The USCCB and the “Safe Environment” Programs: Safe isn’t Safe Anymore

by Elizabeth Schwab   www.desertvoice.org   May 23, 2006

Those who grew up in the 50s and 60s may still remember their first elementary reader about the adventures of Dick and Jane. It was a simpler world back then, and Dick and Jane were as gay as could be. Gay. They were happy, carefree. Today a quite different meaning comes to mind. Amazing, isn’t it, how that one word has changed forever.

Another word undergoing a similar transformation today is the word “safe.” Suddenly there is a push for safety in all forms - especially “safe programs.” Safety in itself is not a bad thing, but we are seeing an abundance of educational materials worming their way into our schools and churches that bear the title “safe,” which makes them seem innocent when in fact they are not.

Take, for instance, the Safe Schools Project. It sounds like a worthy program to ensure general protection for schoolchildren. However, its purpose is to provide a safe school environment for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered students. Faculty and students are instructed to practice tolerance of GLBT students and encouraged to create a gay-friendly atmosphere. The executive coordinator of this initiative, Michael Bayly, a leading “Catholic” homosexual activist in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, has written a textbook available now for the 2006-2007 school year entitled “Creating Safe Environments for LGBT students – A Catholic Schools Perspective.” His book is allegedly based on five years of pilot testing in Catholic schools. (http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=5723)

Or consider the multifaceted program by Out for Equity, a GLBT organization based in St. Paul, Minnesota. Components include the Safe Schools Manual, a Safe Staff Member Pledge, and a proposed Safe Space Lab, all of which promote the homosexual lifestyle within local public schools. (http://outforequity.spps.org/educators.htm) Then there is the Safe Zone program developed at Georgetown University which has spread to many Jesuit campuses and American universities throughout the US. And from coast to coast, Safe Schools Groups and Safe Schools Coalitions are flourishing. These programs have nothing to do with the issue of safety as formerly understood, but are directly linked to the proliferation of homosexuality throughout our country. (http://www.safeschoolscoalition.org/blackboard-organizations.html )

Therefore, Catholics should pay close attention when the USCCB decides to mandate “safe environment programs” for all Catholic school children in the wake of the sexual abuse scandal – which was largely due to homosexuality within the Church – especially when leading orthodox bishops refuse to allow such programs into their own dioceses. Most parents want to trust their bishops, and with names like Safe Touch, Safe Environment, and Protecting God’s Children, one might think these programs are good things. Take a closer look.

According to LifeSite News, one of the first endorsements for the safe environment program VIRTUS came from Catholic Rainbow Parents based in the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, a group of parents of homosexuals who actively lobby for the rights of the GLBT community within the Catholic Church. (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/apr/06040706.html ) In March 2006, The Wanderer Press revealed that the origins of Talking About Touching, a Safe Touch program, had been traced to a prostitution advocacy group called Whores, Housewives, and Others, as it was known in the 1970’s before changing its name to COYOTE (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics). Nowadays this same organization is known by the more respectable name of Committee for Children. (http://thewandererpress.com/a3-9-2006.htm )

Talking About Touching features a variety of sexual scenarios, but not a single one includes a member of the clergy or religious order. Rather, several of the scenarios focus on sexual advances made by family members, thus eroding a child’s basic trust in family relationships. When concerned parents in the diocese of Arlington, Virginia objected to the sexual exploitation their children were being subjected to in these child protection programs, the diocesan director told them that “the reason they had been excluded from the program selection process was that parents themselves might be predators.” (http://lifesite.net/ldn/2004/feb/04020605.html ) Defending the subject matter of the programs, Bishop Loverde stated that “sometimes parents are the abusers.” And Teresa Kettlekamp, executive director of the USCCB Office of Child and Youth Protection, explained that the reason these programs are required is because parents cannot be trusted to teach their children these things since some child abuse takes place in the home. But weren’t these programs initiated due to abuse committed by homosexually active members of the clergy? Are parents now the suspects?

At the Dallas Conference of Bishops in June 2002, just after the sex abuse scandals broke out, Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln asked his fellow bishops to investigate the connection between the abuse crisis and widespread homosexuality in the clergy. His suggestion was ignored, as were the results of a study by the Family Research Council published in May 2002 which reported that there was a definite link between homosexuality and child abuse. (www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/may/02053107.html ) Instead the bishops drew up a charter which called for the implementation of safe environment programs nationwide and the immediate removal from ministry of any cleric accused of abusing a minor. They would then exempt themselves from their own charter by replacing the word “cleric” with “priests and deacons.” Thus in March 2006, when Bishop Skylstad was accused of sexually abusing a minor several years ago, he was allowed to retain his position as Bishop of Spokane and as president of the USCCB without incurring any penalty. (http://thewandererpress.com/a4-13-2006.htm ) This contrasted sharply with the USCCB National Review Board’s attack against Bishop Bruskewitz in the same month for not implementing the sex-ed programs in his diocese. It should be clearly understood that the USCCB has no authority over any US bishop, as all bishops are accountable solely to the Holy Father in Rome.

And what would Rome say about these programs? In the Vatican document entitled The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality, parents are given a number of guidelines for properly educating their children in sexuality. It warns of the dangers of premature sex information for children in the years of innocence, from about five years of age until puberty. Article 83 states that children this age “cannot understand and control sexual imagery within the proper context of moral principles and, for this reason, they cannot integrate premature sexual information with moral responsibility. Such information tends to shatter their emotional and educational development…” Article 127 addresses the principle of respect for the child and states that “no one should ever be invited, let alone obliged, to act in any way that could objectively offend against modesty or which could subjectively offend against his or her own delicacy or sense of privacy.” Dramatized representations, role playing which depict genital matters, making drawings or charts, and oral exams about genital questions are listed as abuses of sex education and things to be avoided. (See document at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html )

The Talking About Touching lessons for five-year-olds include looking at drawings of nude people along with the terms for genitalia of both sexes. The students are to repeat each term aloud three times. Teachers have reportedly instructed children to yell “P****! V*****! B*******!” as a means of destroying their God-given sense of modesty. (http://thewandererpress.com/c4-13-2006.htm ) Of course, boys and girls receive the instruction together in the same classroom. Sexual deviations are presented in various abuse scenarios, and children are asked to give feedback on how they would feel in perverse situations. A third-grade lesson plan presents the situation of an older boy touching a girl’s v*****. (See sample lessons at http://www.primaryeducators.org/lessons.php  ) This type of instruction is directly against Church teaching. But this program is not only limited to schoolchildren – some lessons target toddlers as young as 18 months and parents are asked to use these materials at home.

On May 15, 2006, the USCCB issued a brief statement on their website indicating that the US bishops would now “allow parents to remove their children from diocesan-sponsored training programs in child sex-abuse prevention.” (http://thewandererpress.com/c-5-25-2006.htm ) But the opt-out alternative is not a practical solution. As any parent knows, kids talk together on the playground, and children who sit through the sex-ed classes will likely share the graphic details with those who have opted out. Besides, a bishop has a grave duty to protect every soul within his flock and he would better serve his people by not allowing anything that violates Church teaching to be taught in the parishes of his diocese.

Finally, many people are surprised to hear that there are financial interests attached to these programs. National Catholic Risk Retention Group, the owner of VIRTUS, has grown considerably in the past few years. Total assets for 1999 were $53,123,641. In 2003, a year after the outbreak of the sex abuse scandals, assets went up to $58,804,968. By 2005, total assets had jumped to $92,595,854 – a growth of over 33 million dollars in just 2 years. VIRTUS performance was reported as outstanding. According to the 2005 Annual Report, National Catholic has 63 shareholders consisting of 62 archdioceses and 1 risk pooling trust operated by the Christian Brothers. (For 2005 total assets, see http://www.nationalcatholic.org/2005annualreport/balance_sheets.html ; for 2003 total assets, see http://www.virtus.org/virtus/newsletter.cfm?newsletter_id=38 ; for shareholders, see http://www.nationalcatholic.org/shareholders.htm )

Although not publicly listed as shareholders, the Archdioceses of Milwaukee and St. Paul-Minneapolis were instrumental in moving VIRTUS through its Phase I development according to the National Catholic 1999 newsletter. Vicar General Fr. Kevin McDonough of St. Paul-Minneapolis was a member of the VIRTUS steering committee, and Phyllis Willerscheidt, former executive director of the Commission on Women in the Church for the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis (1987- Dec. 2005), was a member of the VIRTUS Expert Consulting Team. The archdiocesan-approved Commission on Women supports radical feminism in the Church and hosted a “Womanist” speaker at its 2005 conference. (For Phase I assistance, see bottom of page 7 at http://www.nationalcatholic.org/newsletters/NCRsummer99.pdf  ; at http://www.virtusonline.org/virtus/newsletters/VIRTUS_26.pdf  the VIRTUS steering committee is on page 1, Expert Consulting Team on page 2) In an apparent conflict of interest, Ms. Willerscheidt then served as consultant to the USCCB as they were choosing the safe environment programs at the same time she served on the VIRTUS Expert Consulting Team. And Archbishop Harry Flynn of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis was chairman of the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse which selected the programs.

With so many ties between VIRTUS and the Archdiocese, the picture is becoming clearer as to why Archbishop Flynn continues to promote the VIRTUS agenda. It might also explain the “two-by-four” which Fr. McDonough was allegedly preparing for any priest objecting to the program he worked so hard to develop. Wouldn’t it be ironic for an advocate of safe environments to resort to violence against those who did not agree with him? But then again, “safe” isn’t safe anymore.