« Roberts' JFK Moment? | Main | Blessings »
September 14, 2005
Do it..or else
Dom Bettinelli has a post about a recent letter sent by the USCCB's office of Child and Youth Protection basically threatening issuance of some sort of stamp of disapproval (well, non-compliance) to dioceses which let parents opt out of school-based "safe environment" training unless the parents sign letters stating that they were offered the training and refused it.
(By the way, my child is in a Catholic school....no "safe environment" training here for her that I've heard of. For volunteers, yes, but not in the school.)
Well, this is obviously purely lawyer and insuror-driven, don't you think? We can get all bent out of shape all we want about the ethical aspects of it, as well as the irony, as Diogenes points out at CWNews of bishops willing to pay the price on compliance on this, and not, say, Ex Corde Ecclesiae. But the cold fact is, this is all about CYA, legally, and for insurors.
Children need to be educated, it's true, on the myriad ways in which their innocence is potentially exploited in our culture. In a society in which 6-year old boys are listening to hard-core rap and absorbing the misogyny contained therein, and little girls are, in turn, absorbing Skank Culture, it is not unreasonable for Catholic institutions to teach modesty, respect and the importance of being on guard and never simply assuming that someone has your best interest at heart. As long-time readers know, I'm a strong supporter of implementing procedures similar to what the Boy Scouts do (basically, no adult alone with a child) and being straightforward with young people about boundaries, and that when a 32 year old priest or a 20-year old youth volunteer wants to be your best friend....that's not normal.
But of course, that's not what "safe environment" programs are about, for the most part. They're about liability - just as anyone who's ever actually held a job and had to go through some sort of training like this - sexual harrassment, for example - it's all done just so the institution can have the paperwork and say, "There, we did it. We did our part. You can't sue us, because we gave them the training."
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8348f209869e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Do it..or else:
Comments
This makes me hopping mad. As it is, we have the Diocese breathing down our necks about this where I am, and they're providing no training really on how to implement this. It seems they just want to be able to show that they've started something, and get their "compliance" badge. Amy, yes, it is indeed all about CYA. And most disgusting!
Posted by: Southern DRE at Sep 14, 2005 10:43:53 AM
Amy, I think your take is far more sensible than Dom's. Between adoption training and VIRTUS, the big thing I got that I hope parents are aware of: if your child is abused, the odds are it's someone you know and trust--family member, friend, church or school person. Not taking the warning signs seriously because of a sense "this is only to comply for insurance purposes" is possibly ... possibly a dangerous tack. It invites less than a serious approach.
I don't feel I need the weekly web bulletins and quizzes and the annual recert process, but not every parent has taken psychology courses or abuse training or whatever, and some lack the social skills and perception to recognize danger situations you or I or some of our readers might naturally be alerted by.
Posted by: Todd at Sep 14, 2005 10:50:06 AM
I've taken the volunteer training offered by VIRTUS and signed up for the monthly bulletins just to see what they were up to. But there's just one question at the end of the bulletin and you don't even have to read it to figure out the answer. Common sense.
But Amy's post was referring to the kids. In our state the same program is offered in the public school as it is for the Catholics schools (this year required), so supposedly the parishes programs are exempt, according to the online DRE newsletter this spring. But if the USCCB is breathing down the neck, maybe that's changed again.
Posted by: Chris at Sep 14, 2005 11:05:15 AM
Keep in mind that if you look closely enough, VIRTUS is run by the company that's organized under the insurance companies for the dioceses.
Posted by: Chris at Sep 14, 2005 11:08:05 AM
The problem with any sex education program is that it usurps the rights of the parents to educate their own children about this topic, risks of abuse, etc. The other problem is that it strips away their innocence and violates their modest reserve of children and that of the teacher. In the Boston Archdiocese they are advertising for VOLUNTEERS to teach this "Talking about Touching" program. Does a pervert need any more of an opportunity than that? Furthermore, the implication of these programs is that it the responsibility of the child to avoid abuse and not the responsiblity of the parents and the diocese in supervising its priests to make sure that children are not abused by perverts in their employ. Not my kids, no way, now how!
Posted by: Mary Alexander at Sep 14, 2005 11:15:48 AM
Mary, what children learn about avoiding abuse (be it bullies, abusers, etc.) is not the same as sex education. I suppose the two can be combined, but I've not seen it done, except for teens.
The sex abuser profile would not volunteer to teach in TAT; he or she would not be in a position to groom children and parents. There is no one-on-one opportunity.
The way I see it, parents are responsible for teaching their kids to avoid abuse. But schools and churches have a necessary role to protect kids when the parents themselves are the abusers.
Adults in the community are all responsible for the children, especially because parents and other trained adults cannot be everywhere at all times.
Posted by: Todd at Sep 14, 2005 11:32:43 AM
I had to take this program last year at my daughter's high school. It is absolutely deadful. It spends time pointing out that there is NO association between homosexuality, but then makes one walk away feeling every parent is a potential pedophile. What troubled me, especially, was that it used a lot of the latest psychology to address the issue, but no theology. Why not address the meaning of fidelity...fidelity to our calling as Catholic Christians. Yes, I know that pedophilia is a psychological disorder, but why not appeal to our nobler selves. My husband and I both agreed if there were a pedophile in the room they would have smirked because they probably know all the loop-holes anyway. Finding out that this program comes from the USCCB expains to me why it so bad. It is a CYA(cover your...) program
Posted by: kim at Sep 14, 2005 12:02:23 PM
What is the best, newest evangelical tool for Baptist outreach to Catholic children in America? The USCCB.
If I was a Catholic parent with young children, I'd raise them with the Baptists (after Catholic baptism and first communion, of course.)
Let them come back to the Catholic Church when they are grown up.
(I wouldn't trust them to the Episcopaleans, either.)
Posted by: Zhou at Sep 14, 2005 12:09:56 PM
I don't see what the big deal is?
How is the diocese usurping parents' rights? You don't have to send your kids to their programs! The priest or his "education committee" arn't going to come to your house and grab them! The bishop isn't going to excommunicate you (as if he'd have the guts)! The USCCB has power only to sue you if you publish something online from the NAB. :) heh
I bet 95% of the parishoners in dioceses where they do this won't even be aware of the policy.
If you're worried about this taking place in Sunday school, let me ask why your kids are going to Sunday school? The odds of them learning anything about Jesus there are about say... zero. If you care about this policy then chances are you care enough to teach your kids about our faith.
Posted by: Ian at Sep 14, 2005 12:12:35 PM
Nice.
Seems like a victim mentality has taken root where adult responsibility should be coming to the fore.
Theoretically, it should be simple: tell your kids not to permit bullying, improper touching, etc.. The sad reality is that almost all abusers are known and trusted by the victim's parents. Most abuse happens in families. "Perverts" have children too. Do we wring our hands until all society's children turn 18? Or do we accept what the bishops put on our plate as a necessary concession to protect our children?
I've had several close friends and family menbers abused in their lives. The tally? Two fathers, one uncle, one godfather. That doesn't include parishioners I've known or the friends who didn't confide in me. Sorry, people: wake up. If there's a sex perp in your life or your child's he or she is closer to you than you think. If VIRTUS or TaT wakes you up to that, be grateful, not sour.
Posted by: Todd at Sep 14, 2005 12:24:21 PM
Ian:
For most parishes, public school kids must attend religious instruction for 2 years before receiving the sacraments. These programs are becoming a virtual part of the rel ed
If your kids are in Catholic School, it's part of the curriculum.
Posted by: tony c at Sep 14, 2005 12:36:15 PM
"In the Boston Archdiocese they are advertising for VOLUNTEERS to teach this "Talking about Touching" program. Does a pervert need any more of an opportunity than that? "
Boy, can I relate to that! I am a volunteer DRE in a small parish. I have NEVER advertised publicly for CCD teachers for fear of who might accept the invitation. Nothing less than a personal phone call is adequate.
At our mandatory "Protecting God's Children" session, the chancery 'facilitator' said afterwards, in passing, that when she was a parish DRE she advertised in the parish bulletin for catechists, obviously oblivious to the stupidity of her admission.
That meeting was two years ago this month. We were told that we would have to reply to the required bulletins for a year and then we would be done. I'm STILL receiving bulletins. The one from May 2005 was titled, "Talking to Your Teen About Sex". I refuse to answer that one because it's obvious that the bureaucracy has veered off course.
There is an office building somewhere in D.C. full of VIRTUS employees who would be unemployed if this program were to ever see it's natural end. Can't have that now, can we?
Posted by: midwestmom at Sep 14, 2005 12:38:48 PM
The reason for the existence of VIRTUS, and the Office of Child Protection, is NOT that parents, relatives, and family friends are sexually abusing children. These programs exist because priests, most of them homosexual, were sexually abusing boys and young men, too many bishops failed to stop it, and now the lawyers are in charge. The CYA aspect of VIRTUS and background checks and fingerprinting (mostly for women, I might add) would not be nearly so annoying if the powers that be would be honest about it, rather than insisting that the real purpose of these programs is to protect children from their abusive relatives.
Posted by: Marie at Sep 14, 2005 12:49:49 PM
The Protecting God's Children video isn't bad. I've seen it 4 times.
Look, the problem is the whole bullshit package that comes with it, agressively sold and marketed. All this energy and money spent. But I know so many life-long Catholics who are insulted and pissed off. Why? Clergy seduced or raped their family members. They were lied to for years. And what's the response? "Hey, look over there!"
These programs have their good points. But they don't answer what we all want to know: are there any more priests who like young men and little boys lurking in parishes. And if so, what, your excelllency, are you doing to prevent this. And how did they get in in the first place.
My 2 cents.
Lord Have Mercy.
Posted by: tony c at Sep 14, 2005 12:55:59 PM
I fail to see how one can differentiate in teaching the children the difference between a priest who abuses or a family member. The telltale signs of an abuser are generally the same. There's no way to separate the category of adult or the church scenario where abuse is likely to occur.
These programs for child protection were not dreamed up in response to the bishops' problems. That's giving them way too much credit for damage done. These programs have been in existence for years--at least since the late 80's. And in their original format, they addressed the most common sex abuse scenario in American society: abuse by a parent, relative, or close friend. Can you imagine the outcry from clergy if a program focused on crossing to the other side of the street every time a priest walked by?
For the record, I was never told the training bulletins would ever end. But many of them do provide interesting and useful information for adults responsible for children.
Like Ian, I don't see the big deal. If you don't like the bishops or the Church, just check out of the parish/school/diocesan program and be done with it.
Posted by: Todd at Sep 14, 2005 1:03:51 PM
Todd, I don't think anyone would disagree that it's a good idea for *parents* to be educated about warning signs of child sexual abuse, likely perpetrators, etc. The question is whether it is a good idea for *children* to be taught (especially by secular programs) that they should be on the lookout for such.
I think there are many, many problems with such programs. First, they ignore differences among children's capacity to handle information of this sensitive nature. Some six-year-olds listen to rap; some 10-year-olds think marriage is a physically necessary prerequisite to having babies.
More importantly, as Mary Alexander wrote, "the implication of these programs is that it the responsibility of the child to avoid abuse and not the responsiblity of the parents and the diocese in supervising its priests to make sure that children are not abused by perverts in their employ."
Also, these programs fundamentally (and somewhat self-contradictorily) undermine the trust between children and adults that is absolutely necessary for healthy development of the children. "Watch out, there are lots of bad people who will pretend to be your friend in order to get the chance to hurt you. Be on your guard! You can't be sure of anyone. Believe me, I'm telling you this to help you."
Furthermore, these programs are sometimes outright hostile to parents, forbidding them from attending with their children.
I'd be all for a program that taught parents the epidemiology, as it were, of child sexual abuse, and gave them guidance on how to address it with their children in the context of Catholic teaching on the dignity of the human body, the purpose of sex, sin, and responsibility.
Anne-Marie
Posted by: Anne-Marie at Sep 14, 2005 1:06:11 PM
My diocese uses the VIRTUS program and anyone involved in children's ministries is required to take the training. I have heard from others that it is very explicit in talking about child abuse and I find it offensive that I and other parents like myself have to take this training when we were not the ones involved in the molesting of children. From my standpoint, the only people who ought to be mandated to take this training are priests and bishops.
It seems like this training is targeting the wrong people. Yes, as parents now we have to be ultra vigilant as far as who is allowed to be around our children. We have family friends who have teenage boys. This is a great family and I think their boys are awesome. But could I ever ask those boys to come and watch my girls? No. How about all those who are offering their homes to the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Many people on websites who offer their homes will only take women and children because we have been trained that we can no longer trust any male around our children. And that is sad.
But to get back on point with Virtus, I think it is a little ridiculous to require me (a 30 year old mom of 2 girls) to sit for 4 hours and hear horrible tales about child abuse so I can volunteer to do Children's Liturgy of the Word. It just doesn't make any sense. Maybe someone who has been through the program can explain more what it's supposed to "teach". It sounds to me like it is putting the blame on parents (don't let your kids around potential molesters) instead of focusing on rooting out the actual molesters, in this case, the priests who started the whole thing.
Posted by: Jennifer at Sep 14, 2005 1:17:04 PM
Anne-Marie,
I would probably differ with those who say protection programs put the onus on the child. The child needs to learn boundaries, yes. But the ultimate responsibility is that of the parents.
The only trust bond I want my daughter to have is with my wife and me, and the adults we choose to include in her life: relatives, close friends, teachers, etc.. If there's an adult I don't know hovering around my child, you can bet I'm going to be hovering a lot closer.
When we were kids, we were told not to accept food or rides from strangers, etc.. Telling our children not to permit touching, playing, tickling, or one-on-one time with adults is teaching healthy respect for boundaries. And as for a child's respect for all adults, that's not a given in my book. Not at all. If avoiding strangers, walking away from being alone with an adult is disrespect, we all should encourage that. Respect is earned, not automatic.
If you think you can get parents to study Catholic moral teaching on dignity, the body, etc., you're a better recruiter than I, my friend. If all we can reach are priests, teachers, and employees, and if they happen to be 80% women, that doesn't seem like a disadvantage to me.
I've been through the ringer twice as an adoptive/foster parent and as a church employee. I've never felt dissed by any aspect of any program. I was grateful to learn to spot the signs of abuse and we were encouraged to be vigilant with the kids in our lives.
Tony has a good point the psychologists don't touch: how to restore trust in the bishops and priests. He's right; TaT and VIRTUS don't address that. It's the job of our bishops. That's where the bile should be addressed, not to the psychologists who put together helpful programs that have shown their value in reducing abuse of innocents.
Posted by: Todd at Sep 14, 2005 1:29:50 PM
Here's the reality of having your child "opt out" of any kind of objectionable program:
He will be in the vast minority, if not the only one.
He will have his name announced right before the program, and he will be asked to stand up and leave the room.
All the other kids will know why.
And, the very next lunch-time, they'll tell him everything he missed anyway. Except from a 10 year old's perspective.
I almost had a situation where I, as the only practicing Catholic parent in my kids' Catholic elementary school, was going to "opt out" of an objectionable program. I made it clear, in writing, that my child was to be innocently approached by the principal and asked to help her with a time-wasting book-arranging project that would take - surprise! - the same amount of time as the program itself. That way, no one would be the wiser, not even my child. In this particular situation, the program never did get implemented, so nothing happened. But opt out rarely means your child will get through it without some kind of embarrassment, bad information, destruction of modesty, etc.
Posted by: KH at Sep 14, 2005 1:31:52 PM
In our diocese, they want everyone who volunteers that potentially comes in contact with children.
Including volunteers at the annual parish festival.
Next they're be requiring Protecting Our Children completion certificates and background checks before you're allowed to attend the festival. Except then there would be money lost. Oh.
Posted by: Chris at Sep 14, 2005 1:57:35 PM
I meant everyone to take Protecting God's Children who volunteers who potentially comes in contact with children ...
Don't get me wrong. I've taken it. Why? CYA
Posted by: Chris at Sep 14, 2005 2:00:07 PM
Anyone who thinks this is going to stay "voluntary" with parental opt-out is living in a dream world. Already in my diocese (D.C.) there is no opt-out. Every single Catholic School MUST teach the "Child Lures" program, and they are simply not allowed to allow parents to opt-out. The same applies for kids in CCD, so it basically forces every single Catholic kid in the diocese to take this program with no recourse to opting out by the parents.
And I thought "parents are the primary educators of their children"? Except of course we parents are all potential molesters, so let's forget that little inconvenient Catholic teaching...
Posted by: francis at Sep 14, 2005 2:16:59 PM
I don't see a helpful comparison between the scourge of child rape and the implementation of Ex Corde. (For one, the implemetation is a private matter between a theologian and his or her bishop.) But quite apart from the axe-grinding that characterizes so many of Diogenes' posts, it's awfully difficult to take him seriously when he's shrouded in anonymity. He ought to own his often scathing (and personal-attack laden) posts by using his name. This is why I can't consider CWN an actual news organization. (Their official response to an inquiry about the identity of Diogenes: "We don't comment on the identity of Diogenes!"--their exclamation mark.) Imagine a newspaper with op-eds signed by no one. Or one that published editorials but not the names of the editors. It's preposterous.
Posted by: Grant Gallicho at Sep 14, 2005 2:29:00 PM
So there is an apidemic of priests abusing teenage boys, and the bishops's response is (a) all parents are potential pedophiles, and (b) homosexuality had nothing to do with it?
I reply (a) how about you get your own house in order before indiscriminately lobbing accusations around, and (b) put down the politically-correct koolaid and wake up to reality.
Posted by: mark j at Sep 14, 2005 2:34:01 PM
Mark, et.al.: you don't get it. There is no tailor made program for avoiding gays on the prowl for our teen boys. Nobody's done it. (You want one? You'll need to invent it yourself.)
The bishops who want to CYA took a canned program that covers most or all the bases for all the clergy, employees, and volunteers. It's that simple. The Catholic abusers are not 100% priests. The victims are not 100% teen males. Overall, four-fifths or more of Catholic children abused are violated by family members, close friends, or adults in schools, churches, or other youth programs. If your child has been abused, odds are you know the person.
You distrust your bishop? Fine. Ask him about seminary screening. Ask about how he inspires his clergy to commit to celibacy.
Two separate issues, people: how to protect children and how to hold bishops and clergy accountable.
Posted by: Todd at Sep 14, 2005 2:50:25 PM
