Feminism
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The Sex-Education Nightmare
The laser beam can help us understand how sex-education entered North American Catholic schools. A laser emits a narrow, very intense beam that can destroy everything. Diabolically conceived, the sex-ed program operates a laser-beam utilizing words, which can cause the most damaging consequence. The entire sex-ed program relies on a beam of words, fired by teachers into the souls of children, destroying their innocence and exposing them to the greatest danger.
In fact, the sex-education classes in Catholic (sic) grammar schools in North America have engendered a curriculum for children that would embarrass Giacomo Casanova, that 18th century romancer known for his many infamous sexual escapades.
My comment that the Catholic grammar-school curriculum on sex would make Casanova blush is not intended as wit or sarcasm. It is a cruel fact, because for young children in the classroom, its content is essentially pornographic, firing out facts of life these young souls are not ready for.
It begins in the first grade, with physical descriptions of why boys are different from girls. Explicit definitions focus on terminology that one would find in a pre-med course at a university. When Mrs. Marilyn Angle, a registered nurse, was asked to view some of the sex education films, she found that the exposure to every detail was so stark and so crude that she exclaimed, �We were not even exposed to this kind of thing in nurses' training.� (1) A psychiatrist, Rhoda Lorand, made this statement, "I think sex education is creating more perverts than were ever created before."(2) These comments, let the reader note, were made in 1969, when the sex-ed curriculum was more �timid.�
Now, we fast forward to our time. In his classic work criticizing the sex-ed curriculum James Demers tells us the physical descriptions of why boys are different from girls still starts in grade one. By grade four, in the classroom �discussions� with students, the teacher describes, �in the most minuscular, biological detail, exactly what happens during the conjugal act. There are no generalities, only microscopic graphics of the whole constellation of phallus." (3)
In grade five, the teaching extends to the most precise descriptions possible of the forces of reproduction, leaving nothing to the imagination with regard to the primal-organic bodily movements that causes sexual intimacies in marriage. By grade six, the teacher elaborately depicts the graphic process of birth. One can only agree with one writer who said this about such a criminal assault on the innocence of children, �When sex is discussed in the classroom, no child can escape." (4)
Bishops, the pioneers of sex-ed
In Children in Winter, Demers points his finger at the Bishops for shirking their responsibility to protect the young: �How then, Lord, to dredge up even an iota of respect for bishops who turn over to degenerate sexologists those innocents whose very souls Thou has placed in their trust? How then, Lord, do we comprehend right action when schismatic bishops throw the dice that will rend asunder Thy seamless garment? Where, Lord, do we go for a shepherd when those Thou hast appointed fence us out of Thy fields by an inversion of the meaning of collegiality? Thy glens and glades have been turned into pictures of Asmodeus (demon of lust). Where do we look, Lord?" (5)
No wonder that from 2004 to 2012, pedophile sex-abuse by priests in the U.S. ran up a bill of $3 billion, with eight Catholic Dioceses declaring bankruptcy due to these sex-abuse cases. (6) How could the teaching of sex-ed, which crammed into the innocent souls of children concepts they were not ready for, also not defile the souls of the priests, religious and Hierarchy who presented these graphic demonstrations? No wonder that Our Lady weeps.
How did it all start, this diabolical war against the souls of children, their teachers, and pari passu, the spiritual and psychological health of the family?
It took the Second Vatican Council to waive the Catholic morality of centuries. But it took the Bishops of North America to fashion a focus on sex that implicitly drilled into children that �outside of sex there is no fulfillment." (7) There are two evil entities that created and nurtured the war against the innocents in North America: The American Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops.
As Randy Engels outlines in her well-documented work on the origins of sex education in Catholic Schools, in the U.S. it was Bishop James T. McHugh of New Jersey who drafted the first sex education program with explicit sexual descriptions and terminology for Catholic grammar schools. In 1968 the U.S. Catholic Bishops reversed their traditional prohibition against sex education in Catholic schools and adopted the McHugh guidelines. Overnight, sexual education became �a grave obligation arising from new circumstances of modern culture and communications.� (8)
A religious named Fr. Leo LaFreniere, O.M.I. (who wore a giant polka-dot bow tie to pose for photographs) took the U.S. version of sex-ed to Canada. The LaFreniere philosophy dominated teacher education for the Catholic school system for decades. Fundamental to that philosophy was separating sex instruction from Catholics' morals and denying the reality of the latency period, a time of innocence when the child�s interest in sex is latent and dormant. In fact, to LaFreniere and his colleagues, the latency period was a red herring, a Freudian notion to be exploded. For the child between the ages of six and twelve, LaFreniere provided full and sexually explicit instructions. (9)
A chastisement from Heaven is indispensable
Meanwhile, in the U.S. things went from bad to worse.
To disseminate immorality in an organized official way Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was formed. Its first national �Sex Is for Fun� campaign was launched in 1964 by Executive Director Dr. Mary Calderone, best remembered for her models of copulating chickens used to instruct kindergarten children on the mechanics of sex and her titillating conversation promoting masturbation and a range of 'outer-course' activities for adolescents.
Calderone received a warm reception for her pioneering sex education efforts in parochial schools across the nation. Bishop McHugh would claim he collaborated with SIECIS in drafting its policy statement and openly boasted of their close collaboration. (10)
The SIECUS curriculum initiates children into the ideas that homosexuality, bisexuality, and trans-sexuality are normal and healthy lifestyles, and that abortion is a convenient and acceptable method of birth control.
Moreover, it is teaching your children that those who disagree with these views � even on religious grounds � are narrow-minded bigots on the fringe of society. It encourages children to shun the values of their parents if those values contradict those held by SIECUS.
Demers tells us: ''This anti-parent, anti-family curriculum (on sex-ed for children), known as BAPP (Becoming a Person Program) was designed by Fr. Walter J. Imbrioski. He held the dubious credentials of serving on the SIECUS Board of Directors 1968-1970. In 1975, after many years of teaching and writing on human sexuality, Fr. Imbrioski decided to forego his vocation and his vow of celibacy to become Mr. Imbrioski; he married his BAPP co-author Frances Imzec." (11)
Eventually the sex-ed nightmare became known in the U.S. as "Growing in Love, Kindergarten through Grade Eight.� This Our Sunday Visitor curriculum was approved by the Bishops' Committee of 2001-2003."(12) When parents inevitably complained, they were told, ''Who are you to tell us what is good for your children?'''
One of the consequences of this degenerate sex-ed history is well known. The Cardinal Law pedophile scandal in 2002 and, in its wake, the exposure of corrupt priests and the Hierarchy who themselves either became pedophiles or executed the cover-ups, fits exactly with what Our Lady said at La Salette: "The priests have become cesspools of impurity.� (13)
May Our Lady of La Salette help us through this period of hegemony of this septic-tank putridity called Progressivism in the Catholic Church until we experience the purgation of a great chastisement from Heaven.
Posted October 8, 2013
text text text
My comment that the Catholic grammar-school curriculum on sex would make Casanova blush is not intended as wit or sarcasm. It is a cruel fact, because for young children in the classroom, its content is essentially pornographic, firing out facts of life these young souls are not ready for.
It begins in the first grade, with physical descriptions of why boys are different from girls. Explicit definitions focus on terminology that one would find in a pre-med course at a university. When Mrs. Marilyn Angle, a registered nurse, was asked to view some of the sex education films, she found that the exposure to every detail was so stark and so crude that she exclaimed, �We were not even exposed to this kind of thing in nurses' training.� (1) A psychiatrist, Rhoda Lorand, made this statement, "I think sex education is creating more perverts than were ever created before."(2) These comments, let the reader note, were made in 1969, when the sex-ed curriculum was more �timid.�
Now, we fast forward to our time. In his classic work criticizing the sex-ed curriculum James Demers tells us the physical descriptions of why boys are different from girls still starts in grade one. By grade four, in the classroom �discussions� with students, the teacher describes, �in the most minuscular, biological detail, exactly what happens during the conjugal act. There are no generalities, only microscopic graphics of the whole constellation of phallus." (3)
In grade five, the teaching extends to the most precise descriptions possible of the forces of reproduction, leaving nothing to the imagination with regard to the primal-organic bodily movements that causes sexual intimacies in marriage. By grade six, the teacher elaborately depicts the graphic process of birth. One can only agree with one writer who said this about such a criminal assault on the innocence of children, �When sex is discussed in the classroom, no child can escape." (4)
Bishops, the pioneers of sex-ed
In Children in Winter, Demers points his finger at the Bishops for shirking their responsibility to protect the young: �How then, Lord, to dredge up even an iota of respect for bishops who turn over to degenerate sexologists those innocents whose very souls Thou has placed in their trust? How then, Lord, do we comprehend right action when schismatic bishops throw the dice that will rend asunder Thy seamless garment? Where, Lord, do we go for a shepherd when those Thou hast appointed fence us out of Thy fields by an inversion of the meaning of collegiality? Thy glens and glades have been turned into pictures of Asmodeus (demon of lust). Where do we look, Lord?" (5)
No wonder that from 2004 to 2012, pedophile sex-abuse by priests in the U.S. ran up a bill of $3 billion, with eight Catholic Dioceses declaring bankruptcy due to these sex-abuse cases. (6) How could the teaching of sex-ed, which crammed into the innocent souls of children concepts they were not ready for, also not defile the souls of the priests, religious and Hierarchy who presented these graphic demonstrations? No wonder that Our Lady weeps.
The end of innocence: Girls giggle at illustrations in the Growing in Love program
It took the Second Vatican Council to waive the Catholic morality of centuries. But it took the Bishops of North America to fashion a focus on sex that implicitly drilled into children that �outside of sex there is no fulfillment." (7) There are two evil entities that created and nurtured the war against the innocents in North America: The American Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops.
As Randy Engels outlines in her well-documented work on the origins of sex education in Catholic Schools, in the U.S. it was Bishop James T. McHugh of New Jersey who drafted the first sex education program with explicit sexual descriptions and terminology for Catholic grammar schools. In 1968 the U.S. Catholic Bishops reversed their traditional prohibition against sex education in Catholic schools and adopted the McHugh guidelines. Overnight, sexual education became �a grave obligation arising from new circumstances of modern culture and communications.� (8)
A religious named Fr. Leo LaFreniere, O.M.I. (who wore a giant polka-dot bow tie to pose for photographs) took the U.S. version of sex-ed to Canada. The LaFreniere philosophy dominated teacher education for the Catholic school system for decades. Fundamental to that philosophy was separating sex instruction from Catholics' morals and denying the reality of the latency period, a time of innocence when the child�s interest in sex is latent and dormant. In fact, to LaFreniere and his colleagues, the latency period was a red herring, a Freudian notion to be exploded. For the child between the ages of six and twelve, LaFreniere provided full and sexually explicit instructions. (9)
A chastisement from Heaven is indispensable
Meanwhile, in the U.S. things went from bad to worse.
To disseminate immorality in an organized official way Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) was formed. Its first national �Sex Is for Fun� campaign was launched in 1964 by Executive Director Dr. Mary Calderone, best remembered for her models of copulating chickens used to instruct kindergarten children on the mechanics of sex and her titillating conversation promoting masturbation and a range of 'outer-course' activities for adolescents.
Dr. Mary Calderone, a pioneer in sex education
The SIECUS curriculum initiates children into the ideas that homosexuality, bisexuality, and trans-sexuality are normal and healthy lifestyles, and that abortion is a convenient and acceptable method of birth control.
Moreover, it is teaching your children that those who disagree with these views � even on religious grounds � are narrow-minded bigots on the fringe of society. It encourages children to shun the values of their parents if those values contradict those held by SIECUS.
Demers tells us: ''This anti-parent, anti-family curriculum (on sex-ed for children), known as BAPP (Becoming a Person Program) was designed by Fr. Walter J. Imbrioski. He held the dubious credentials of serving on the SIECUS Board of Directors 1968-1970. In 1975, after many years of teaching and writing on human sexuality, Fr. Imbrioski decided to forego his vocation and his vow of celibacy to become Mr. Imbrioski; he married his BAPP co-author Frances Imzec." (11)
Eventually the sex-ed nightmare became known in the U.S. as "Growing in Love, Kindergarten through Grade Eight.� This Our Sunday Visitor curriculum was approved by the Bishops' Committee of 2001-2003."(12) When parents inevitably complained, they were told, ''Who are you to tell us what is good for your children?'''
One of the consequences of this degenerate sex-ed history is well known. The Cardinal Law pedophile scandal in 2002 and, in its wake, the exposure of corrupt priests and the Hierarchy who themselves either became pedophiles or executed the cover-ups, fits exactly with what Our Lady said at La Salette: "The priests have become cesspools of impurity.� (13)
May Our Lady of La Salette help us through this period of hegemony of this septic-tank putridity called Progressivism in the Catholic Church until we experience the purgation of a great chastisement from Heaven.
- footnote 1
- footnote 2
- footnote 3
- footnote 4
- footnote 5
Posted October 8, 2013
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |