« Virginia Priest pleads guilty | Main | The Audit »
January 14, 2004
Parents Reject Touching
Interesting stuff from the Arlington Diocese, where parents made their feelings clear:
The Arlington Catholic diocese's efforts to prevent sexual abuse of children in Catholic schools and religious programs backfired Monday night when angry parents filled a Manassas church to demand that a proposed "Good Touch, Bad Touch" program be canceled. In a four-hour hearing ending at 11 p.m., a majority of the 230 people at All Saints Catholic Church hooted, booed and hurled catcalls at a handful of diocesan employees, who defended the program. Parents complained that "Good Touch, Bad Touch" was inappropriate for young children, that parents had little or no input in selecting the program and that the true problem was abusive clerics, not children. "If clerical abuse was the problem to be addressed, I don't understand why children are being made repositories for information that's beyond their ability to comprehend," said Virginia state Rep. Bob Marshall, a Catholic representing Loudon and Prince William counties in the 13th District. "I realize the big problem the diocese has," said Eleanor Kelly, a Catholic from Front Royal. "The insurance companies won't insure you unless you show there are [preventive] programs." At one point, the crowd began chanting the rosary to drown out Catherine Nolan, the diocesan director of child protection and safety
Okay, clarify for me. Is this the same program that's been controversial in Boston?
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83456718c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Parents Reject Touching:
» The truth and meaning of human sexualty from Catholic Light
See Al's commentsover at Amy's blog. The parents who objected to the Diocesan implementation of this program are clearly on solid ground. The Truth and Meaning Human Sexuality, November 21, 1995 "Sex education, which is a basic right and duty... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 14, 2004 9:19:13 PM
Comments
As far as I know -- and correct me if I am in error -- Boston implemented a program called "Protecting God's Children" devised by a firm based in the D/FW area.
This particular program is the one used throughout the Diocese of Charlotte.
Posted by: Fr. Shawn O'Neal at Jan 14, 2004 9:35:22 AM
"PGC" is operated by VIRTUS, Inc., a creation of The National Catholic Risk Retention Group, Inc. who has contacts in Lisle, IL.
https://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/virtus_description.cfm
What surprises me is that this corporation has been around since 1988. Why have diocese not called on their services before the past few years? Forget I asked that. Many people have been asking the same thing.
Posted by: Fr. Shawn O'Neal at Jan 14, 2004 9:45:49 AM
I checked out the "Good Touch, Bad Touch" program website, and given that the program was started in Atlanta in 1983, I don't think it has anything to do with the program in Boston, which is called "Talking About Touching".
You can read the central details about what they tell kids in this program here:
http://www.goodtouchbadtouch.com/talking_to_children.html
It seems, for the most part, pretty unobjectionable to me, except for the part about teaching kids to use the phrase "sexual abuse". Some parents might feel the use of that term would open up questions which might be inappropriate to answer for small children.
Also, the priest quoted in the story, Fr. Paul DeLadurantaye, is a good friend of mine. I know him to be very orthodox, very intelligent, and very prudent. He's done a very good job in Arlington making their program for training catechists very solid. I'd tend to trust his judgment. I'm trying to reach him today, and if I do I'll post the results on my own blog.
Finally, some of the parents' objections quoted in the story strike me as borderline hysterical. For example, one mother said "I don't want them [her children] even thinking about those things." While I understand and support the deisre to protect children's innocence, I think in these times it is imperative to teach kids about avoiding molestation. To not do so strikes me as irresponsible.
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Jan 14, 2004 10:15:39 AM
I don't think this is the same program being implemented in Boston. "Good Touch, Bad Touch" was created by a woman in Atlanta and "Talk about Touching" is a program created by the "Committee for Children" with ties to SIECUS (Sex Information and Education Council of the U.S).
It appears from reading the article that you link that "Good Touch, Bad Touch" is not as sexually explicit as is "Talk about Touching."
Here (including curriculum links) are some of the concerns regarding "TaT" addressed by a Catholic parents group in the Arch. of Boston who are opposed to having their children exposed to a sexually explicit program taught by Catholic school teachers and parish CCD teachers with no parental involvement permitted.
Posted by: Colleen at Jan 14, 2004 10:21:20 AM
Fr. Rob, I trust your judgement however I do not know one parent in my community who has not spoken to or educated their child(ren) regarding improper touching or "stranger danger" scenerios - and reminds/refreshes them from time to time.
Part of the problem is having a total stranger (for instance a CCD teacher) speak about sexual issues with your child. In Boston, the parents are totally shut out of the classes.
I know in my own home I have a very innocent 10 year old son and although I teach him about this subject I use words I know are appropriate for his particular maturity level. Kids aren't one size fits all in any subject, particularly in sexual maturity.
Let's face it, this is an issue of litigation and insurance and personal culpability.
Posted by: Colleen at Jan 14, 2004 10:30:30 AM
It's good to know who endorses some of this sexuality education. SIECUS has a page on their site dedicated to "religious institutions". From there, one is just a click away from the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing, which provides links to faith-based sexuality education.
File these links away whenever you need ready access to the "millstone around the neck" diretory.
Posted by: Clayton at Jan 14, 2004 10:34:23 AM
Clayton,
Thanks for the links... I notice one of the items is the Benzinger series.
On Monday's "Dr. is In" Dr. Colleen stated that the Dioceses that use the Benzinger series have Catholics who contracept, divorce and abort at the same rate as the non-Catholics.
That said a lot.
Posted by: Aquinas Admirer at Jan 14, 2004 10:54:09 AM
Let me amend that last one... It's her diocese that has used the Benzinger for almost 20 years, and the above is the result.
Posted by: Aquinas Admirer at Jan 14, 2004 10:55:27 AM
Before one concludes that the parents in the meeting were all reactionary obstructionist, one should acquaint oneself with the method by which the program was installed.
First of all (as readers of Mark's blog know) priests of the diocese were told, regardless of objections, that this was the program that was going to be used.
Second, parents were presented, through the diocesan newspaper with a pretty much fait accompli, in a fairly tendentious way, and instructed that 1) This was safety ed not sex ed (a specious distinction, to say the least) and 2) Though they had a right enumerated in Canon law of instructing their children with regard to Sex that was inviolate, safety ed was another matter (again, a specious distinction, since the parents right regards education per se, rather than sex ed)
Third, again, the primarly line of defense against predatory homosexuals (or whatever euphemism they're using now) is the children themselves, and specifically, sensitizing them to things which, objectively, are at odds with innocence and purity (a necessary evil, the implementers of the policy would claim).
Fourth, this highly politicized mechanism of implementation--parents can "opt out" if they are that reactionary, but to review the materials they have to be under the eye of a social worker, and of course the presumptive depiction of parents expressing their objections as "reactionaries" even though this is the state of the process the implementers have designated for them to express their opinions.
Not an auspicious beginnning to a program only a few month down the "process."
Posted by: al at Jan 14, 2004 10:55:55 AM
Clayton, "The Really Good News: What the Bible Says About Sex" is a real eye opener. Thanks for the link. Debra Haffner is the author of the piece - she spoke at a VOTF convention about "How to create sexually safe parishes" and although VOTF later distanced themselves from Haffner, VOTF still sells tapes of her talk. Interestingly, VOTF is going to be the vehicle for implementing "Talk about Touching" in the parishes of Boston - per Bishop O'Malley.
Posted by: Colleen at Jan 14, 2004 10:59:24 AM
This program is the same one that is offered in Virginia's public schools. I don't know how it was implemented in the diocese, where I live, but I can tell you that every public school parent is given a booklet that explains the program in detail, and is provided with the opportunity to opt out if they are uncomfortable with it. It has the following features:
1. It is designed to be age appropriate.
2. It does not use sexual terms or even refer to sex organs (by name or otherwise).
3. Its main intent is to instill in children the ability to distinguish offensive or violent touching from incidental touching or positive emotions (hugging) and to give them a vocabulary for explaining bad touching.
4. Its secondary intent is to validate a child's instincts about when touching may be inappropriate and to encourage a child to get adult help, with a very strong message that children are not responsible for the behavior of adults.
I did not agree with everything in this program, however, on balance I certainly did not think it was offensive or degrading to me or my children. If you are wondering what kinds of terms they use, they basically refer to illicit touching by using terms such as "anywhere a bathing suit would cover your body, plus your mouth." It's clear and understandable, and it gave my daughters a certain amount of confidence that they understood the subject.
I don't think most parents talk to their children about touching. Certainly, given the population in my school district, this could never be taken for granted. A program such as this puts all children on a level playing field and helps them initiate conversations with adults. It "backs children up" so to speak. I have no idea why it would generate such hysteria.
Posted by: Barbara at Jan 14, 2004 11:15:01 AM
Al:
If you're going to disagree with me, at least disagree with what I said. I said some of the reactions of parents quoted seemed borderline hysterical. I didn't even use the words "reactionary" or "obstructionist", much less tar all parental concerns with that brush. Furthermore, no one was quoted in the story was quoted as labelling parents as "reactionary", so your continued use of that term is a straw man.
Furthermore, I said I sympathize with the desire of parents to protect their children's innocence. However, I do not think that preserving children's innocence and educating them to avoid the danger of abuse are mutually exclusive. And I think there is a pretty clear distinction between what the "Good Touch, Bad Touch" program does and Sex Eduaction. Or is any discussion with kids that verges below the waistline inherently and automatically "Sex Ed." and therefore to be condemned?
The diocese says parents can "opt out". Either they can or they can't. If they can, then that seems to me to safeguard parents' rights as the primary educators of children. Some parents' fear of being "presumptively" labelled as reactionaries (again, no one has shown that the diocese or its personnel have done so) hardly seems to me sufficient justification for quashing the program, so they don't have to go through the self-induced presumptive trauma of being so labelled.
Is this program in Arlington the be-all and end-all? I'm sure not. Is it capable of improvement? I'm sure it is. But Al, it seems your objections are mostly procedural rather than substantive. Are you against any diocesan program of this nature?
Posted by: Fr. Rob Johansen at Jan 14, 2004 11:25:23 AM
Fr. Johanssen,
I'm just arguing that the parents 1) have a right to their objections (since this is the process designed to vet them) and 2) have some good objections. Their procedural, since I don't have children, and haven't looked at the program, but also because the argument that 1) Borderline Hysterics are the ones that are sticklers about other people exposing their children to any and all matter regarding sex and 2) some of the people involved with the program are good guys (Fr. DeLaudyrante--whom I agree is a good guy) is transparently aimed at undercutting the procedural objections.
Here's the rub: if people (even Catholics) generally agreed on the nature and meaning of Human Sexuality and Morality (that its for procreation, that if you're not doing it for procreating you're a bad person, and that you're not just slightly bad, you're really bad, because sex is not just accidental to the human person, its an important part, hence the dignity of virginity, purity and innocence) then there probably wouldn't be much cause for concern in educating for safety. Since that is not the case, demonstrably, and within Catholicism, no parent can prudently defer to a program that may be laden with ideological baggage (ie. kids are sexual beings, so simply talking about it isn't bad. . .).
If we Catholics have to deal with this in the ridiculous, pluralistic way that everything now is dealt with (ie. we're just not going to talk about stuff--preconceptions we don't agree about) then we going to adhere to that strictly.
Posted by: al at Jan 14, 2004 11:37:04 AM
Guess who owns the National Catholic Risk Retention Group?
a bunch of dioceses!!!!
It is a Vermont captive insurance company, which "insures", really "self-insures" sexual molestation (and other lines) for dioceses, since people like me cancelled their cover for being "bad risks".
In Vermont, because Howie Dean helped put together nice laws.
Posted by: TK at Jan 14, 2004 12:12:50 PM
Anyone who thinks it's at all Catholic to use the Rosary to drown out a speaker like this ... well, it's just not clear how seriously a diocese ought to take their views.
Whether in Boston or in Arlington, the fact is that there is some serious confusion among some of the laity between the problems with "sex ed" programs that teach about sex acts, and the generally unproblematic nature of programs that teach that if you're touched in such-and-such a place, someone's doing you wrong.
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jan 14, 2004 2:49:43 PM
In the Diocese of Richmond, parents are not able to opt out of any "safety" or "family life" program. Your child's education on sexual matters will be handled by diocesan personnel if you stay in catholic schools. In contrast, the public schools have an opt-out feature. You might recall that ours is a diocese that protected a number of known sexual abusers. Fr. Leonard, who was sentenced yesterday, used to give educational programs on sexuality and spirituality. This scandal was not about children who didn 't have enough public sex ed. This scandal is about young adults who suffered because the appropriate sexual boundaries between them and trusted adults (diocesan employees in fact) was broken down and left them vulnerable to sexual predators. Is it any surprise that most parents don't want to break down the veil of modesty that serves as an essential protection of our children? Is it any surprise that we don't want this year's religion teacher who just graduated from college after enjoying the Vagina Monologues to teach our children about sexual intercourse in 5th grade? Is it any surprise that we don't want teachers in elementary schools to open up "channels for sharing sexual feelings" in class? It is a very simple matter to make it clear to a child that no one should touch them inappropriately. I don't need my next door neighbor, my best friend or a diocesan employee with an education doctorate to do it for me.
Posted by: marie at Jan 14, 2004 3:02:09 PM
First, programs like this (Arlington - don't know what Richmond has) are NOT "SEX-ED" PROGRAMS - they're not "how to" programs for sexual practices or "safe sex" or whatever.
Second, they do NOT violate "modesty" or "innocence" properly understood (e.g., as in the Vatican instruction on sex ed).
Third, it just ISN'T that "simple" to teach kids about inappropriate touching, given that young kids don't think very abstractly, and given the ways in which abusers might manipulate them.
Fourth, it's crazy to think that anyone who would use the Rosary as a "drown-out" device has the slightest clue about how to teach religion - including Catholic morality!
Posted by: Kevin Miller at Jan 14, 2004 3:30:59 PM
Riigghtt,
Its really hard to teach kids about their "bathing suit" area when they've seen both bikini's and onepiecers. Particularly the boys. So it requires a class.
Just re-asserting something doesn't make it so. . .
Posted by: al at Jan 14, 2004 3:34:20 PM
I wonder why these lay people don't trust their diocese or their priests (even the good ones) in matters of the loins?
And yes, al, if everyone didn't sin, the world would be perfect. Now, how about the world that exists? And depending on your (age) definition of "kids" and the particulars of what "talking" included, there is nothing inherently incompatible between a certain level of sexual awakedness and "virginity, purity and innocence."
Posted by: Victor Morton at Jan 14, 2004 3:44:22 PM
There's a real simple solution to this problem that I'm surprised has eluded so many. According to the Church, parents are the primary educators of their children in matters of chastity and sexuality. Everyone agrees on that, right? So why not teach the parents? Your kids come to our school/CCD, so we're going to require you to attend a class on the best ways of speaking to you children about sexuality and all these "touching" issues. Then we'll let you decide the best means of relaying that to your children, based on your intimate knowledge of the child's level of understanding and preparedness. What's so hard about that?
I fought this battle 8 years ago in my diocese when they wanted to mandate a diocesan-wide sex-ed program in CCD. They chose the Benziger Family Life Program, which was nothing more than a Planned Parenthood sex-ed program wrapped in rosary beads. It was in direct violation of many parts of the 1995 document from the Pontifical Council for the Family (PCF), "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality: Guidelines for Education within the Family."
I'll spare you the list of graphic reproductive-organ words and functions that Benziger included in its list of vocabulary to be memorized, only to say that in this list, they had exactly one word that might relate to Catholicism: modesty. After they've destroyed the child's modesty by having them recite "penis" out loud and repeatedly so as to desensitive them to the word (I've seen it done), they mention as an aside that one should be "modest". Oh, and did I mention that this was for the 5th grade?
Moreover, Benziger was supposed to be a comprehensive *Catholic* K-8 sex-ed program. So, any such program you would imagine might have something to say about celibacy and virginity, right? Sure it did. And here's the grand total of its statements about these jewels of the Catholic faith (I reviewed the entire K-8 program):
In the same paragraph of the 5th grade text: "Some people never marry... priests remain celibate, or unmarried, as a part of their vocation... Some adults do not marry because they feel a strong sexual attraction to members of their own sex. They are said to have a homosexual orientation."
So, thus having explained celibacy by making it on par with homosexuality, they move on to virginity: "Some people mistakenly believe that to be chaste means to be a virgin."
That's it folks. K-8. A "Catholic" program. Celibacy and virginity are mentioned exactly once each. Celibacy just a choice equivalent to a homosexual's choice, and virginity... it's as if they were saying, "don't worry, you don't have to be a virgin to be chaste."
Oh, and did I mention that Benziger has an imprimatur? Sure, nothing contrary to the faith. Nothing to *do* with the faith either, but why quibble?
And Fr. Rob, I'm sure Fr. DeLaudyrante is a good, solid, orthodox fellow. I know lots of good guys in Arlington. But when I fought the Benziger battle years ago, I fought against some of the most orthodox and respected priests of my diocese. Their problem was not their orthodoxy, their problem was their tendency to accept anything with an impramatur, their lack of professional experience in the education of children, and their not having bother to have read the 1995 PCF document.
This "Good Touch, Bad Touch" program may not be as bad as Benziger, but it is not the role of the Church to teach children *apart from their parents* on these issues. Allowing parents to exempt their children is a cop-out.
I could go on and on, having been there done that, but this just infuriates me.
Posted by: Fr. Paul at Jan 14, 2004 3:46:24 PM
Victor,
We just disagree. So as I said above, if we're going to negociate this without resolving, thoroughly, our differences, lets keep it out of the classrooms
Posted by: al at Jan 14, 2004 3:51:55 PM
Kevin,
If this is not a sex-ed program, what is it?
And if it's something else, does that mean the diocese can preempt a parent's right to be the primary educators of their children about whatever issue you happen to think this is?
I can understand the outrage of the one parent who said, "How can I bathe my child and wash her hair when there's a teacher saying this is a bad touch because they don't have their bathing suit on?"
If you can understand her outrage, whether you like the fact or not that others drowned them out with the rosary, then you'll understand that not only is this program a secularist, Planned Parenthood-type desensitizing indoctrination that usurps the rights of parents, but it has also duped a hierarchy that is more concerned about insurance and liability than teaching the Catholic faith.
Posted by: Fr. Paul at Jan 14, 2004 3:58:16 PM
Why can't there be safety/sexual nasty education with the parents present. Have the parents in some classes first and then involve them so that they can be there _with_ their children. It is a subject that in this day and age has to be dealt with, you can't avoid how many perverts are out there. Why can't this kind of thing be done as a joint venture with parents and schools?
This way parents have control and input but schools know that the material is covered, it also means that if someone does sexual molest a child they know they have an open door to their parents about this issue.
Posted by: Tess at Jan 14, 2004 4:27:52 PM
Amen, Fr. Paul. This is "All About Reducing Liablity Exposure" and nothing about protecting the kids. I can see the defense now -
Atty: Mrs. So and so, did you know the diocese instituted a program to warn you and your child about such occurrences?
Mrs. S and s: I heard they had a program, but I did not think it was appropriate for my child.
Atty: You didn't think it was appropriate? In fact, you didn't want your child to participate, did you?
Mrs. S and s: No I didn't.
Atty: In fact, you OPTED OUT of sending your child to this program, designed to protect him, put in place by the very people you now accuse of doing nothing.
Mrs. S and s: I did not think it was appropriate for my child.
Atty: You did not think it was appropriate to provide your child the information he needed to protect himself, yet you now accuse the very people who WANTED to provide that information of failing in their duty. Who really failed in their duty, Mr. S and s?
Posted by: c matt at Jan 14, 2004 4:33:23 PM
The American passion for litigation strikes again...
Posted by: Tess at Jan 14, 2004 4:41:35 PM
