Follow up to "Safe Enviroment"

Friends, below is an interesting article... 55 of 188 dioceses may not be in compliance with the "National Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People". 

In a recent email I mentioned the "silence" concerning the "Safe Environment" children's programs. I wondered if parents are satisfied with how their parishes/schools are handling this program?

Well, 55 dioceses are not satisfied... is it because the parents and some clergy continue to object to the age innapropriate "safe environment" children's programs? We know most of these programs are no more that "sex education".

Can the USCCB really MANDATE  these programs and take away the Rights of Parents? Well not according to this: 

Pope John Paul II approved a document from the Pontifical Council on the family (1995) entitled "The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality" which states:

Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents. [No. 43]

God bless you,

Catholic Parents OnLine

Auditors urge bishops to be vigilant

The Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate has reported that 55 of the 188 dioceses which participated in a USCCB-mandated survey needed to make improvements or risk being out of compliance with the national policy.
This was more than double the number of dioceses who were found lacking in 2009, the Washington Post notes.
"The church cannot afford to relax its standards," the authors of the study warned.
However the report also noted that current instances of sexual abuse of minors continues to decrease, with seven credible allegations against seven priests reported in 2010, according to the 2010 Survey of Allegations and Costs done by the  CARA, a USCCB statement says.
At the same time diocesan audits are uncovering weaknesses in audit compliance and finding reports of boundary violations short of abuse, such as inappropriate hugging, the report continued.
The survey by Georgetown University-based CARA collects numbers from the dioceses and coincides with the annual audit of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, conducted by the U.S. bishops' Secretariat of Child and Youth Protection.
All dioceses responded to the CARA survey except the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska, which has refused to participate in the compliance audits process since 2004. The U.S. bishops enacted the Charter in 2002 and have conducted national compliance audits annually since 2003.
In addition to the seven cases of abuse of minors in 2010, CARA also found hundreds of accounts of sexual abuse from decades ago that were reported to dioceses only last year. The "number of alleged offenders increased by a fifth, from 286 alleged offenders reported in 2009 to 345 alleged offenders reported in 2010," CARA reported. Almost 60 percent of these offenders had been identified in earlier allegations and three quarters of the offenders are now dead or laicized.
CARA also noted that two thirds of these allegations (66 percent) are old and occurred or began between 1960 and 1984. The most common time period when these allegations reportedly occurred was 1970-1974.
Costs to dioceses and eparchies (Eastern rite dioceses) related to clergy sexual abuse increased between 2009 and 2010 by more than $19 million. "More than half of the payments by dioceses and eparchies in 2010 (57 percent) were for settlements to victims." Costs for settlements paid out by dioceses and eparchies in 2010 were $70,375,228. This was an increase of 28 percent over the previous year's payments for settlements. Legal fees increased by 18 percent.
CARA also noted that "in addition to allegations-related expenditures, at least $20,954,405 was spent by dioceses and eparchies for child protection efforts such as safe environment coordinators, training programs, and background checks."
The audits of Charter compliance, as reported by the Gavin Group, found that "all dioceses/eparchies that participated in the 2010 audit process were found to be compliant with the Charter." At the same time 55 dioceses received management letters expressing concerns about procedures which could result in non-compliance. This number exceeded the number in the 2009 audit, which was 23.
The chief concern which resulted in the majority of these management letters centered on safe environment programs. "Reasons for the management letters include parishes or schools failing to offer classes for children, new pastors or directors of religious education failing to understand diocesan requirements to train students, accepting parent training as parish training, or simply counting absent students as opt-outs. Several dioceses reported receiving verification from pastors that training had taken place, only to have auditors discover it was not offered," the report noted.
In evaluation of compliance with safe environment criteria, the audits found that "over 98 percent of clerics were trained" as were "98 percent of employees and volunteers."
Dioceses that refused to participate in audits included the Diocese of Lincoln, Diocese of Baker, Oregon; the Eparchy of St. Peter the Apostle for Chaldeans; Eparchy of Newton for Melkites; Eparchy of Our Lady of Nareg in New York for Armenian Catholics; Eparchy of St. Josephat of Parma for Ukrainians; Eparchy of Our Lady of Deliverance of Newark for Syriacs. Based on their refusal all were declared non-compliant.
Since the audits began in 2003, the Philadelphia archdiocese has passed every review, including this latest one. Teresa Kettelkamp, the bishops' national child protection officer, said church leaders are looking into how that happened.
"We will figure this out and fix whatever needs to be fixed," Kettelkamp told the Washington Post.

H/T Catholic Parents

Guess I am a bigot........

Gay marriage supporters opt to intimidate

• Article by: KATHERINE KERSTEN
• Updated: May 21, 2011 - 8:36 PM

That's why they trot out words like 'bigotry' and generally distort the issue.

In recent weeks, the issue of who gets to define marriage -- Minnesota citizens or a handful of judges or legislators -- has been on the front burner.

The debate has generated lots of heat but not much light. Now that the Legislature has endeavored to let the people vote on a constitutional amendment defining marriage, I suggest a few ground rules to ensure a fair and open exchange of views.

First, we must reject the name-calling that has marred the debate to this point. Same-sex-marriage supporters' constant mantra has been that Minnesotans who support one man-one woman marriage are motivated by bigotry. Gay-marriage proponents make this claim even about people who merely support letting Minnesotans vote on the issue.
The Star Tribune's recent editorial on the marriage amendment was typical. "Don't put bigotry on the ballot," its headline ran.

But people who support one man-one woman marriage are not bigots. They argue, very reasonably, that marriage is rooted in nature -- in male/female sexual complementarity -- and that children need both a mother and a father. They say that's why it has been the bedrock institution of procreation and social order in virtually all times and places.
Same-sex-marriage supporters' attempt to tar this view as "bigotry" seems designed to shield them from tough questions as they campaign to redefine the world's fundamental social institution. Labeling your opponent a "bigot" is the ultimate rhetorical mudball--a classic slur intended to silence and intimidate rather than to facilitate an exchange of ideas.
My second recommendation: We know the precise constitutional amendment language the people will be voting on, so don't distort it.

Marriage has won in every state where the people have had an opportunity to vote on it. To date, citizens in 31 states have voted to enshrine one man-one woman marriage in their constitutions, including, most recently, the deep-blue states of California and Maine.
Yet very often, preelection polls in these states have predicted that marriage would lose. In California, an Oct. 30, 2008, poll showed the pro-gay marriage vote leading by 5 points. In Maine in 2009, the story was similar. Yet on Election Day, Californians voted 52 to 48 percent to preserve traditional marriage; in Maine the vote was 53 to 47 percent.
Why do polls consistently fail to predict voters' behavior? There are several reasons. First, many polls use misleading language. They ask people if they want to "ban" same-sex marriage instead of using the amendment language that voters will actually encounter in the polling booth. (In our state, that language is: "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in Minnesota.")

"For years, the 'ban same-sex marriage' language in polls has produced about a 6 to 10 percentage point undercount on support for traditional marriage," says Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage. "If you want to get the least favorable result on marriage, this is the language you choose for your poll."

One reason for the undercount is that some people interpret the "ban" language as implying that same-sex marriage or homosexual relationships will somehow be criminalized or made illegal, according to Gallagher. The "ban" language also casts traditional marriage supporters in a negative light. It compels them to say they are against something, rather than allowing them to articulate what they are for.

Most important, people often hesitate to tell a pollster their true beliefs about marriage when traditional marriage supporters are routinely demonized as bigots and haters.
The Star Tribune poll released on May 13 is a case in point. The poll asked people if they "would favor or oppose ... amending the Minnesota Constitution to ban same-sex marriage." Fifty-five percent answered "oppose."

Yet, the final day that pollsters were asking this question -- May 5 -- a Star Tribune editorial was denouncing Minnesotans who support traditional marriage as bigots. Who's surprised at the poll's result?

One last point: In the coming debate, we must have zero tolerance for intimidation tactics. Bullying has become standard operating procedure for many same-sex marriage activists. Their attack last year on Target Corp. is now held up as a national model by those attempting to silence same-sex marriage opponents.

In California, support for Prop 8 has cost some people their jobs. The latest casualty is Olympic gold medal winner Peter Vidmar, who resigned as chief of mission for the 2012 U.S. Olympic team on May 6, after his support for Prop 8 became public. McCarthyism of this kind threatens to undermine Americans' cherished freedom to engage politically without fear of personal reprisals.

Here in Minnesota, we can expect a vigorous debate over marriage in coming months. But personal slurs, distorted push-polling, and intimidation tactics have no place in the civil discourse of democracy.

Katherine Kersten is a senior fellow at the Center of the American Experiment. The views expressed here are her own. She is at kakersten@gmail.com.

H/T Catholic Parents Online

IMPORTANT vote for MN TODAY!!!!!

IMPORTANT

The Vote on the Marriage Amendment will be TODAY, May 21!

It's imperative that many people go to the MN Capitol... bring signs - "Let the People Vote!!"

There will be buses leaving all day until 5:00pm from St. Agnes Parish, Lafond, just east of Dale, on the half hour, to and from the State Capitol. Plenty of parking at St. Agnes.

Please pass this on ASAP!

Thanks and God bless you!

Catholic Parents Online

St Agnes Traddy's - God love 'em

The Family is a “Little Church” - FATHER ROBERT BARRON

There are, to be sure, family values on display in the Bible, but they’re probably not the ones we would naturally expect.

We might in fact be taken aback when we see just how harsh, blunt, and demanding are most Biblical accounts of family relations. We tend to be rather sentimental when it comes to families (especially this time of year), and there's nothing wrong with warm family feelings. But the Scriptural attitude toward families isn't sentimental; it's theological and mission-focused.

A prime example of this unique Biblical perspective is a passage from the first book of Samuel. We hear of Hannah, a devout Israelite woman who, to her deep chagrin and embarrassment, was not able to bear children. Every year, she went to the temple at Shiloh to pray for the grace of pregnancy. Once, she was praying with such passion and with so many tears that Eli the priest assumed that she was drunk and was making a shameful display. Displaying less than exemplary pastoral sensitivity, he said, "how long will you make a drunken spectacle of yourself? Put away your wine!" Can you imagine a more miserable scenario for Hannah? But she stood her ground, protesting, "No, my Lord, I am a woman deeply troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord." Then she told Eli precisely how she had been entreating the Lord: "O Lord of hosts, if only you will look on the misery of your servant…but will give to your servant a male child, then I will set him before you as a nazirite until the day of his death." A nazarite was an ancient Israelite version of a monk, a person completely dedicated to God.

We then hear that the Lord heard Hannah's prayer and in due time she conceived and bore a son, whom she named "Samuel," which means, "asked of the Lord." When the child was weaned, his mother fulfilled her vow and brought him to the temple. She gave Samuel to Eli and told the priest to raise the child in the temple as a man of God. We can only begin to conceive the anguish Hannah must have felt as she offered back to Yahweh the child whom she had begged from the Lord with such intensity. In time, of course, Samuel grew to be one of the most powerful and important prophets in Israel, the one who anointed both Saul and David and set thereby the history of salvation in a decisively new direction.

With that story in mind, we turn to the well-known passage which is the Gospel reading, in Cycle C, for the feast of the Holy Family. After their visit to Jerusalem, Mary and Joseph, along with a bevy of their family and friends, were heading home to Nazareth. They presumed that the child Jesus was somewhere among his relatives in this caravan. Instead, he was in the temple of the Lord, conversing the elders and masters of the law. Distraught, Mary and Joseph spent three days looking for him. Any parent who has ever searched for a lost child knows the anguish they must have felt. Can you imagine what it was like as they tried to sleep at night, spinning out the worst scenarios in their minds? When they finally find him, they, with understandable exasperation, upbraid him: "Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety." But Jesus responds with a kind of devastating laconicism: "Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?"

The paradox is this: precisely in the measure that everyone in the family focuses on God's call for one another the family becomes more loving and peaceful.

Both stories convey a truth that runs sharply counter to our sensibilities, namely, that even the most powerful familial emotions and sentiments must, in the end, give way to mission. Though they felt an enormous pull in the opposite direction, both Hannah and Mary let their sons go, allowing them to find their vocation in the temple, which is to say, in the space of God. Legitimate sentiment devolves into sentimentality precisely when it comes to supersede the call of God. Both narratives disclose that, on a Biblical reading, the family is, above all, the forum in which both parents and children are able to discern their missions. It is perfectly good, of course, if deep bonds and rich emotions are cultivated within the family, but those relationships and passions must cede to something that is more fundamental, more enduring, more spiritually focused.

This Biblical prioritization of values helps us to see, in fact, what typically goes wrong with families. When something other than mission is dominant – a son's athletic achievement, a daughter's success at university, a child's emotional reliance on her parents, etc. – family relationships actually become strained. The paradox is this: precisely in the measure that everyone in the family focuses on God's call for one another the family becomes more loving and peaceful. John Paul II admirably summed up what I've been driving at when he spoke of the family as an ecclesiola (a little church). At its best, he implies, the family is a place where God is worshipped and where the discernment of God's mission is of paramount importance.

I know it seems strange to say, but the most loving thing that family members can do is to let each other go – for God's service.

The Crescat has a great view on this as well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Father Robert Barron, "The Family is a 'Little Church'." Our Sunday Visitor (December 19, 2010).
Reprinted with permission of Father Robert Barron.

HT - Above and Catholic Parents Online

Fr. Rocky presents 5 Virtues.............

..................................................Parents, Grandparents and all! You won't want to miss this great event! Please pass it on!
God bless you & yours,
Colleen

Catholic Parents Online (H/T)

Five Virtues All Catholic Parents Should Pass on to Their Children

Join Relevant Radio Executive Director and Co-Host of "Go Ask Your Father TM" Rev. Francis J. Hoffman (Fr. Rocky) for an engaging program for parents and grandparents at the Church of the Maternity of Mary, 1414 N. Dale Street in St. Paul, MN on Wednesday, November 3rd at 7:00 pm. Father will present "The 5 Virtues All Catholic Parents Should Pass on to Their Children". There is no cost.

http://www.relevantradio.com/Document.Doc?id=473
 
 
........I didn't realize Fr. Rocky was Opus Dei..............I knew I liked him for a reason.

New play with a different view on abortion

Info on the Play

Want to go?

» What: “Jenny,” a pro-life musical.

» When: 7 p.m. Oct. 14 at the University of St. Thomas [yeah, I know - but its worth a shot] , O’Shaugh­nessy Education Center; 7 p.m. Oct. 15 and 16, and 3 p.m. Oct. 17 at St. Andrew in St. Paul; and 8 p.m. Oct. 28 at the University of Minnesota’s Coffman Memorial Union.

» Cost: Free; a free-will offering will be taken. Suggested donation is $10 per person, $20 per family.

» More info: Contact Bob Hindel at (651) 271-6405 or rehindel@isd.net.

HT Catholic Parents Online

Mother Saves Baby that Doctors Left for Dead

Full Story with Video

HT Catholic Parents Online

Project Truth : A Youth Defence Project

Props to the Irish for stickin' it to the Man.  AAAHHHHHHHHHRRRRRGGGGG
Catholic Parents OnLine

The culture tells us it's ok......what about facts?

NEW OXFORD REVIEW
September 2007

Cohabitation: Ten Facts

By A. Patrick Schneider II
Patrick Schneider II, M.D., M.P.H., who holds boards in family and geriatric medicine and who received a Masters in Public Health from Harvard University, is in private practice in Lexington, Kentucky.

"Cohabitation -- it's training for divorce." -- Chuck Colson (1995)

1. Cohabitation is growing: 35 to 40 years ago cohabitation was rare; it was socially taboo. Growth by decade was: 1960s (up 19 percent), 1970s (up 204 percent), 1980s (up 80 percent), 1990s (up 66 percent), but up only 7.7 percent between 2000 and 2004. All told, cohabitation is up eleven-fold (U.S. Census Bureau, "Unmarried-Couple Households, by Presence of Children: 1960 to Present," Table UC-1, June 12, 2003).

2. Relationships are unstable: One-sixth of cohabiting couples stay together for only three years; one in ten survives five or more years (Bennett, W.J., The Broken Hearth: Reversing the Moral Collapse of the American Family, 2001).

3. Greater risk of divorce: The rate of divorce among those who cohabit prior to marriage is nearly double (39 percent vs. 21 percent) that of couples who marry without prior cohabitation (ibid.).

4. Women suffer disproportionately: Cohabiting women often end up with the responsibilities of marriage -- particularly when it comes to caring for children -- without the legal protection (ibid.), while contributing more than 70 percent of the relationship's income (Crouse, J.C., "Cohabitation: Consequences for Mothers and Children," presentation at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Oct. 11-14, 2004, U.N. Tenth Anniversary of the International Year of the Family).

5. Greater risk of STD: Men in cohabiting relationships are four times more likely to be unfaithful than husbands (ibid.). In 1960 there were only three STDs; now there are two dozen that are incurable. Cases of STD have tripled in the past six years. The rate of STD among cohabiting couples is six times higher than among married women (Crouse, J.C., Gaining Ground: A Profile of American Women in the Twentieth Century, 2000).

6. Greater risk of substance abuse and psychiatric problems: A UCLA survey of 130 published studies found that marriages preceded by cohabitation were more prone to drug and alcohol problems (Coombs, R.H., "Marital Status and Personal Well-Being: A Literature Review," Family Relations, Jan. 1991). Depression is three times more likely in cohabiting couples than among married couples (Robbins, L., Rieger, D., Psychiatric Disorders in America, 1990).

7. Higher poverty rates: Cohabitors who never marry have 78 percent less wealth than the continuously married; cohabitors who have been divorced or widowed once have 68 percent less wealth (Cohabitation Facts website).

8. Children suffer: The poverty rate among children of cohabiting couples is five fold greater than the rate among children in married-couple households (Bennett, op. cit.). Compared to children of married biological parents, children age 12-17 with cohabiting parents are six times more likely to exhibit emotional and behavioral problems (Booth, A., Crouter, A.C., eds., Just Living Together: Implications of Cohabitation on Families, Children and Social Policy, 2002). Likewise, adolescents from cohabiting households are 122 percent more likely to be expelled from school and 90 percent more likely to have a low GPA (Manning, W.D., Lamb, K.A., "Adolescent Well-Being in Cohabiting, Married and Single-Parent Families," Journal of Marriage and Family, Nov. 2003). Children find themselves without grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins; the family tree is pruned (Bennett, op. cit.).

9. Society pays: The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate in the world, with two million souls in federal and state prisons and local jails. In 1980 the figure was just over 500,000 (Bennett, op. cit.). Seventy percent of juveniles in state-operated institutions are from fatherless homes (Drake, T., "The Father Factor: Crime on Increase in ‘Dad Free' Zones," National Catholic Register, Jan. 2007). Three-fourths of children involved in criminal activity were from cohabiting households (Crouse, op. cit.).

10. Cohabitation breeds abuse, violence, and murder: Abuse of children: Rates of serious abuse are lowest in intact families; six times higher in step­families; 14 times higher in always-single-mother families; 20 times higher in cohabiting biological-parent families; and 33 times higher when the mother is cohabiting with a boyfriend who is not the biological father (Crouse, op. cit.). Abuse of women: Compared to a married woman, a cohabiting woman is three times more likely to experience physical aggression (Salari, S.M., Baldwin, B.M., "Verbal, Physical, and Injurious Aggression Among Intimate Couples Over Time," Journal of Family Issues, May 2002), and nine times more likely to be murdered (Shackelford, T.K., "Cohabitation, Marriage, and Murder: Woman-Killing by Male Romantic Partners," Aggressive Behavior, vol. 27, 2001). This data is consistent with similar data on children.

Cohabitation is bad for men, worse for women, and horrible for children. It is a deadly toxin to marriage, family, and culture. With great insight and wisdom Pope Benedict XVI has recently written in Sacramentum Caritatis (March 13, 2007) that among the four "fundamental values" that are "not negotiable," second only to respect for human life is "the family built upon marriage between a man and a woman."

© 2007 New Oxford Review. All Rights Reserved. September 2007, Volume LXXIV, Number 8.

H/T Catholic Parents Online

Home Depot bows to the culture

The Home Depot fires patriotic Christian, approves homosexuals
Employee wearing patriotic button is fired. Employees wearing pro-homosexual buttons praised.

August 9, 2010

The Home Depot fired an employee for refusing to remove a "One nation under God" patriotic button from his work apron. Trevor Keezor, a Christian, said he wore the button to support his country and his 27-year-old brother, who serves in the military in Iraq (story and video here).

Dozens of homosexual employees participated in Home Depot-sponsored gay pride parades and festivals. Many employees wore numerous buttons on their aprons promoting homosexuality.

The Home Depot defended them by saying homosexual employees will not be prohibited "in any way" when it comes to what they do and wear. The picture here shows employees who decorated their aprons for a Lesbian and Gay Film Festival in Seattle, Washington.

So...if you wear a "One Nation Under God" button, you will be fired. If you wear a "gay" button, you get company praise.


Well, here we go again.  There is more and more in the media saying we are headed down the slippery slope.  I can't believe how much I have seen and read in just the last week that promotes the homosexual agenda and completely demonizes traditional Christian values.  Tolerance......were?  I can't seem to see it..from them!  Double tongued.  As much as I don't like Menards, well I may have to start going there exclusively.

TAKE ACTION
1. Sign the Boycott Pledge at BoycottTheHomeDepot.com.

2. Call your local store manager. Let the manager know that you will not be shopping at The Home Depot until the company stops supporting the homosexual agenda. You can find the number here. (click "Store Finder").

3. Print the paper petition and distribute it at Sunday School and church.

HT -  American Family Association & Catholic Parents Online

Warning: Married fathers an endangered species

HT - Catholic Parents Online and The Heritage Foundation

First Things "Students of Faith Survey" of U.S. Catholic Colleges and Universities

In the Fall of 2010, for the first time ever, First Things will release its own college rankings and guide. As many of you will know from experience, picking the right college is a difficult and trying process, especially for parents and students concerned not only with academic quality but with spiritual and religious formation.

Among the many college guides and rankings, none offers students and parents adequate insight into how schools stack up in relation to matters of faith, religious practice, religious and political bias in the classroom, support for religious groups, and the relations of faith to the actual currents in contemporary student life. Most of them touch on religion, but not at the depth religiously committed parents and students need.

In preparing this issue, First Things has been conducting ground-breaking research, and now we’re asking our readers for your insights. The Students of Faith Survey, for current students and recent graduates, will help us polish our research on the religious currents in academia today.

If you’re a member of the classes of 2010 to 2013, please fill out the form. If not, please send the link to to your college age children, acquaintances, recent grads, and children of your friends. If you are a college minister, chaplain, or have any organizational relation to college students and recent graduates, we’d be grateful if you would pass this message on to them and encourage them to participate. If you have a website, we’d be grateful if you’d post the link and encourage your readers to fill out the survey.

The more responses we get, and the wider the diversity of students and schools represented, the more helpful will be the information we can provide. Help us learn about what it is really like in academia for students of faith, so that we can help future classes of college students work through one of the most important decisions in their lives.

At the risk of sounding like one of those annoying radio ads, please fill out the Students of Faith Survey. First Things

HT Catholic Parents Online

Parents Outraged at Planned Parenthood Class Teaching Sexual Positions‏

Dear Friends,
I only send this shameful and disturbing information so that parents and grandparents can be informed of the evils of Planned Parenthood and how schools are forcing this on our children. We all need to be vigilant! Please pass this to others.
Thank you and please continue to pray for strong families!
Colleen
Catholic Parents OnLine
http://www.catholicparents.org/
___________________________________________________________________________
Parents Outraged at Planned Parenthood Class Teaching Sexual Positions

The group's teen page, meanwhile, teaches visitors "all about the anus" and lauds the health benefits of masturbation.
By Kathleen Gilbert
SHENANDOAH, Iowa, June 24, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Parents in Southwest Iowa have reacted in horror after learning that Planned Parenthood's co-ed sex education course not only used pornographic teaching materials but also taught children sexual positions.
Colleen Dostal told Fox News Radio, after discovering that her 14-year-old son had been taught sexual positions using stuffed animals meant to represent STDs, that the class was "horribly inappropriate."

“I do not understand why any adult with a classroom of children would show them sexual positions,” she told Fox.  (She forgets these are not adults, human yes, but not adults - they have not attained the maturity level to be considered adults.)

Dostal said the class also included directions on performing female exams and used an anatomically correct model of a male sex organ to explain how to use a condom.
The parents said the school's principal was "mortified" when told the content of the class and apologized.  (It is nice to see that the Principal stepped up to his position.)  Several other parents complained to school superintendent Dick Profit. Profit, however, claimed he had received equal numbers of calls supporting and opposing the explicit sex-ed, according to the World Herald.

Speaking for Planned Parenthood, Jennifer Horner defended the curriculum as giving children "accurate" information.

"We are not trying to keep any of this a secret. All information we use is medically accurate and science based," she said.  (Because as we know our current slant of "science" always has the best interest of the culture and family in mind.)

Planned Parenthood's extremely explicit take on teen sex-ed is evident from the "Teen Talk" section of their website, a series of pages decorated with images of heterosexual and homosexual intimacy, which leads youngsters to a wealth of information on deviant sexual practices.

One page entitled "All about the anus: how much do you really know about your anus?" gives explicit details on anal penetration as a source of sexual pleasure and "as a way to preserve the woman's virginity." (And a way to preserve her dignity, I'm sure.)  While noting that anal penetration "is, of course, high risk for HIV," PP advocates using condoms or "Sheer Glyde dams" to protect against the fatal virus.  (Oh, well its still OK then.)

Elsewhere, Planned Parenthood dedicates a web page to advocating masturbation as "safe and healthy, and it's here to stay." The article hails the painkilling and stress-relieving qualities of masturbation, and assures that it's "fine" to do so several times a day.

Here we go again Planned Parenthood stuffing their views on the culture and families, thank goodness parents had the guts to call the school over this. 

H/T Catholic Parents Online

Litany of Humility

Rafael Cardinal Merry del Val (1865-1930),
Secretary of State for Pope Saint Pius X

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.
From the desire of being loved...
From the desire of being extolled ...
From the desire of being honored ...
From the desire of being praised ...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted ...
From the desire of being approved ...
From the fear of being humiliated ...
From the fear of being despised...
From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
From the fear of being calumniated ...
From the fear of being forgotten ...
From the fear of being ridiculed ...
From the fear of being wronged ...
From the fear of being suspected ...


That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.
That others may be esteemed more than I ...
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease ...
That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
That others may be preferred to me in everything...
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…

Catholic Parents Online