VIRTUS/TAT, too explicit?

[Paladin D]

I was reading the article in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52398"]this thread[/url], and was wondering what people's thoughts are on the VIRTUS/TAT programs. From the example I read, it seems too sexually explicit, and even Planned Parenthood (and some homosexual activist groups) support it.

Why would the USCCB commission such programs? Do you agree with them?

[homeschoolmom]

I live in that archdiocese and our parish is not using it.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Paladin D' post='979623' date='May 12 2006, 08:56 PM']
I was reading the article in [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=52398"]this thread[/url], and was wondering what people's thoughts are on the VIRTUS/TAT programs. From the example I read, it seems too sexually explicit, and even Planned Parenthood (and some homosexual activist groups) support it.

Why would the USCCB commission such programs? Do you agree with them?
[/quote]

It is way too explicit. It is wholly inappropriate for children of any age.

[url="http://www.catholicparents.org/"]Catholic Parents Online[/url] is the best source for what is going on.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Inappropriate for children, Cam? VIRTUS (I'm not sure about TAT) is not a program from children, but for adults working with children in the diocese.

I do, however, think VIRTUS is even inappropriate for adults. It's pointless. It was 4 hours of watching a video of child molestors explaining how they got away with it. It's sickening and disgusting and not helpful in explaining what we, as adults working with children in parishes need to be careful of and responsive too in certain situations.

[PadreSantiago]

how about we teach our kids how to be safe instead of teaching them sex is evil and they have to be abstient

[Cam42]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='979637' date='May 12 2006, 09:22 PM']
Inappropriate for children, Cam? VIRTUS (I'm not sure about TAT) is not a program from children, but for adults working with children in the diocese.

I do, however, think VIRTUS is even inappropriate for adults. It's pointless. It was 4 hours of watching a video of child molestors explaining how they got away with it. It's sickening and disgusting and not helpful in explaining what we, as adults working with children in parishes need to be careful of and responsive too in certain situations.
[/quote]

Yes, it is inappropriate for children....

[size=7]This is VERY explicit.....so if children are reading stop!!!!!![/size]








































Example Lessons:

In a 3rd grade class, the students would be given the following story:

[quote]This is Kerry. She is worried about something that happened to her last week when she spent the night with one of her friends. Her friend's older brother came into the bedroom, put his hand under the covers of the bed Kerry was sleeping in, and touched her vagina (private parts). She said, "Stop that!" in an assertive voice. He stopped, but then he told her to keep it a secret. Kerry is wondering what she should do. Question: How do you think Kerry felt when her friend's brother touched her vagina . . .[/quote]

In the 1st grade, children would receive this instruction:

[quote]Cole and Mai are playing at the beach. When they go to the beach, they wear bathing suits. Their bathing suits cover up the private parts of their bodies. On boys, the bathing suit covers his penis in front and buttocks or bottom in the back. Those are his private parts. The girl's bathing suit covers her vulva, vagina, and breasts in front, and buttocks or bottom in the back. These are her private body parts.[/quote]

A 2nd grade class would be presented with this example:

[quote]This is Alex. He was visiting his aunt and uncle. Alex and his uncle were watching television and eating popcorn. His uncle told Alex that he had a special game he could play. He called it the "touching game." He said, "Let's take off our clothes and touch each other's private body parts." Alex knew this game wasn't safe, so in a strong voice he said, "No, I don't want to do that." Then he got off the couch and left the room. When he got home he told his mom and dad what had happened. Alex's parents were glad that he said "No" to his uncle. They were also glad that Alex told them what his uncle said to him.[/quote]

If this is what is being taught, then it is going against Familiaris Consortio which says:
[quote]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.[/quote]

It is the right of the parents, NOT the teachers at school. Teachers have no business teaching what should be taught by parents. Bishop Vasa of Bend, Oregon has asked:
[quote]A few such questions follow: Are such programs effective? Do such programs impose an unduly burdensome responsibility on very young children to protect themselves rather than insisting that parents take such training and take on the primary responsibility for protecting their children? Where do these programs come from? Is it true that Planned Parenthood has a hand or at least huge influence on many of them? Is it true that other groups, actively promoting early sexual activity for children, promote these programs in association with their own perverse agendas? Do such programs involve, even tangentially, the sexualization of children, which is precisely a part of the societal evil we are striving to combat? Does such a program invade the Church-guaranteed-right of parents over the education of their children in sexual matters? Do I have the right to mandate such programs and demand that parents sign a document proving that they choose to exercise their right not to have their child involved? Do such programs introduce children to sex-related issues at age-inappropriate times? Would such programs generate a fruitful spiritual harvest? Would unsatisfactory answers to any of the questions above give sufficient reason to resist such programs?[/quote]

I think that when looking at VIRTUS/Truth about Touching, these issues must be addressed. There can be nothing wrong with parents teaching human sexuality, however there can and there is EVERYTHING WRONG with teachers doing what parents ought to be doing.

Sex Education is a parental responsibility, NOT the responsibility of the schools.

Speaking about VIRTUS, from [url="http://www.lifesite.net/"]LifeSiteNews.com[/url]:

[quote name='Hilary White']The US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) enjoys the support of homosexual activist groups for its "Virtus" program intended to protect children from sexual predators. Virtus, the Latin word for virtue, is a set of programs developed by the National Catholic Risk Retention Group, called "Protecting God's Children™" for the USCCB.

The program, used in dioceses throughout the US, proposes "training" for children, parents, clergy, teachers and church staff and volunteers and focuses part of its effort in a sex-education program for children as young as six in Catholic schools. The child sex-ed component, called "Teaching Touching Safety," has been denounced by faithful Catholic parents' groups and priests as an attack on children's innocence and a device for dodging responsibility by bishops.

The weblog of a group of parents and teachers, called the Primary Educators' League, says that among the first organizations to endorse the Virtus program was the Catholic Rainbow Parents, an activist organization of parents of homosexuals that formally rejects Catholic teaching on sexuality. In July 2005, in their inaugural public statement, the Catholic Rainbow Parents proclaimed their support of Virtus.

The Rainbow Parents enjoys a high level of support within the Catholic institution in the archdiocese of St. Paul Minneapolis. A declaration sponsored by the group formally declaring their opposition to Catholic teaching on sexuality was signed by Sisters and Consociates (sic) and the Justice Commission of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet of St. Paul. The declaration denounces the Catholic Church and supports homosexual sex, same-sex "marriage," and declares that it is a "myth" that most clerical abusers of children are homosexuals.

The declaration reads: "We share the perspective of the National Catholic Risk Retention Group's Virtus programs, with which the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis collaborates in response to the mandate of the 'Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People' adopted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in June 2002."

The declaration quotes the Virtus program's report: "It is a myth that most sex abusers are homosexuals. Most sex offenders are not homosexual; they are heterosexual . . . Studies repeatedly show that most male molesters of boys are not homosexual with adults. It is a faulty assumption that an adult male who selects a young boy as a victim is gay."

The Rainbow Parents is part of a larger network that includes the Catholic Pastoral Committee on Sexual Minorities (CPCSM), a lay group that lobbies and agitates for the Catholic Church to abandon its teaching on the sacredness of human sexuality and adopt modern sexual mores.

The CPCSM has remained unchecked by the Archdiocese of St. Paul Minneapolis where it is based, since its inception and acts as the quasi-official advocates of homosexuality in the archdiocese.

On the board of CPCSM until recently was former Benedictine monk, Bill Kummer, who taught in elementary and high schools and was the force behind a Minnesota law including homosexuals in the hate crimes legislation.

Far from being censured for his support for homosexual activity, Kummer was granted an award by the archdiocese for setting up a "safe schools" program in the Catholic high schools. Prior to his passing in January he was a long time campaigner for the standard roster of leftist causes including animal rights, homosexuality, environmentalism and 'childhood sexual abuse, safer schools.'

In 1989, Kummer was also awarded the 21st Annual Archbishop Ireland Award by the archdiocese Catholic Commission on Social Justice for his homosexual activism.

Other CPCSM board members include two religious sisters and the widow of a deacon of the Archdiocese who is a member of the Deacons' Council.

Read the websites of:
The Primary Educators League
[url="http://www.primaryeducators.org/who.php"]http://www.primaryeducators.org/who.php[/url]

The Rainbow Catholic Parents
[url="http://www.mtn.org/cpcsm/catholicrainbowparents.htm"]http://www.mtn.org/cpcsm/catholicrainbowparents.htm[/url]

Contact the USCCB Office of Child & Youth Protection
3211 4th Street, N.E.,
Washington DC
20017-1194
(202) 541-3000
ocyp@usccb.org[/quote]

[avemaria40]

[quote name='PadreSantiago' post='979759' date='May 13 2006, 02:16 AM']
how about we teach our kids how to be safe instead of teaching them sex is evil and they have to be abstient
[/quote]

It's not that sex is evil that we have to remain abstinent, it is that it is so good and sacred that the only way to use it responsibly is through the bonds of marriage

[Cam42]

[quote name='avemaria40' post='979809' date='May 13 2006, 08:12 AM']
It's not that sex is evil that we have to remain abstinent, it is that it is so good and sacred that the only way to use it responsibly is through the bonds of marriage
[/quote]

I would probably word that differently.

We do have to remain absitnent, until that time in which we marry (if that is the way that we are called).

And while sex, in itself, is not evil, the application of sex can most certainly be sinful, both inside and outside of matrimony.

I do agree that it must be used responsibly in marriage, but even then, sex is only part of the Sacrament of Matrimony. When we forget or ignore the purpose of sexual intimacy, then we fall into the traps that we see. Too often today society sees sex as a right and not a privilege. It is not the case.

Look to Catechism.....it is the most authoritative and consistent statement on sex, as an expectation, for Catholics.

[desertwoman]

What should we do if the parents don't even mention or talk about sex with their children? I know for starters, I for one was never taught about sex by my parents. I even asked them if they wanted to and they said no.

I learned about my body and everything else that was going on with me through school and books.

The sad thing is, especially in my community here in Charleston, no parent talks to their child about sexuall education. Even my mom didn't know anything about herself until it happened. What are we to do with children who don't learn anything at home, but are faced to learn from the streets or from their teachers?

[Cam42]

[quote name='desertwoman' post='979992' date='May 13 2006, 10:19 AM']
What should we do if the parents don't even mention or talk about sex with their children? I know for starters, I for one was never taught about sex by my parents. I even asked them if they wanted to and they said no.

I learned about my body and everything else that was going on with me through school and books.

The sad thing is, especially in my community here in Charleston, no parent talks to their child about sexuall education. Even my mom didn't know anything about herself until it happened. What are we to do with children who don't learn anything at home, but are faced to learn from the streets or from their teachers?
[/quote]

There are programs, faithful programs which do teach about how to handle sex and children. I am not opposed to programs which teach parents how to deal with this very important issue, but I am opposed to VIRTUS/TAT. The program should be faithful to the immemorial teachings of the Church and to the truth of natural law.

I think that we should start with the document entitled [b][url="http://www.cin.org/vatcong/sexed.html"]THE TRUTH AND MEANING OF HUMAN SEXUALITY [/url][/b]

The Bible and The Catechism of the Catholic Church provide all the information that children need to know about being a member of God’s family. No other curriculum is needed to “define” a family or teach about family life.

[desertwoman]

Thank you!

[curtins]

last year in 8th grade we had something about this sorta thing from a diocecan lady. I dont think it was too explicit but I dont remember exactly.
I do know that we had to get permission slips signed to particiapate in it. We also had something this year along the same lines

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' post='979637' date='May 12 2006, 08:22 PM']
Inappropriate for children, Cam? VIRTUS (I'm not sure about TAT) is not a program from children, but for adults working with children in the diocese.

I do, however, think VIRTUS is even inappropriate for adults. It's pointless. It was 4 hours of watching a video of child molestors explaining how they got away with it. It's sickening and disgusting and not helpful in explaining what we, as adults working with children in parishes need to be careful of and responsive too in certain situations.
[/quote]
agreed

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Is TAT like VIRTUS for children?

I am familiar with VIRTUS (as explained above)... but what is TAT?

[Lil Red]

Teaching About Touching

[jasJis]

Yeah, it's too explicit. Yeah these programs that are offensive have been around for years. I ran across it about 8 years ago with my kids in 'catholic' schools. I'm one of those weird parents who talk to their kids about sex. It was brought to my attention when my kid was creeped out during the first week. The school just brought it in with no notice. We would think the catholic shool would have some sort of standards. Finally, faced with a mutiny, the nun prinicpal and a priest (not the pastor or asst. pastor) met with parents after the 2nd or 3rd week. We were told it was approved by the USCCB and the local Bishop. Tough. We could pull our kids out of the sex ed class or the school.

If you think the all or the vast majority of bishops, priests, and nuns are really doing what they are supposed to be doing, you haven't been reading the news, reading catholic media, or reading posts here at phatmass. A lot of bishops, priests, and nuns are good, holy, christian, people, but many, many, many are not. How did something like this get USCCB approval? How do entire Dioceses adopt this? How does this get implemented in parish after parish? How can a program that is disturbingly WRONG at many levels, goes against common sense and 'official' catholic teaching become a program of the catholic church? How do entire seminarian programs become gay oriented? How do bishops get away with excacerbating the problem of sexually abusive priests without the 'upper management' doing something?

Open you eyes and mind and admit the truth. Divine guidance and holiness is not as overwhelming in the catholic church as the catholic church would have you believe. Be a Christian first, a catholic if it falls in line with being a Christian.

Edited May 14, 2006 by jasJis

[Era Might]

[quote name='jasJis' post='980858' date='May 14 2006, 09:32 AM']
How do entire seminarian programs become gay oriented? How do bishops get away with excacerbating the problem of sexually abusive priests without the 'upper management' doing something? Open you eyes and mind and admit the truth. Divine guidance and holiness is not as overwhelming in the catholic church as the catholic church would have you believe. Be a Christian first, a catholic if it falls in line with being a Christian.
[/quote]

Catholicism is Christianity. There is no distinction. It's either Catholicism or nothing. I would sooner become a pagan than a Protestant. And that's no slight on Protestants. It's just the only logical step if Catholicism is not true.

How do those things happen? Sin. Scandal. Blindness. Tepidity. Misguided compassion.

If the Arian crisis doesn't shake my faith, Priests talking about touching isn't going to. This is the reality of sin. It tears its way through the Church in every age, some more than others. If we can't handle that, it is what it is. But the Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent bear it away (Matthew 11:12).

[quote]The whole world awoke with groan to find itself Arian.

--St. Jerome[/quote]

You look at sin and see a lack of Divine guidance. I look at sin and see Divine guidance in all its glory. The Faith and the Church remain intact, whether it's in Avignon or Rome. Every generation dies off, and God continues His plan of redemption. This, too, shall pass.

The real question is, what will we do in response? As I told Rod Dreher recently, we can leave the Church. God will, of course, get someone else to do his work. But that person will get the crown of glory, and we will not. Every problem in the Church is another opportunity for YOU to step up to the plate and be the Saint that God has called you to be. Or you can run and hide. The choice is always ours.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Era Might

[jasJis]

[quote name='Era Might' post='980862' date='May 14 2006, 07:41 AM']
Catholicism is Christianity. There is no distinction. It's either Catholicism or nothing. I would sooner become a pagan than a Protestant. And that's no slight on Protestants. It's just the only logical step if Catholicism is not true.

How do those things happen? Sin. Scandal. Blindness. Tepidity. Misguided compassion.

If the Arian crisis doesn't shake my faith, Priests talking about touching isn't going to. This is the reality of sin. It tears its way through the Church in every age, some more than others. If we can't handle that, it is what it is. But the Kingdom of God suffers violence, and the violent bear it away (Matthew 11:12).
You look at sin and see a lack of Divine guidance. I look at sin and see Divine guidance in all its glory. The Faith and the Church remain intact, whether it's in Avignon or Rome. Every generation dies off, and God continues His plan of redemption. This, too, shall pass.[/quote]You haven't been a parent for a few decades, have you?

It's telling that you'd rather be a Pagan than a Protestant. That is the logical step for you when you find out you're fantasy of what 'catholicism' is, is really a fantasy. If you realize that Christianity is about fullfillment of Godliness, and being 'catholic' is a human attempt to live that fullfillment, then you'd have no problem rejecting the warts within the Christian 'religions' and choose to be Christian regardless of membership in a human religious/social club.

[Era Might]

There can be no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. If someone chops your son's arm off, and gives it to you, is that your son? Will you be content to take the arm to baseball games and tuck in it at night? No, it's not your son. Your son is either there or he isn't. You can't chop him up and distribute him. He is not a collection of parts, he is a PERSON. And so is the Church.

This is not about "being a parent". Your children will not answer for you when you die. They won't be responsible for your decision to leave the Church. And they won't be your excuse. You make your decisions, and you alone.

When someone gets married, they accept a person as they are. You may find out your wife has a drinking problem, and she's not that nice when she wakes up in the morning, and she suffers from the disease of kleptomania. But her problems do not discredit the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, because the Sacrament is over and above the sinful people who enter into it. And it would be a cowardly thing to toss your wife to the side because she's not perfect like you thought she was. Her problems are what? They're an opportunity for you to love her all the more, and to hold firmly to the covenant you made with her, and to give your own flesh for her betterment. Or you could go marry someone else. But you will have betrayed what is true, your marriage.

Edited May 14, 2006 by Era Might

[Cam42]

[quote name='Era Might' post='980869' date='May 14 2006, 10:03 AM']
There can be no distinction between Catholicism and Christianity. If someone chops your son's arm off, and gives it to you, is that your son? Will you be content to take the arm to baseball games and tuck in it at night? No, it's not your son. Your son is either there or he isn't. You can't chop him up and distribute him. He is not a collection of parts, he is a PERSON. And so is the Church.

This is not about "being a parent". Your children will not answer for you when you die. They won't be responsible for your decision to leave the Church. And they won't be your excuse. You make your decisions, and you alone.

When someone gets married, they accept a person as they are. You may find out your wife has a drinking problem, and she's not that nice when she wakes up in the morning, and she suffers from the disease of kleptomania. But her problems do not discredit the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony, because the Sacrament is over and above the sinful people who enter into it. And it would be a cowardly thing to toss your wife to the side because she's not perfect like you thought she was. Her problems are what? They're an opportunity for you to love her all the more, and to hold firmly to the covenant you made with her, and to give your own flesh for her betterment. Or you could go marry someone else. But you will have betrayed what is true, your marriage.
[/quote]

I couldn't agree more.

[quote name='jasJis' post='980864' date='May 14 2006, 09:54 AM']
You haven't been a parent for a few decades, have you?

It's telling that you'd rather be a Pagan than a Protestant. That is the logical step for you when you find out you're fantasy of what 'catholicism' is, is really a fantasy. If you realize that Christianity is about fullfillment of Godliness, and being 'catholic' is a human attempt to live that fullfillment, then you'd have no problem rejecting the warts within the Christian 'religions' and choose to be Christian regardless of membership in a human religious/social club.
[/quote]

Ja know Jas,

This schtick is getting kinda old.....railing on the Church for no apparent reason other than to rail on the Church. You have given no, and I mean no sustainable proof. Just because you are disillusioned for some God-forsaken reason is no excuse to dismiss being Catholic as a fantasy. Please stop with the outrageous statements, unless you plan on backing them up, Jas.....you are looking silly with those statements.

Also, one doesn't need to be a parent to be able to speak to parenting. That is the classic fallacy which states that only one who has been crazy can only help a crazy person. NO WAY, NO HOW....

What I can tell you is this....I think that sex ed should be left to the parents. However, some parents need to be educated and that I do support. Those persons though should be taught in accord with current Catholic teaching and catechetical support. As I have said before, the basis for this needs to be nothing more than the Catechism and the Bible.

If you don't like that answer, fine, however, the Church is very clear on this. If you choose not to accept that, it is on you. I will continue to defend the 2000 year consistent view, as opposed to your >70 year view. I think that the Church knows a bit more than you.