Your bishops' conference at work (USCCB Parental Notice Alert!)

[Kevirish01]

From Domenico Bettinelli’s website Bettnet.com

bettnet.dyndns.org/blog/comments.php?id=5451_0_1_0_C

Your bishops’ conference at work

I have just been informed that the US bishops’ conference’s Office of Child and Youth Protection has sent out a four-page memo to all US dioceses. Here are the highlights, but if you can’t be bothered to read them, here it is in a nutshell: “We know the Church has an inconvenient teaching that parents are primary educators of their children and another inconvenient teaching that children’s innocence is to be protected from undue instruction in sexual matters, but some parents are just too stupid to raise their children the way we say they should and, besides, when you weigh the cost of legal settlements versus the innocence of children it’s not even close.”

Here’s the long version from Teresa M. Kettlekamp, directer of the USCCB’s OCYC (whose contact information is at the end of this post), beginning with “All children must receive arch/diocesan/eparchial safe environment training” under pain of the issuance of a “Required Action” for non-compliance. Here are some excerpts from the four-page memo:“Some arch/dioceses/eparchies have been using a form of safe environment training for children that is not acceptable.

“… any such training programs for children which are totally left to the parents and are not conducted as a regular part of a school or religious education program, curriculum or classroom work and overseen by the arch/diocese/eparchy will not satisfy the requirements of Article 12 of the Charter. This will result in the issuing of a Required Action to the arch/diocese/eparchy to provide safe environment training to children as required under Article 12. Not to do so will be considered noncompliance.

“All children must receive arch/diocesan/eparchial safe environment training. The only exception to this requirement is for the public school religion students who receive safe environment training as part of their regular public school curriculum.

“A parent can refuse to allow their child to participate in the arch/diocesan/eparchial, but this must be done on a case-by-case basis, and four conditions must be met. These conditions are:

• Arch/diocesan/eparchial training must be offered to the child.
• Arch/diocesan/eparchial safe environment materials must be provided to the parents for the safe environment training of their child.
• The parent must specifically state in writing: (1) that safe environment training was offered to their child, (2) that they refused to allow their children to participate in this training, and (3) that they have received safe environment training materials for their child.

This document must be maintained by the arch/diocese/eparchy to ensure full accountability concerning the safe environment training of every child.

“Some have argued that since the parents are the primary educators of their children, they should decide whether and how their children should receive such sensitive information. Both I and the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People agree that parents are to be the primary educators of their children and have the right to refuse the safe environment training by the Church.

“It is a sad fact today that some parents are unable or unwilling to provide the educational support essential for the safety of their children. Moreover, there is the tragic reality that child and sexual abuse oftentimes takes place in the home. The full cooperation of all the parents in the training offered by the Church sends a strong message that all adults are responsible for the safety of our children and that we as adults are committed to seeing that every child receives age-appropriate information for their protection.

“I also take this occasion to dispel an unfortunate misunderstanding and characterization of safe environment training. Since its mandate was the result of the clergy sexual abuse crisis, some have incorrectly concluded that this training is sex education training; it is not.”

**Please hit link to read Dom’s good comments as well as his readers comments. **

 

[Kevirish01]

Second half of post:

Although the Seal of Confession is inviolable, a failure to comply with a USCCB “Required Action” is not. In this era of mandated transparency, the following Confession of non-compliance was transcribed for posting. It is reproduced here as a public service:

“Bless me, Frau Kettelkamp, for I am non-compliant. It has been one year since my last audit. I accuse myself of the following failures in my polices, procedures and protocols:

“Last year I winked at the auditors and asked, “If you accept my check can we say that we did even though we didn’t?”

“I committed three self-audits and one full audit with others.

“I used unacceptable forms of safe environment training for children.

“I gave pamphlets to parents and only asked them to review the contents with their children.

“I engaged in training programs for children that were totally-left-to-the-parents-and-were-not-conducted-as-a-regular-part-of-a-school-or-religious-education-program-curriculum-or-classroom-work-and-overseen-by-the arch/diocese/eparchy-and-did-not satisfy-the-requirements-of-Article-12-of-the-Charter. Well, 30 times.

“I even merely obtained parental certifications for non-participation without offering them safe environment sex education training, ten times.

“I was considered ‘non-compliant’ by the USCCB and didn’t care, 15 times.

“I was not trusting enough in the mandatory safe environment sex education programs for children of public schools even though the training was acceptable to the Office of Child and Youth Protection, 25,000 times (once each for every child attending public school in the diocese).

“I failed to agree with Frau Kettelkamp and the Committee for the Protection of Children and Young People (even though they agree among themselves), 40 times.

“I pointed out to parents that the child abuse crisis in the Church was a gay exploitation of adolescent boy crisis rather than, primarily, a ‘pedophile priest’ crisis, many, many times.

“I failed to use capitalized letters when referring to the office of child and youth protection 5, no make that, 6 times.

“I suggested to parents that mandatory ‘safe environment programs’ promoted by the Office of Child and Youth Protection of the USCCB are truly sex education programs in disguise, 75 times.

“I harbored thoughts that mandatory safe environment sex education programs are really designed to quell the media spotlight on the dereliction of duty of bishops, 150 times.

“I said that you didn’t realize how utterly condescending your letter was, but now I do. Is that a violation of protocol?

“I read George Orwell’s ‘1984’ to prepare for the mandated arch/diocesan/eparchial (sigh) audit, once.

“I had fantasies of stuffing the heads of each member of the staff of the Office of Child and Youth Protection – from the executive director on down – into toilets and flushing repeatedly, 500 times.

“Oh, I did not act on the Required Action issued by the Office of Child and Youth Protection assigned after my last audit.

“And if I’m really not sorry after confessing but continue to pay the usual arch/diocesan/eparchial assessment to the USCCB, will you get off my back? Let me rephrase that…

“After prayerful discernment, I thought it would be a good idea for you to receive systematic feedback from parents so I gave out your phone numbers. Transparency, baby.

Teresa Kettelkamp, Executive Director
My direct number at the USCCB is: (202) 541-5418 and my cell phone number is: (217) 725-3535
202-541-5418 (direct line)

Sheila Kelly, Deputy Director
202-541-3411

Danna Palmer, Executive Assistant
202-541-5413 (main line for the office)

Gladys Smith, Staff Assistant
202-541-3094 (direct line)
Fax number for the office: 202-541-5410”

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Very clever? Well, no one properly addressed as “Frau” is bound by the priestly seal when someone chooses to confess to her, so we know you think this is some kind of a joke.

Are you saying that our bishops do not have a responsibility to see that sexual abusers of children, parents or staff, will no longer find a safe haven in Catholic parochial schools under their rightful authority?

Parents who wish to assert that their teaching authority trumps the authority of parochial schools or their local bishop may still do that. They only need to demonstrate that they took the trouble to find out what they’re refusing.

Have you not been listening to the pleas of the victims of sexual abuse to change the old order of business? Do you think they are making a big deal out of nothing when it comes to the theft of *their *innocence? I for one am pleased that the bishops are finally taking this matter as seriously as it deserves to be taken. If the staff members have problems with the practical aspects of how the bishops are doing their jobs, fine. Let them talk to the bishops. But addressing the too-common problem of pedophilia and the prevention of the sexual abuse of children is no laughing matter. The children deserve a good-faith effort from educators on their behalf, not a self-indulgent, petulant response like this.

 

[Fortiterinre]

Your bishops’ conference at work
I have just been informed that the US bishops’ conference’s Office of Child and Youth Protection has sent out a four-page memo to all US dioceses. Here are the highlights, but if you can’t be bothered to read them, here it is in a nutshell: “We know the Church has an inconvenient teaching that parents are primary educators of their children and another inconvenient teaching that children’s innocence is to be protected from undue instruction in sexual matters, but some parents are just too stupid to raise their children the way we say they should and, besides, when you weigh the cost of legal settlements versus the innocence of children it’s not even close.”

I read the excerpt and don’t remotely understand how this is a fair summary of it, even allowing for sarcasm. She explicitly states that the content of the safe environment training isn’t sexual. This sounds to me like a variation of “stranger danger” teaching that many schools did long before the scandals; what is the problem?

 

[kage_ar]

Our parish CCD time will be the “Protecting God’s Children” class for the kids on this Sunday - the parents can opt thier children out if they choose - no big issue here!

 

[fix]

As for her specious claim that it is not sex education, that is not what people are claiming. No one claims that it’s aim is to teach the mechanics of sex. The complaint is that the program is too graphic and exposes children to sexual concepts and ideas that should be reserved for adulthood. Children can be taught how to avoid strangers without graphic details. Such programs put children as the first line of defense, shifting the focus from bishops who averted their gaze from abusers to children and their parents.

This is the issue. It seems to be more of an insurance, PR issue, than an authentic solution.

 

[Fortiterinre]

But how is the program exposing kids to “sexual concepts and ideas”? When I was a grade schooler in the 1970’s, we had a variation of “stranger danger” training that included things like never letting someone touch you where you always wore clothes, never going into the cloak room or confined space with someone if you were afraid, etc. I don’t remember much, but we got the point without feeling scared or hyper-sexualized.