Abusing God’s Children

by Thomas Augustine
Sep 14, 2005

In this regard, we recall what the Holy Father teaches in Familiaris consortio: "The Church is firmly opposed to an often widespread form of imparting sex information dissociated from moral principles. That would merely be an introduction to the experience of pleasure and a stimulus leading to the loss of serenity — while still in the years of innocence — by opening the way to vice". Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, Pontifical Council for the Family Guidelines for Education Within the Family (November 21, 1995)

Penis. Vagina. Buttocks. Anus.

Coming soon to your parish as part of your children’s religious education.

This is not a joke!

VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children” program insists repeatedly in the K-2 lesson plans for teachers that parents should begin teaching their children these private body part names when their children reach 18 months of age! Can’t wait to have junior’s grandparents over to show off for them the first words of little Johnny! The sexperts and sexologists are so much more progressive than us silly parents. Apparently, so are our bishops.

Shocking to see such words in a Catholic publication? Welcome to dozens of U.S. Bishops’ response to the homosexual clergy abuse crisis in the Church. This “sex abuse prevention program,” “not sex education” as the program itself insists, is one of the most popular religious education and Catholic school curricula chosen by orthodox and modernist bishops alike to help “arm” our children to protect themselves against… whom?

You have to be kidding, you ask me. Well, lesson plan three for the K-2 grade curriculum, which is an “opt-in” session, meaning that unsuspecting parents will need to sign a statement opting their children into this program, has the four “grammar words” shown above, as well as some others just as shocking, to ensure we are protecting our children, from whom again?

The USCCB’s own report from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice study confirmed what many had always suspected. More than 85 percent of all of the sex abuse cases were by priests and bishops with pubescent and post-pubescent boys and young men (ages 11 to 17). www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/ In other words, according to these conclusions, homosexual priests and bishops were responsible for the vast majority of the sex abuse cases documented by the Church for the period of time of the study.

But wait! VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children” introductory video presents us with several “myths,” particularly this evidently very important one. This video can be downloaded at their website at www.virtus.org/virtus/preview_pgc.cfm. One of the “myths” that is quickly presented in this first video, to be shown to thousands of youth teachers, volunteers, religion teachers and even “extraordinary” ministers of Holy Communion, is that “homosexuals are more likely to cause sexual abuse than heterosexuals.” The video goes on to emphasize in the next slide that “heterosexuals cause more abuse” than homosexuals.

Of course, 98 percent of the population is known to be heterosexual, while only 2 percent has homosexual inclinations. So, for the total number of abuse cases based on studies in the U.S., this “myth” by itself may be true. However, the problem with this statistic is that a homosexual male is more than 100 times more likely to abuse a teenage boy than a heterosexual male. I have taken my own informal survey from friends of mine. They have all categorically stated that as heterosexual men, they have no sexual attraction toward teenage boys. And remember, the Bishops’ own report showed 85 percent of pubescent and post-pubescent boys being sexually abused by priests and bishops, which means they had homosexual inclinations. But don’t worry, the Bishops’ “awareness” program will teach these 5 to 8-year-olds to be able to protect themselves.

Well, let’s get back to lesson plan three for the K-2 curriculum, and compare it to authoritative teaching on this subject. What makes this K-12 program particularly insidious is that its developers have lifted carefully selected Scripture passages and Catechism quotes to give it so-called “Catholic” window dressing. However, these proof texts have nothing whatsoever to do with the rest of the lesson plan. In other words, just because Sacred Scripture speaks about Christ’s Body (The Church) and its “members,” it does not follow that He was referring specifically about teaching children their clinical body parts as a “protection” device in religion class or in Catholic grade schools as part of its “sex abuse awareness” curriculum. In fact, in the name of purity and modesty and chastity (words NOT used in ANY of the lesson plans of the entire course), Christ Himself would have never brought such scandal to young children.

Remember, this, or a similar program, with a slightly different name, most likely has been mandated by your bishop, no matter which diocese you reside in, as his response to the fact that homosexual clergy molested hundreds of teenage boys and young men, in thousands of known instances. This program is somehow going to prevent these sexual perverts and predators from harming your children. In fact, it is supposed to “empower” your children to ward off potential “unsafe adults” and their “unsafe touches.” One of the first stages is for your Catholic school teachers and religion teachers to teach them the clinical names of their private body parts. No, really… I’m not making this up. The Ph.D. level sexologists, psychologists, psycho-therapists and sociologist… Oh yes… and our bishops… all agree. And we know they are much smarter than us, and much smarter than the Vatican and authoritative Church teaching!

Paragraph No. 78 from The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality states the following:

It can be said that a child is in the stage described in John Paul II's words as "the years of innocence" from about five years of age until puberty — the beginning of which can be set at the first signs of changes in the boy or girl's body (the visible effect of an increased production of sexual hormones). This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex. So as not to disturb this important natural phase of growth, parents will recognize that prudent formation in chaste love during this period should be indirect, in preparation for puberty, when direct information will be necessary.

Apparently, most priests and most bishops in the good ole U.S. of A. have never read this document from 1995. Apparently, most of them do not have the Catholic sense to review in detail the curriculum they have mandated to be taught in diocesan parish schools and religion classes by September 30 in many cases.

Surely, the “orthodox” Bishops will put a stop to this. “My bishop would never allow this,” you say. I thought the same thing. After e-mailing dozen of messages regarding the VIRTUS’s consultants’ checkered backgrounds with the culture of death and the recommended book lists for this curriculum, showing many direct ties to Planned Parenthood-backed and promoted books and contacts, the response I received from my diocesan office was the following.

My e-mail address has been blocked for incoming messages. Apparently, I hit a nerve. Surely, they didn’t do this intentionally. In fact, I called and spoke to the priest who is “in charge” of the program in my diocese, initially expressing my concerns. Of course, after the token respect and wordsmithing that is typical in so many chanceries throughout AmChurch, he must have believed I was appeased. Apparently, although there is no such thing as the Index of Forbidden Books any more, there is an index of forbidden incoming e-mail addresses. Perhaps the words in the text I was sending were being blocked by the automatic filter of the diocesan computer system. Or perhaps, because my e-mail list of concerned Catholic parents had grown, it was detecting this as spam.

OK. I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, I decided. I will e-mail them separately, and one at a time if necessary. Nope. Still blocked, banned and censored, for trying to “protect my children” and others from my diocese’s own incompetence. A priest friend recommended that I call His Excellency directly. Okay, I thought. I have spoken to the bishop on the telephone on other unrelated matters before. Surely, he doesn’t know what is in this curriculum. Surely, he has the Catholic sense to remove this stuff from his diocesan schools and religious education programs immediately.

Two phone calls to his voicemail more than a week ago. Finally, after listing some specific questions, such as the following, I received a response from the bishop’s media guy that said in effect that the bishop had not reviewed the children’s component in its entirety, and then later the diocese sent out a letter stating that Lesson Plan number 3 could be removed from the program. The diocesan response also said that due to lack of time, finances and resources, the entire child’s component (Touching Safety is the new and revised VIRTUS-backed “Protecting God’s Children” program) has not been reviewed appropriately. They would be “making changes” and assessing it for “next year.”

But this year, I guess it is OK for our children to have their innocence destroyed!

Beware of the Bait and Switch

It is a long-term strategy and well-known plan of the sex educators of the past 40 years to drop their curriculum on unsuspecting teachers at the last moment with a mandate to have it implemented as soon as possible. It is also a well known strategy to go back and remove the “offensive” elements of a curriculum after receiving a small, but vocal uprising from concerned parents.

After this customary dust-up, the approach of “We’ll remove the most offensive parts” or “those parts you find most objectionable” from the curriculum. After all, “We haven’t really had any other complaints so far except from you.”

Of course, at first they will try to appease the concerned parents (known as fundamentalists or “right-wing Puritans”) by insisting the curriculum states that parents are the primary educators, and of course, “your child” can opt out of the entire program if you would like.

In other words, in Catholic schools, by mandate of our beloved bishops’ interests in protecting our children from the homosexual perverts and predators in their ranks, I have the “right” to “opt-out” my child from this perverted curriculum, while the vast majority of K-2 students learn the body part names (as well as draw body parts, but “not the private ones” as the teacher calls them out, during a session on drawing body parts on their own silhouettes in swimsuits no less), all so my child can then go back into classrooms with these same “sex abuse educated” children. Then, they can go home and show Mommy and Daddy and their younger brothers and sisters (as long as they are at least 18 months of age!) how they can draw body parts on their bodies with swimsuits, but refrain from drawing penises, vaginas, anuses, buttocks when the teachers announces these private body parts aloud in front of the whole class… well, you get the picture, unfortunately.

So the “drawing the body parts” on the silhouette will be offered to you as being all right, because even the though the teachers are instructed to name out loud, the private body parts are the parts the children are not supposed to draw. So, we’ll just eliminate lesson plan three, and everything else will be all right. “The Bishop approved this program, you know. You don’t want to be disobedient. He is a descendant of the Apostles.”

But I thought the Bishop hadn’t reviewed the program?

Riggghhhhhhhttttt… Remember, this is mandated to be taught in some form or fashion at your diocesan Catholic school to your schoolchildren. But if they can’t get them there, then they’ll get it from volunteer teachers at your 45 minute religious education classes this year, for a total of at least three sessions—K-12.

Now, some will state, “Okay, you have made your case. This stuff should not be taught to the younger children, but what about the middle school and high school adolescents? Surely, there is some need for this there.”

According to the Church’s long-held teaching on the principle of subsidiarity, the family is primarily charged with the duty of teaching the full understanding from a Catholic perspective on “the truth and meaning of human sexuality.” In fact, the subtitle of the 1995 document is “Guidelines for Education Within the Family.” That is right—“within the family.”

But perhaps some modern, deconstructionist Scripture Scholar can reinterpret this subtitle to mean something exactly the opposite of what it states. Perhaps the Bishops and Priests are too “deconstructed” by the plain meaning of words to understand the plain meaning of “education within the home.” But I digress…

Ideally, age-appropriate talks on sexuality, chastity, modesty, purity, holiness and biology will be done as the child matures and begins to ask questions to his mother or his father. In fact, the document with the very title of the name in quotation marks above, says that the mother will ideally impart the information to the daughter, with the father to the son. Only if the parents delegate such tasks to others (the Church), should this chastity, modesty, purity and human sexuality information be imparted. And even then, it should never be done in a mixed class setting of boys and girls, or with a male teacher to females and/or vice versa. Ideally, and preferably, it should be done with the teachers assisting the parents with suitable Catholic curricula (not Planned Parenthood or SIECUS-adapted sources) with irrelevant Scripture verses and Catechism paragraphs proof-texted as Catholic window dressing. Even at the older grades.

According to the principle of subsidiarity, Catholic parents should ask for help and assistance from the Church and/or other experts in teaching these concepts to their children. Have any of you asked for this assistance from your Catholic priests, teachers and bishops? I know that none of my friends nor my wife and I have requested it. Remember, this or similar programs were mandated by the U.S. bishops as a response to the fact that homosexual priests and bishops, in 85 percent of the cases that were tracked, sexually abused and molested pubescent and post-pubescent boys. Because of this, all Church volunteers and children need to be armed this “vital” information to destroy their innocence, plant a low view of human sexuality in their minds forever, and become proximate occasions of sin.

Oh, yes, but the U.S. Church has paid out nearly $1 billion in claims and several dioceses have declared monetary bankruptcy (although spiritually bankrupt for dozens of years of course) as the temporal punishment due to sin. These programs are designed to “protect your children.” That is why your signature, whether you attend, or your child attends these sessions or not, is so important. The diocese needs your signature. The attorneys and the insurance company demand it. That is why you need to be fingerprinted in the Diocese of Arlington, and elsewhere. The Church must share your fingerprints with the State authorities to “protect your children.”

So, what about the older children’s curriculum? Surely, that stuff could be used in Catholic schools and in religion classes, couldn’t it?

Abusing God's Children: Part II
Sep 19, 2005

Who are the Consultants behind VIRTUS’s “Touching Safety Curriculum? Ties to the Culture of Death

For us too Moses' invitation rings out loud and clear: "See, I have set before you this day life and good, death and evil. ... I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live" (Dt 30:15, 19). This invitation is very appropriate for us who are called day by day to the duty of choosing between the "culture of life" and the "culture of death". Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae, March 25, 1995

1. In VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children” facilitator’s manual, one of the three primary consultants noted in the facilitator’s manual for VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children is Dr. Gene Gabel, a Ph.D. sexologist, is interviewed with his wife in an article in Playboy magazine (major funder of Planned Parenthood) on his and his wife’s sex lives. www.ejeanlive.com/frigid.htm

Read the entire article and the type of language used throughout and decide for yourself if this is a high view of sexuality as proposed by the Church, or if it is truly part of the culture of death.

2. Dr. Phyllis Willerscheidt is the Director of the Interfaith Sexual Trauma Institute, and is one of the key consultors for VIRTUS as listed on their website. She works on women’s advocacy for the diocese of St. Paul, MN, a diocese notoriously open to homosexual dissenters, and her website is listed in the same listing with dozens of gay, lesbian, transgendered, and the most prominent Planned Parenthood-associated organizaton in the U.S., called SIECUS. She was also quoted in the archdiocesan newspaper shortly after our current Pope's election:

"I look at him as being an interim pope because of his age, so there will probably be some changes, but I would think that he would continue some of the same direction that he's taken before. Sometimes I've liked that direction, and sometimes I haven't." - Phyllis Willerscheidt, director of archdiocesan Commission on Women

I wonder which "directions" Pope Benedict XVI has previously discussed that she didn't/doesn't like? I'll bet we all can guess.

The Center for Sexuality and Religion has her organization, the Intefaith Sexual Trauma Institute, listed on its site www.ctrsr.org/related.asp along with links to SIECUS (direct affiliation with Planned Parenthood), along with Dignity USA, Gala (RLDS) and Gay Lesbian + Affirming Disciples (GLAD) Alliance , all organizations promoting tolerance of, and acceptance of active, practicing homosexuals and lesbians.

3. Sharon Womack Doty – Sex Education vs. Sex Abuse Education June 2003 article from the VIRTUS website

“Young children are generally comfortable with the information provided in sex abuse prevention programs. It is parents who typically exhibit discomfort. We—adults—are the ones who have difficulty with the subject matter.”

Compare Ms. Doty’s statement above as a sex abuse “expert” with Catholic teaching from Par. No. 78 of The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality:

“This period of tranquility and serenity must never be disturbed by unnecessary information about sex. During those years, before any physical sexual development is evident, it is normal for the child's interests to turn to other aspects of life. The rudimentary instinctive sexuality of very small children has disappeared. Boys and girls of this age are not particularly interested in sexual problems, and they prefer to associate with children of their own sex."

4. Michael Morton, M.S. – Mr. Morton is a psychologist and therapist and has a wealth of experience inside the Church in researching and responding to the abuse issue. His experience includes treatment of clergy and victims of clergy abuse. He has consulted with Church officials in the United States and Ireland about the nature and source of abuse. He provided our program developers with valuable insight into avoiding numerous implementation barriers that other programs have experienced.


What “implementation barriers” was VIRTUS expecting? Have they had problems in Catholic settings from parents before similarly with the VIRTUS “Talking about Touching” program, which “SafeTouch, Unsafe Touch” is merely a modification of? How much did this consultant get paid to assist VIRTUS in “avoiding numerous implementation barriers”? This summary is from their website. Were concerned Catholic parents the primary “implementation barriers”?

Those who allow themselves to be influenced by this climate easily fall into a sad vicious circle: when the sense of God is lost, there is also a tendency to lose the sense of man, of his dignity and his life; in turn, the systematic violation of the moral law, especially in the serious matter of respect for human life and its dignity, produces a kind of progressive darkening of the capacity to discern God's living and saving presence. Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, March 23, 1995

Other Recommended Books and Resources by VIRTUS Supporting the Culture of Death through SIECUS and other Planned Parenthood-related organizations

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34). Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, March 23, 1995

Birds of a feather flock together. Why is the Catholic Church officially supporting the Culture of Death in its curriculum recommendations? Why do we entrust $25,000 of diocesan funds to people whose curriculum does not have a Catholic worldview, while ignoring authentic Catholic curriculum like “Family Honor?”

It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health. Harris, Robbie, HCambridge: Candlewick Press, 1994. pp. 30-32.





*Its's My Body by Lori Freeman, published by Parenting Press, 1986. This book, to be read and shown to 4 and 5 year olds, is endorsed by Planned Parenthood and organizations aligned with SIECUS. It reinforces the mantra so prevalent throughout this curriculum, "It's Your Body" and informs children that sometimes they might like to share their bodies. It is entirely their choice.

My Body is Private by Linda Walvoord Gerard, published by Albert Whitman, 1991.

Parts of this book, to be read and shown to 4 and 5 year olds, are very graphic and disturbing. It is endorsed by the Association for Sexuality Education and Training, an organization aligned with SIECUS. "Some things in the world are private! …That means don't touch and do not disturb, unless I say you can." The book references body parts with names coinciding with those used in this program, "my breasts, my vagina, and my bottom"; "A boy's penis and bottom…" "My mom and dad say if anyone else starts to touch me — anyplace — and I don't like it, I can say, "No!" "…sometimes touching doesn't feel good." In this book, Uncle Ted is the offender. In the book the mom says to the child, "If you don't feel good about the way someone is touching you, you can tell that person to stop." "And it's wrong if grownups or older kids try to touch or rub the private parts of your body — your breasts or your vagina or your bottom.” This seems to imply that this would be fine if it is done with someone your own age. “It's wrong if anyone says, 'Pull down your pants,’ or pulls down theirs, or if someone wants to take a picture of you without your clothes on."

The story text continues, "But if someone touches the private parts of your body, I want to know. No matter how scared you are, no matter who it is — I don't care if it's Santa Claus…”

The Right Touch by Sandy Klein, published by Illumination Arts, 1998.

This book has drawings of the bodies of a little nude girl and a little nude boy. The perpetrator in this book for pre-k through grade 3 is a neighbor. He invites the child into his house to see new baby kittens. "The man said, 'If you sit on my lap, I'll show you the kittens.'” “Then the little girl got an uncomfortable feeling. She was about to go home when the man tried to put his hand down her panties."

This book promotes the Planned Parenthood mentality "It's My Body" by telling children "Your whole body, from head to toe, is private and belongs to you.” "Now let's say someone was trying to touch you under your clothes…”

The Trouble With Secrets by Karen Johnsen, Parenting Press, Inc., 1986.

Situations are proposed for example: “If a big person helps you at bath-time, that is okay. But if the washing makes you feel confused or bad, that is not okay. You can tell good touches from bad touches…” “If a doctor needs to examine you with your clothes off and your parent is there, that’s okay. But if anyone wants you to take your clothes off or touch you in an uncomfortable way, that is not okay. Don’t keep it a secret! You need to say, ‘No! I’ll tell!’…”

*Reviews of books provided by the Holy Family Society of Tuscon, Arizona

Abusing God's Children: Part 3
Sep 24, 2005

During the past couple of weeks, this column has attempted to expose the disgusting filth and connections with the culture of death that passes for the most used “sex education child sex abuse prevention” program in the United States Catholic Church (more than 80 dioceses according to the National Catholic Risk Retention’s August 2004 newsletter).

In the midst of this ever-increasing groundswell of parents who are realizing across the United States that even their supposed “orthodox” bishops cannot be protected from, or will not stand up to the dissident USCCB lay bureaucracy, Dominico Bettinelli, editor of Catholic World Report, and The Wanderer recently showed how Teresa Kettelkamp, the USCCB’s executive director of the Office of Youth and Child Protection, has served on an advisory board for the National Center for Women and Policing, which is directly affiliated with the Feminist Majority Foundation, a militantly pro-abortion feminist organization. Although the most recent Wanderer article has Kettelkamp denying being a pro-abortion Catholic, she consistently refused to answer the more specific questions regarding the role of her office and its “power” or lack thereof, to enforce this charter, which of course lacks canonical authority.

The Culture of Death Removes the Evidence

What is particularly interesting is the way her name was removed from the web page where she was cited as being an advisory board member. It used to appear here, just after the name of Deputy Chief Sharon Jones (Ret.). It should be noted that repeated calls to Ms. Kettelcamp by this reporter were not returned by either her or the USCCB’s media relations office in order to confirm or deny her knowledge of the militant pro-abortion group she was affiliated with.

Similarly, in “Abusing God’s Children, Part 2,” the Planned Parenthood websites linked to recommended books from VIRTUS’s “Touching Safety” program, suddenly disappeared shortly before the publishing of the article. Interesting that either Kettelkamp or the Feminist Majority Foundation found it necessary to quickly remove her name from that page. If anyone is in doubt, there are hard copies available, and it can also still be found online (But not for long, so hurry, look, and print it out before it is expunged by the censors!) on page 21 of the document.

So, since Ms. Kettelkamp nor the USCCB office of media relations had the courtesy to return a telephone call from this reporter regarding her abortion stance, I would like to add some other questions, which she can answer through this media outlet if she so desires to fully clear the record.

1. Do you believe and adhere to the Church’s doctrine forbidding articificial contraception?

2. Do you believe and adhere to the Church’s doctrine forbidding women from ever being ordained to the sacred priesthood?

3. Do you understand that by using fear and scare tactics (as the “sex education child sex abuse prevention” programs all do!), this will inhibit a mature and true understanding of sexuality according the natural law and Catholic doctrine?

4. Do you believe that parents are not capable and able, as the natural moral law and The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality insists, to teach their children about sexual issues in the context of morality and biology without any assistance from your office?

5. Do you believe the “sex education child sex abuse prevention” programs, particularly VIRTUS’s “Touching Safety” curriculum, are in line with Catholic teaching, particularly the prohibition of violating children’s years of innocence as taught in The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality and Familiaris Consortio?

6. Do you understand and recognize the John Jay report authorized by, and for, the USCCB, showed that more than 80 percent of all sexual abuse was conducted by priests (male) and teenage or pubescent boys (male)?

7. Do you understand and recognize the primary instigators of sexual abuse in the U.S. Church were homosexual priests and bishops and that the VIRTUS program denies this?

8. Do you understand that the “Touching Safety” program has a flawed pedagogy (making the children the primary line of defense!) and will not prevent homosexual priests and bishops from abusing teenage boys?

At this point and time, it is time for all Catholic parents to immediately request a full copy of the curriculum of “Touching Safety,” part of VIRTUS’s “Protecting God’s Children” program. Unfortunately, many parents will experience difficulty accessing the actual content from their directors of religious education and/or from their Catholic school religion teachers, as VIRTUS cleverly hides behind a much-shortened marketing “advisory” to parents with the guts of the curriculum unrevealed.

This innocence-ruining program is spreading throughout the U.S. Catholic church like wildfire and will soon be in your diocese, if it is not already implemented. If it is not this program, it will be another with similar innocence-ruining curricula and connections with Planned Parenthood, SIECUS and the culture of death.

It is not primarily and only for the adult volunteers. The entire program is set up to capture the children. And do not let your diocese “assure” you they are passing their concerns on to VIRTUS. Unfortunately, VIRTUS is part of the National Catholic Risk Retention Group, which in turn is owned by at least 62 dioceses in the United States as its insurance arm. The VIRTUS program and consultants are part of the problem—not the solution.

Remember, it was homosexual priests and bishops who were responsible for more than 80 percent of the documented cases in the USCCB’s own authorized study. The “Touching Safety” program itself is abusive, as it destroys children’s innocence (at all ages!) and presents a low view of sexuality. It will do nothing to prevent homosexual priests and bishops (The bishops themselves do not have to undergo the program) from abusing children. This entire, unbelievable fiasco is being implemented even by “orthodox” bishops for financial insurance reasons. Period. The “Touching Safety” program is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

On a final note, I challenge all of you who read this to go to Google (no charge for the free promo!) and type in the words “touching safety” with quotation marks around it, then add a “plus” sign (+), and then type in “Planned Parenthood” with quotation marks and see what comes up. But hurry, before the evidence is expunged. Check out this site. (And by the way, Amy, your children will too be exposed to this program. It hasn’t been “announced” yet.)

The USCCB and Teresa Kettelkamp and your “orthodox” bishop insist your children must be exposed to the tactics of the culture of death. They do not believe you can adequately teach your own children or protect them.

Copyright by Thomas Augustine
Copyright © MichNews.com. All Rights Reserved.

Touch Index