More links between "Talking about Touching" and prostitution and homosexuality
By Domenico Bettinelli, Jr. (articles ) | Oct 06, 2003
WorldNetDaily has an article on "Talking about Touching" that adds more information to my article on the same program. Mary Jo Anderson shows why the links between the Committee for Children, which created the curriculum, and pro-gay, pro-prostitution groups should make you nervous. Basically, these people set out to make homosexual sex and, in fact, any sexual activity, commonplace and well accepted starting at the earliest ages. Is it any coincidence that there are news stories of oral sex between seventh graders on school buses?
And since the public schools are already saturated with explicit sex education programs, the last bastions are private schools, especially Catholic ones. And TaT isn't limited to schools; it's coming to a religious education class near you. Some dioceses are even requiring that children go through the program in order to receive the sacraments, even if they're home-schooled. There's no safe place. Now more than ever parents must stand up for their rights and refuse to let their children be abused this way.
How could bishops allow this? Most often they don't know. Dioceses are scrambling to satisfy the demands of the Dallas Charter and have a program in place before their audit by Kathleen McChesney's child abuse prevention office, so CFC approaches liberal middle managers in the diocese with the program, and --presto!-- here you go, with no theological review or any checking whatsoever.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Oct. 06, 2003 5:39 PM ET USA
Which makes it incomprehensible that Archbishop O'Malley in Boston would mandate that Talking about Touching be a requirement in all Boston parishes - without the option for parents to opt out of it. Has he looked at it? Or is he just depending on third party accounts of it? Where is the personal responsibility here? This is reminiscent of bishops lamenting that the "experts" told them that the sodomites were 'cured' and could be allowed back in ministry. Some things can't be delegated, guys!
Posted by: -
Oct. 06, 2003 12:46 PM ET USA
I cannot comment with accuracy on "Talking About T." I have never seen a copy. But, in view of your assessment of it, it seems that it would be GRAVELY immoral to use it. If our religious superiors order us to do what is gravely immoral, we are morally bound in conscience to REFUSE obedience. Such obedience is gravely sinful. In the Church "rule by men" goes only as far as a clash with immutable moral principles. So, to avoid hell fire, tell the boss: "I respectfully REFUSE to obey you."