Marie asked me to go further into it. I wasn’t responding to you.

Gotcha

 

[Moms3Angels]

You post that your wife endured abuse at the hands of her father. I’m not sure how this program will eliminate this GOD-awful problem we as parents face in this society. You also mention that he wouldn’t have allowed her to sit in on these classes. So what good are the classes if the abusers will not allow the kids to sit in on them.?

I would suggest going through the materials before giving it your stamp of approval. You look at this issue with a bias, and I can understand that What was done to your wife is horrific. As a parent, I can’t imagine how any adult can harm a child in this manner.

I do not oppose teaching safety to a child. I do it all the time with my own. But I also know my child best. I know what I should discuss and what needs to be discussed when they are more mature.

There is NO guarantee for me whether I put them in the class or not. NO guarantee they will be safe.

I’ve preached many times that they need to wear their helmet, yet sometimes I catch them without a helmet on. I think it’s naive to believe these programs are the FIX ALL when in fact we had Priests who not only abused children, but seminarians too. Why not begin the process of asking yourself how this happened? I think it will lead you to answering how to fix it.

None of this happened because children were not educated on how to stay safe. None of this happened because parent’s neglected their duties. It happened because the hierarchy looked the other way when Priests in seminaries were abusing and trying to molest our seminarians. Good and faithful men who were trying to enter the Priesthood. Good and faithful men who would have never touched a child. Good and faithful men who were often times turned DOWN for the priesthood, while the others who openly dissented from Church teachings were rewarded and accepted into the Priesthood.

This is NOT a solution to the crisis. IT’s a way of avoiding the God awful truth about what took place in our Church for many years.

I’m a devout Catholic who loves the Lord. I will not sit by and allow another scapegoat that involves my own children.

Research HOW we got into this mess. Research WHY we got into this mess. You will find it’s NOT the fault of the abused children, their parents, OR because Priest’s can’t marry.

It’s because dissenting Priests and Bishops were running the show. They embraced dissent against the Church, OPENLY and eventually it blew up in their face.

Get to the heart of the real problem and you might find a cure. Continue putting a bandaide on a hemmorage, and you will cure nothing.

 

[Moms3Angels]

**iamrefreshed:
Let me apologize if I’ve offended you.

…catholicmediacoalition.org/touching.htm**Keep “Touching” Programs Off Our Children

An Open Letter to the United States Catholic Bishops:

April 13, 2004

Your Excellencies,

Many dioceses have in place or are planning “safe environment” classroom programs for children from kindergarten through sixth grade. Parents oppose this for good reason. As you may know, criticism of Good Touch Bad Touch (GTBT) in the Diocese of Arlington and Talking About Touching (TAT) in the Archdiocese of Boston addressed not only problems in program content, which are significant, but the fact that classroom curricula on sensitive sexual issues violate both parental rights and Church teachings. “Touching” programs introduce graphic and upsetting ideas and images to little ones during the latency period, what our Holy Father calls the “years of innocence,” from about age five until puberty. Having a facilitator (often a stranger) present sexual information in a mixed sex classroom is seriously problematic and potentially damaging. 

Under the definition of sexual abuse in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,    “A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome.” Many of the elements of “touching” programs qualify as sex abuse by this definition. Since the bishops excluded themselves from the Charter’s coverage, pastors, principals, and teachers will be the ones facing any charges of abuse related to these programs. 

 The Vatican document, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (TMHS) clearly warns against giving explicit sexual information to young children:

This period of tranquility and serenity * must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex….At this stage of development, children are still not capable of fully understanding the value of the affective dimension of sexuality. They cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development and to disturb the natural serenity of this period of life. Parents should politely but firmly exclude any attempts to violate children’s innocence because such attempts compromise the spiritual, moral, and emotional development of growing persons who have a right to their innocence. (TMHS, N.78 & N. 83)

 How will introducing sexual issues during the latency period in a classroom setting affect children’s attitudes toward sexuality? Will placing sexuality in a context of abuse and distrust teach children to fear? Will they see sex as dirty? Will they question every touch? Will they “act out” disturbing ideas and images by inflicting “bad touches” on younger children? These are serious questions. To say, as some bishops have, that materials selected will be “age-appropriate” begs the question. By whose standard? Surely not the secular sex-educators who developed these “touching” programs in the first place.

 According to some bishops, the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People approved by the bishops at their 2002 meeting in Dallas mandates “safe environment” programs for children. That is true. However, the Charter says nothing about implementation. It does NOT require classroom programs and is silent on who should present the material.

Church teaching, on the other hand, is crystal clear:

Each child is a unique and unrepeatable person and must receive individualized formation. Since parents know, understand and love each of their children in their uniqueness, they are in the best position to decide what the appropriate time is for providing a variety of information, according to their children’s physical and spiritual growth…. [emphasis added] Therefore, the most intimate aspects, whether biological or emotional, should be communicated in a personalized dialogue…. Experience shows that this dialogue works out better when the parent who communicates the biological, emotional, moral, and spiritual information is of the same sex as the child or young person. (TMHS, N. 65 and N. 66)

…see below for the rest…*

 

[Moms3Angels]

…continued…

Classroom Programs Not Mandated by Charter: In view of the confusion about what the Charter actually mandates and the apparent contradiction between classroom programs on sexual abuse and Church teachings, Mary Ann Kreitzer, President of the Catholic Media Coalition, called Kathleen McChesney, Executive Director of the Office of Child and Youth Protection of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). In a brief telephone conversation on March 23, 2004, Kreitzer asked whether classroom programs are mandated by the Charter. McChesney replied that the Charter requires each diocese “to have a program for children,” but acknowledged that it does not call for a classroom program. Kreitzer specifically inquired whether there are backup documents mandating classroom programs. McChesney said no. Kreitzer then asked if parents could teach the material to their own children. McChesney saw no reason why they couldn’t, saying there had to be a program but the form it takes is “up to the bishop.” Since McChesney’s office has oversight responsibility and produces the annual report on diocesan implementation of the Charter, her opinion is particularly relevant.

 Bias of “Safe Environment Classroom Programs:  Your Excellencies, many dioceses seem to be approaching the issue of “safe environments” from the bias of secular child protection agencies which presume that parents abuse their children. In fact, some chancery officials have said those outside the family should teach these programs because “parents might be abusers.”  What an offensive premise!

There isn’t a single case in the John Jay report of parental abuse. On the contrary, the report documents abuse by clergy, the overwhelming majority of which is homosexual in nature. So the shift to blaming parents is unreasonable and unjustified. Some parents have questioned whether keeping their children out of these offensive programs will bring accusations of neglect by diocesan lawyers if their children are abused by diocesan employees in the future. Those questions remain unanswered.

The safest environment for children is an intact family. Studies indicate that “Children of divorced or never-married mothers are six to 30 times more likely to suffer from serious child abuse than are children raised by both biological parents in marriage.” (Patrick Fagan, The Child Abuse Crisis: the Disintegration of Marriage, Family and the American Community, Heritage Foundation) An intact family with a dad in the home is a proven deterrent to all types of abuse. Most of the cases in the Church sex scandals involved vulnerable families whose children were easy targets for predators. There is no evidence that “safe environment” programs would have prevented or interrupted the abuse.  Efforts to strengthen the family are the surest way to protect children. 

In closing, we respectfully ask you to abandon implementation of any classroom program addressing the sensitive issues of sexual abuse. Instead, a home-based program for use by parents with their own children should be developed, one that is sensitive to the needs and temperament of the individual child. Parents are those most concerned about the safety of their children and are the natural teachers of this delicate subject.  Every diocese is blessed with many well-educated and qualified parents who would welcome the opportunity to assist in developing a program for use in the home.  We look forward to the opportunity to serve Holy Mother Church and assist you in your most challenging task.

…go to web site to see who signed…

catholicmediacoalition.org/touching.htm

 

[iamrefreshed]

You post that your wife endured abuse at the hands of her father. I’m not sure how this program will eliminate this GOD-awful problem we as parents face in this society. You also mention that he wouldn’t have allowed her to sit in on these classes. So what good are the classes if the abusers will not allow the kids to sit in on them.?

I’ll turn that around on you. What if the classes were mandatory? In my wife’s case she may have learned what her father was doing was not OK.

I would suggest going through the materials before giving it your stamp of approval. You look at this issue with a bias, and I can understand that What was done to your wife is horrific. As a parent, I can’t imagine how any adult can harm a child in this manner.

You are looking at it with a bias too…you are a good parent.

I do not oppose teaching safety to a child. I do it all the time with my own. But I also know my child best. I know what I should discuss and what needs to be discussed when they are more mature.

Again, you are a good parent. Many are not.

There is NO guarantee for me whether I put them in the class or not. NO guarantee they will be safe.

I’ve preached many times that they need to wear their helmet, yet sometimes I catch them without a helmet on.

Agreed

I think it’s naive to believe these programs are the FIX ALL when in fact we had Priests who not only abused children, but seminarians too. Why not begin the process of asking yourself how this happened? I think it will lead you to answering how to fix it.

I don’t beleive warning children is a fix all. It is just that, a warning.

None of this happened because children were not educated on how to stay safe.

I don’t think you can say that with any certainty. If they knew what was inappropriate they may have said more. Don’t forget many of the abused never came forward. That is however, no excuse for how the church handled things. that is for another thread.

None of this happened because parent’s neglected their duties. It happened because the hierarchy looked the other way when Priests in seminaries were abusing and trying to molest our seminarians. Good and faithful men who were trying to enter the Priesthood. Good and faithful men who would have never touched a child. Good and faithful men who were often times turned DOWN for the priesthood, while the others who openly dissented from Church teachings were rewarded and accepted into the Priesthood.

This is NOT a solution to the crisis. IT’s a way of avoiding the God awful truth about what took place in our Church for many years.

I’m a devout Catholic who loves the Lord. I will not sit by and allow another scapegoat that involves my own children.

Research HOW we got into this mess. Research WHY we got into this mess. You will find it’s NOT the fault of the abused children, their parents, OR because Priest’s can’t marry.

It’s because dissenting Priests and Bishops were running the show. They embraced dissent against the Church, OPENLY and eventually it blew up in their face.

Get to the heart of the real problem and you might find a cure. Continue putting a bandaide on a hemmorage, and you will cure nothing.

I never implied it was a solution. In fact, I never brought the church into the discussion. I am speaking solely from a method for children to understand inapporpriate touching.

 

[Moms3Angels]

Attention CCD teachers or Catholic school teachers or anyone else who is required to teach children TAT or any similar program…note the paragraph that states…

Under the definition of sexual abuse in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, “A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome.” Many of the elements of “touching” programs qualify as sex abuse by this definition. Since the bishops excluded themselves from the Charter’s coverage, pastors, principals, and teachers will be the ones facing any charges of abuse related to these programs.

In other words, those teaching these programs may now qualify as abusers uner the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

 

[Don_Hepler]

MargieOH,
I was going to write pretty much what you did, but you did a lot better job than I could have.
These sex education programs are another example of political correctness gone amok. If the church would have been doing it’s job in the first place instead of sweeping everything under the rug and covering up for perverted priests we would’nt be faced with having to teach our children about these things.
Where are our bishops and leaders?? It’s past time that you start showing some backbone in this area.

Thank you for your honest insight on perverted priests and so called leaders of religious faith. Is any body reading with understanding. The people are tired of being misled, leaders of Christ are not here, we call it apostates, a falling away, a great change of principals, Evil is good and good is evil. We are living in that prophetic statement. Choose ye this day whom ye shall serve, how’s that for an opinion?

 

[iamrefreshed]

Attention CCD teachers or Catholic school teachers or anyone else who is required to teach children TAT or any similar program…note the paragraph that states…

Under the definition of sexual abuse in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, “A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome.” Many of the elements of “touching” programs qualify as sex abuse by this definition. Since the bishops excluded themselves from the Charter’s coverage, pastors, principals, and teachers will be the ones facing any charges of abuse related to these programs.

In other words, those teaching these programs may now qualify as abusers uner the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

I think you are stretching it a bit there moms3. Non touching offences include exposing a child to pornography, indecent exposure or forcing a child to watch a sex act. If one were to take your slant any health teacher in America could be brought up on charges.

I understand you are sincere and adamant about your position but that post is just disingenuious.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I think you are stretching it a bit there moms3. Non touching offences include exposing a child to pornography, indecent exposure or forcing a child to watch a sex act. If one were to take your slant any health teacher in America could be brought up on charges.

I understand you are sincere and adamant about your position but that post is just disingenuious.

My error, I see you are reffering to a church document not a civil one.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Attention CCD teachers or Catholic school teachers or anyone else who is required to teach children TAT or any similar program…note the paragraph that states…

Under the definition of sexual abuse in the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, “A child is abused whether or not this activity involves explicit force, whether or not it involves genital or physical contact, whether or not it is initiated by the child, and whether or not there is discernible harmful outcome.” Many of the elements of “touching” programs qualify as sex abuse by this definition. Since the bishops excluded themselves from the Charter’s coverage, pastors, principals, and teachers will be the ones facing any charges of abuse related to these programs.

In other words, those teaching these programs may now qualify as abusers uner the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.

I’ve looked through the document and I can’t seem to find the above quotation. Is it in one of the articles? What page please? Am I lokking at the wrong document?

usccb.org/ocyp/charter.shtml

 

[Moms3Angels]

iamrefreshed:

I am referencing a letter from the Catholic Media Coalition. The paragraph which refers to the Dallas Charter comes from their letter above, or go directly to the web site. catholicmediacoalition.org/touching.htm

If you read the Charter, which I did a few years ago, it is a Charter to protect children. However in the letter from the Catholic Media Coalition, they are stating that these programs violate the Charter itself.

Let’s put it this way, there is NO way I would put myself in the position of teaching these programs to those children. They also bring up the fact that the Bishops themselves are excluded in the Charter. That puts everyone else, teachers, administrators, principals, etc. at risk for some parent to say they are violating the Charter, hence lawsuit!

 

[iamrefreshed]

iamrefreshed:

I am referencing a letter from the Catholic Media Coalition. The paragraph which refers to the Dallas Charter comes from their letter above, or go directly to the web site. catholicmediacoalition.org/touching.htm

If you read the Charter, which I did a few years ago, it is a Charter to protect children. However in the letter from the Catholic Media Coalition, they are stating that these programs violate the Charter itself.

Let’s put it this way, there is NO way I would put myself in the position of teaching these programs to those children. They also bring up the fact that the Bishops themselves are excluded in the Charter. That puts everyone else, teachers, administrators, principals, etc. at risk for some parent to say they are violating the Charter, hence lawsuit!

Well, I disagree with the lawsuit claim. The law rules that, not some charter.

While I understand your concerns, as you pointed out, my experiences point me in another direction. I want every child to know what is right and wrong about touching as do you. However, my experience has taught me that parents cannot be 100% counted upon.

I’m very glad your children have you…Not all children have so loving a parent.

I might ask this very presumptious question. Would you mind your child learning about inappropriate touching in school if it helped a child who may never learn about it anywhere else?

Unfortunately, these are the times we live in.