Dissent 101 at Christ the King Parish

 Pleasant Hill parish hosts dissenting speakers

Agenda not in line with Church teaching coming to Christ the King

The following is a California Catholic Daily exclusive story by Anna Rose:

The dissenting speakers have not ceased at Christ the King parish in Pleasant Hill. On October 1, a self-identified Christian Meditation organization called the Hesed Community has invited the ever-dissident Sr. Joan Chittister to speak at the parish.

In addition, other problematic speakers are slated to speak in the upcoming months, most notably Dr. Lisa Fullam, Fr. Padraig Greene, and Luke Hansen, SJ. (http://cal-catholic.com/?p=25594)

I would love to say that I’m totally and utterly shocked, but I am not.  That is par for the course for Christ the King parish.  I’m not entirely sure that the parishioners even know there’s a problem with these speakers.  They’ve been stuck with the notorious pastors for years and likely don’t have a clue.  I think many Catholics from other parishes in the Oakland Diocese were hoping that Fr. Paulson would rein in this type of stuff.  If you’re from this parish, please, please, research them and realize that they represent the antithesis of the Church teachings. In fact, if you’re looking to lead the Catholic life, I’d suggest finding another parish altogether.  If you want to feel good about your particular sin, feel free to stay.  If you want a shot at avoiding a long stint in purgatory and gaining heaven, go somewhere where they are trying to help you do that!  It isn’t at this parish.

Oh, and these are still happening per the parish website http://ctkph.org/

Sr. Joan Chittister was the keynote speaker at the 2015 Call to Action Conference. In 2001, the Vatican forbade her to speak at the Women’s Ordination Conference, but she ignored them. She disagrees in many areas with the Magisterium of the Church: women’s ordination, admission of homosexuals to the priesthood, the celibate priesthood, and she is, at best, a moral relativist in the areas of abortion and birth control.

A cursory glance at her teachings on contemplation reveals that she ties all into her radical agenda, not the sublime objective of giving the greatest honor to God. For example, she states in her video program, “From Contemplation to Justice”, that “The contemplative can never be again a complacent participant in an oppressive system” and that “Those that have no flame in their heart for justice, no consciousness for the reign of God, no raging commitment for human community may indeed be seeking God but make no mistake, God is still, at best, only an idea to them, not a reality.” Apparently, Sr. Joan can never see someone devoted to perpetual adoration of the Blessed Sacrament as truly knowing God. She encourages being like Martha, where the Church encourages us to be more like Mary, that is, true contemplation.

The beautiful, blue links were stripped out during the copy and paste, so check out the links provided at California Catholic Daily and save me some time.  The author is totally right!  I can just see the organizers of the Chittister events saying (cue faux innocent voice) “Whaaaaattttt???  She’s just talking about the contemplative life.”  Did you even watch the video?  Nice try!  Everything she does is pretty much Dissent 101, and I’m reasonably sure she would think Eucharistic Adoration misogynistic.  Seriously, Joan can even find “inequality” in the Eucharist.  No, I’m not kidding. All this woman can see is women being shafted by the Church.  I just had to do a quick Google to find this:  http://www.joanchittister.org/word-from-joan/6-16-2015/eucharist-dilemna  She’s obsessed with misogyny.  Sorry, Joan, there are no misogynists under your bed.  You really need to let go of your “daddy issues” and stop being so bitter about the real men in our Church.  Understanding the Eucharist might be an obstacle for you, Joan, but to a good chunk of us, it’s the source and summit of the Faith.

Dr. Lisa Fullam

Dr. Lisa Fullam is an advocate of allowing same-sex civil marriages. She also has a skewed view of the Church’s teachings on sexual morality and our necessary obedience to them, as shown in this quote from her article entitled, “Thou Shalt Sex Beyond the List of Don’ts”: “Christian ethical reflection on sex has tended to focus on what makes individual sex acts morally right or wrong. This view of sex that looks at acts objectively and tends to regard anything sexual as probably sinful has resulted in a rule-focused sexual morality generally expressed as lists of don’ts: Don’t masturbate. Don’t have sex before marriage. Don’t use contraception when you have sex in marriage. Don’t have sex outside marriage. Don’t have sex with someone of your own sex. Don’t abuse others sexually. I’m not dismissing these don’ts out of hand: Some don’ts are of great value, some are less valuable, and some are grounded in bad biology, bad psychology, or bad theology and should be discarded.”

Uh, who died and made you pope?  Oh, that’s right, nobody.  Who are you to decide which Church teachings should be discarded?  If you don’t want to be Catholic, just renounce the Faith, toddle off and leave us alone.  I love all the little accusations without a shred of backup.  I cannot believe this one is a Th.D.  Really?  How do you teach “Fundamental Moral Theology” (https://www.scu.edu/jst/about/people-of-jst/faculty/lisa-fullam-dvm-thd/) when you haven’t a clue as to what it is or what it means?  Please, parents, could we scratch Santa Clara off your list?  You could get better moral theology as CSU Anywhere.

Dr. Fullam has also contradicted Church teaching that life begins at conception, when the egg and the sperm join to form a completely unique human being. She holds that life begins at implantation, and that contraception that blocks implantation is not an abortifacient because no pregnancy exists. A 2011 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine conducted by Dr. Farr Curlin shows that only 28 percent of the 1,000 OB/GYN’s surveyed believe that life begins at implantation. Fifty-seven percent believed it begins at conception and the rest are unsure. It’s hardly the “settled science” that Dr. Lisa Fullam puts forth. Clearly to have her as an expert on science or theology is a mistake for Catholics, yet this is the woman that the staff of Christ the King thought was the person to bring in to talk about sexual ethics of the Church regarding birth control.

Seriously?  I’m not sure what’s more outrageous here.  Her general lack of scientific knowledge or the fact that someone thought she would be someone who should ever speak in a Catholic church, much less teach in a Catholic school.  Lisa, if a sperm and an egg joining isn’t a new human life, why the heck would you need any form of birth control?  Because someone sprinkles the magic fairy dust of implantation and NOW “poof” it’s a pregnancy?  Please.  Whatever happened to science?  She also doesn’t seem to grasp how abortifacients work.  Unless you know what you’re talking about, it might be nice to take a seat.  Even if her determination of life were correct, yes, abortifacients would still be abortifacients because, while they’re supposed to prevent implantation, they do not always do so. Sometimes they scrape off the newly implanted child or they cause the uterine lining to slough off regardless.  She’s wrong on when life begins, but she’s doubly wrong on abortifacients.  I mean, doesn’t she understand that even the scientific community classifies them as such?  Duh!  And, again, she’s contradicting Church teaching so why is she coming to Christ the King, a Church claiming to be Catholic?

Father Padraig Greene

Fr. Padraig Greene was arrested in 1999 by an undercover officer for lewd conduct at a city park frequented by children. He spent two days in jail and was released on $1000 bail to a rehabilitation program. The police report can be seen here. Father Greene was stationed at Christ the King parish when this incident occurred. He still works in the diocese as the parish relationship director with Catholic Funeral & Cemetery Services.

This one has always baffled the faithful in the Oakland Diocese.  Just the fact that people knew about this, it was never refuted, and you can read the police report on-line seems scandalous enough to count him out of public ministry. Seriously, you kind of lose a little credibility as a moral authority when you drive from Pleasant Hill to Oakland to masturbate in a public restroom and don’t bother to stop when someone walks in on you. Liberals love to talk about “pedophile priests,” but when one of their liberal buddies gets busted for lewd conduct in a children’s sports complex bathroom, we’re suddenly judgmental and they don’t see why we’re worried about an old incident?!  I’m all for conversion, repentance, and forgiveness, but what does it say to our children when you can do something so hideous and then be made pastor?  It’s the very definition of scandal if I ever saw it.  Right up there with Bill Clinton in the White House. 

Luke Hansen, SJ, was an associate editor at America Magazine and is now an intern with FutureChurch, a pro-women’s ordination organization lobbying for ordination of women to the diaconate. His topic in the series of talks? The Ministry and Leadership of Women in the Church.

You don’t work for FutureChurch unless you want women in the priesthood.  Enough said. You want to talk “women’s role in the Church?”  I’d be happy to come in and handle that from a Catholic perspective.  It’s nothing but glorious!  I might leave people a little less bitter and jealous than Sr. Joan or the America Magazine crew.

Father Paulson Mundanmani, pastor of Christ the King parish, has been on sabbatical for some time and will return on October 1, the same date of Sr. Joan Chittister’s talk. It is not known if he is aware of the upcoming slate of speakers at his parish, but he is scheduled as one of the speakers in the series.

We had hoped that Fr. Paulson’s appointment signaled the end of this silliness.  I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt, since he’s been on sabbatical, but I hope he comes home and immediately gets his “associates” in line with Catholicism.

The Oakland Diocese has made some strides in the last few years.  I’m hoping that Bishop Barber will start requiring speakers to be vetted by the diocese.  It would be nice to hope that the pastors are doing their jobs, but hey, they do go on sabbatical sometimes (and some really don’t have a problem with these speakers).  A requirement like this would do a lot to keep these wacky speakers from undoing all the good that’s been done in one fell swoop.

If you have further evidence of why these speakers are inappropriate, please pass it along to Bishop Barber (bishop@oakdiocese.org) AND Fr. Paulson (paulson.ctk@gmail.com). Feel free to send them a link to this post, too.




He Can’t Handle Intrinsic Evils

Seriously, Bishop McElroy can’t handle intrinsic evils or much of the Church’s teachings.  I think those pesky little details just get in his way.


San Diego bishop: forget about intrinsic evils when voting

Bishop Robert McElroy says using “intrinsic evils” not the best standard for deciding how to vote because there are so many of them.

So glad I wasn’t drinking when I read this one.  Can’t you just see him feeling kind of the same way about the teachings of the Church?  Canon Law? Ten Commandments?  “There are just so many of them, it makes my brain hurt, so let’s just ignore them all.” (That it should have been read in the whiniest voice you could muster.)


The church teaches that certain acts are incapable of being ordered to God since in their very structure they contradict the good of the person made in God’s likeness. Such actions are termed “intrinsically evil” and are morally illicit no matter what the intention or circumstances surrounding them. Those who focus primarily on intrinsic evil make two distinct but related claims: 1) that the action of voting for candidates who seek to advance an intrinsic evil in society automatically involves the voter morally in that intrinsic evil in an illicit way; and 2) Catholic teaching demands that political opposition to intrinsically evil acts, like abortion, euthanasia and embryonic experimentation, must be given automatic priority over all other issues for the purposes of voting.

The recent statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” shows why this argument is simplistic and thus misleading.

Not so much, Your Excellency.  I think it’s you and your buddies like Archbishop Cupich who think we’re a little too simplistic to figure this out, so you’re going to “help” us. My guess is you two have done the high-five on social media for this one.

The bishops’ statement clearly asserts the absoluteness of the prohibitions against concrete intrinsically evil acts, emphasizing that no circumstances or intentions can justify performing or illicitly cooperating with such acts. At the same time, “Faithful Citizenship” recognizes that voting for a candidate whose policies may advance a particular intrinsic evil is not in itself an intrinsically evil act.

Duh.  They’re not contradicting themselves, you are.  Is there a reason you won’t quote when commenting on “Faithful Citizenship?”  How’s this? 

34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.

  1. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.

  2. When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.

  3. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.

See?  You need to look at 36 to clarify 34.  You can’t ever vote for someone who’s pro-abortion if there is a better option or if you are voting for them specifically because of their pro-abortion stance, but you can vote for someone who is pro-abortion if they are the ones who will do the least damage in this area. 

In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.

Oh, he leaves out one key word: “well.”  They must be guided by their well-formed conscience.

Voting for candidates is a complex moral action in which the voter must confront an entire array of competing candidates’ positions in a single act of voting. It is crucial that in voting for a candidate who supports the advancement of an intrinsic evil, Catholic voters not have the intention of supporting that specific evil, since such an intention would involve them directly in the evil itself. But voters will often find themselves in situations where one candidate supports an intrinsically evil position, yet the alternative realistic candidates all support even graver evils in the totality of their positions.

Note the heavy focus on the “voters must not have the intention of supporting that specific evil.”  He actually did OK there.  And then he goes onto blow it:

This is particularly true in the United States today. The list of intrinsic evils specified by Catholic teaching includes not only abortion, physician-assisted suicide and embryonic experimentation but also actions that exploit workers, create or perpetuate inhuman living conditions or advance racism. It is extremely difficult, and often completely impossible, to find candidates whose policies will not advance several of these evils in American life.

No. No. No. No. No.  There are some intrinsic evils that have priority.  Anything that deprives life surpasses all others.  If you don’t have life, you have nothing.  Bishop McElroy must have missed this:


  1. The losers in this ethical sea change will be those who are elderly, poor, disabled and politically marginalized. None of these pass the utility test; and yet, they at least have a presence.  They at least have the possibility of organizing to be heard.  Those who are unborn, infirm and terminally ill have no such advantage.  They have no “utility,” and worse, they have no voice.  As we tinker with the beginning, the end and even the intimate cell structure of life, we tinker with our own identity as a free nation dedicated to the dignity of the human person.  When American political life becomes an experiment on people rather than for and by them, it will no longer be worth conducting.  We are arguably moving closer to that day.  Today, when the inviolable rights of the human person are proclaimed and the value of life publicly affirmed, the most basic human right, “the right to life, is being denied or trampled upon, especially at the more significant moments of existence: the moment of birth and the moment of death” (Pope John Paul II, The Gospel of Life [Evangelium Vitae], 18).
  1. The nature and urgency of this threat should not be misunderstood. Respect for the dignity of the human person demands a commitment to human rights across a broad spectrum:  “Both as Americans and as followers of Christ, American Catholics must be committed to the defense of life in all its stages and in every condition.”4  The culture of death extends beyond our shores: famine and starvation, denial of health care and development around the world, the deadly violence of armed conflict and the scandalous arms trade that spawns such conflict.  Our nation is witness to domestic violence, the spread of drugs, sexual activity which poses a threat to lives, and a reckless tampering with the world’s ecological balance.  Respect for human life calls us to defend life from these and other threats.  It calls us as well to enhance the conditions for human living by helping to provide food, shelter and meaningful employment, beginning with those who are most in need.  We live the Gospel of Life when we live in solidarity with the poor of the world, standing up for their lives and dignity.  Yet abortion and euthanasia have become preeminent threats to human dignity because they directly attack life itself, the most fundamental human good and the condition for all others.  They are committed against those who are weakest and most defenseless, those who are genuinely “the poorest of the poor.”  They are endorsed increasingly without the veil of euphemism, as supporters of abortion and euthanasia freely concede these are killing even as they promote them.  Sadly, they are practiced in those communities which ordinarily provide a safe haven for the weak — the family and the healing professions.  Such direct attacks on human life, once crimes, are today legitimized by governments sworn to protect the weak and marginalized.

    Just in case you didn’t know, the definition of preeminent is “surpassing all others.”  And I, Bishop McElroy, believe you missed this in the document you speak of but never link to:  http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/upload/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship.pdf


  1. Two temptations in public life can distort the Church’s defense of human life and dignity:

  2. The first is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed.3

  3. The second is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity. The current and projected extent of environmental degradation has become a moral crisis especially because it poses a risk to humanity in the future and threatens the lives of poor and vulnerable human persons here and now. Racism and other unjust discrimination, the use of the death penalty, resorting to unjust war, the use of torture,4 war crimes, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or a lack of health care, pornography, redefining civil marriage, compromising religious liberty, or an unjust immigration policy are all serious moral issues that challenge our consciences and require us to act. These are not optional concerns which can be dismissed. Catholics are urged to seriously consider Church teaching on these issues. Although choices about how best to respond to these and other compelling threats to human life and dignity are matters for principled debate and decision, this does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues. Clearly not every Catholic can be actively involved on each of these concerns, but we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.

While we follow both, you seem to fall right into the temptation mention when you directly contradicting number 28 .  You’re playing the “it’s just one issue among many” card to the hilt in your little statement.

Even more important, a fatal shortcoming of the category of intrinsic evil as a foundation for prioritizing the major elements of the political common good lies in the fact that while the criterion of intrinsic evil identifies specific human acts that can never be justified, it is not a measure of the relative gravity of evil in human or political acts. Some intrinsically evil acts are less gravely evil than other intrinsically evil actions.

Riiiggghhhhtttt!  Did you read what you just wrote?  In fact, the Church has shown us (just like the USCCB did above) the ones that get priority.  You, however, seem to want to downplay these for a reason.  Why is that? 

Intrinsically evil action can also be less gravely evil than other actions that do not fall under the category of intrinsic evil. For example, telling any lie is intrinsically evil, while launching a major war is not.  But it would be morally obtuse to propose that telling a minor lie to constituents should count more in the calculus of voting than a candidate’s policy to go to war.

And, Bishop McElroy?  Nobody is comparing the two.  This is what we like to call a red-herring.  It is just you trying to use an action that isn’t happening to downplaying the severity of the preeminent intrinsic evils that the Church has laid out. 

It is the gravity of evil or good present in electoral choices that is primarily determinative of their objective moral character and their contribution to or detraction from the common good. Moreover, because voting is a complex moral action involving mitigating circumstances, a vote for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils often does not involve illicit cooperation in those acts. For these reasons the category of intrinsic evil cannot provide a comprehensive moral roadmap for prioritizing the elements of the common good for voting.

We don’t need more of a road map than already given to us.  The person we should vote for should pass the test of rejecting the preeminent intrinsic evils of our time which, again, as our very own USCCB has stated, are the no brainer offenses against life.  That is PREEMINENT.  I’m not sure how many ways the Church has to say it before Bishop McElroy stop trying to confuse the voters that when two candidates are pro-choice, you can’t ever vote for the worse one, but you may be able to vote for the one who will do the least damage in this area.  If two candidates are apples to apples in this area, then you should go on to look at all of the other issues that go along with the dignity of life. 

Red Card for Fr. Brian D’Arcy!

What do you have to do to deserve a silencing, defrocking, or at the very least, a rap on the head?!?!  Personally, defrocking would be too good for this one.  Can we just hit him with the trifecta of silencing, defrocking, AND excommunicating?  I mean, this guy is advocating the murder of children.  Oh, did I mention he’s a priest?!?!?!?!


We must be help Irish women with abortion costs, says rebel priest D’Arcy

By Allan Preston

Please.  Rebel priest?  More like evil priest.  Rebel is a tad bit too classy for him.

An outspoken priest from Northern Ireland has said Irish women travelling to England for abortions should be helped with the costs of repatriation.

Fr Brian D’Arcy made the comments in the second part of an interview with Hot Press magazine published today.

Thank goodness I missed the first part of this interview.  My gag reflex is already in full swing.

The Enniskillen cleric says he has had “countless conversations” with mothers faced with the sometimes heartbreaking decision of having to travel to England for a termination.

“I have sat with mothers, night after night after night. And I have always said to mothers, ‘Whatever you choose is the right choice’,” he said.

Awww…what a guy.  Do you think he says that to the guy considering killing the 5-year-old? How about helping her out of a tough situation?  Words are cheap, Fr. D’Arcy, and yours are bargain basement cheap.

“I always say that to mothers. My own view is that we should try to save all lives.”

I wonder if he ever considered using the words of the Church that abortion is EVIL?  Not only that, it’s intrinsically evil, which means NO situation could ever make it not evil.  What a fool!  Actually, I’m reasonably sure that he knows exactly what he’s doing and it’s evil.

While insisting his views are still pro-life, Fr D’Arcy has backed the proposal to cover repatriation costs in abortion cases involving fatal foetal abnormalities, in order for the remains to be brought back to Ireland and buried if the woman has been forced to travel to Great Britain for an abortion.

Please!  This helps a woman how?  I’m sure there is more than one organization in the Catholic Church in England that would bury aborted babies.

“Whatever about the abortion, I have no problem at all having respect and love and care for the little infant whose life didn’t get a chance,” he said.

You just told a woman that allowing her child to be killed was a “right choice”, and now you think you are the one with respect and love?  You’re part of the reason children are being killed, Father.

“So, whatever we should do to make the mother and father of that infant good, so much the better. I have no problem with that. In fact, I think it’s a good thing to do be compassionate and loving in that situation.”

I could repeat this a thousand times: YOU just told the mother killing her child is a “right choice.”   The compassion and loving thing is NOT to do that, you moron!

The rebel priest believes it is inevitable that the Irish government will repeal the Eighth Amendment to the State’s constitution – originally passed by referendum in 1983 – which gives the unborn an equal right to life with mothers in all circumstances.

Yeah, with priests like you allowed to roam this planet without a good censure, I wouldn’t be at all too surprised if you are correct.  This is the epitome of “The smoke of Satan.”

Fr D’Arcy has admitted his views may mean his days as a priest are numbered.

Please let this prophecy be fulfilled!  I suppose I should be praying for a change of heart, but then I think of all of those women he tossed a rope to, the ends of which weren’t anchored to anything.  He might as well have shot them and their children in the head.  They asked for loaves and he gave them stones.  Bravo, father!

The Passionist priest also said he supports gay couples adopting, would have no problem giving his blessing at same-sex marriages and has called on Pope Francis to allow divorced people to re-marry in the church.

No surprise there.  I’m reasonably sure ANYONE could have guessed that.

In the first part of the Hot Press interview published earlier this month he claimed to know that a number of women committed suicide after suffering abuse at the hands of Ireland’s most notorious paedophile priest from Belfast, Brendan Smyth.

So, what you are saying is that priests who don’t follow Church teachings harm their flock?  My gosh, man!  Get a grip.  Brendan Smyth wasn’t devout in any sense of the word.  He was, well, a lot like you. 

He also had harsh words for Cardinal Sean Brady, who was aware of children being abused by Belfast-born Fr Smyth, but chose not to go to the authorities.

“Priests molest, so feel free to kill your children!” Uh, hello!  They have zero things in common, other than disobedient priests.

“The one thing you will always say about Sean Brady is that he’s a decent man,” he said.

“But he would probably know himself now that the system had him so brainwashed that he didn’t do the right thing. He was wrapped up in this whole secrecy thing.”

Again, has ZERO to do with you saying that it’s ever OK to kill a child.  This is a very nice red-herring, father, but don’t you dare point to another’s sins to justify your own.

In the latest interview Fr D’Arcy states that half of his own congregation are in second marriages or relationships.

What does that say about their pastor, Father “Whatever you choose is the right choice” D’Arcy?

Having faced censure from the Vatican once before for his views, Fr D’Arcy speaks about risking his vocation. “I could get the second yellow card and be silenced forever,” he said.

Red card, Your Holiness!  Let’s go straight for that one.  To put it in other-than-soccer terminology, eject him from the game!

The interview also airs Fr D’Arcy’s opinions on the way women are treated in the Catholic Church, his experience of being stalked by a female admirer and of threats made to his life.

Oh, boo-hoo!  Sorry!  I have little sympathy for your hardships.  Now, your immortal soul?  I’m really sympathetic, because, from outward appearances, it’s looking mighty dicey.  Children are dying, but please tell me about your stalkers and threats to your life. 



Friendly Atheist Thinks Catholic Parents are Wrong. #ShockedNotShocked

See my shocked face?  That’s right, I don’t have one.

Methinks I’m looking a bit prophetic to some, right now.  I’ve had many email exchanges over the past couple days on the Diocese of Nashville debacle found here:  https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2016/09/03/can-i-be-blunt/.  In the course of those exchanges, I pointed to what was coming next.  How did I know?  Because this is the same tactic that liberals take every single time.  Here’s what I said to one reader:

My guess is they are about to paint them all as naive people who live in the bunker and don’t have a real view of what kids are up against these days.

Not so surprisingly, it only took until Monday: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2016/09/05/a-nashville-catholic-school-is-under-fire-for-teaching-basic-facts-about-sex-and-birth-control/

A Nashville Catholic School is Under Fire for Teaching Basic Facts About Sex and Birth Control

September 5, 2016 by Hemant Mehta

Wrong!  Let’s take a few minutes to explain to the folks at “The Friendly Atheist” a little about “the real world” shall we?  First, it isn’t “basic facts” about sex education.  Next, parents want to opt their kids out, which is their canonical right.  The parents asked for changes, didn’t get them, asked to opt out and were denied.  The school didn’t leave them much choice.  I’m the one who’s asking for this to be banished from the Catholic planet and to heck with opting out.

If I told you a Catholic high school in Nashville, Tennessee had a controversy involving basic sex education, you might brace for the worst. But Father Ryan High School is actually doing something downright sensible.

Nope, I’d say that you are an idiot who is not Catholic (The Friendly Atheist was a giveaway), that you probably have no teens, and that you have no adult children.  Yep, the dude has reached the ripe old age of 33.  Yeah, he’s obviously an expert in the area of raising teens with a healthy view of sex and marriage and in the Catholic context.  By all means, feel free to comment, Mr. Mehta.

As part of a theology course that freshmen and sophomores are required to take, the curriculum includes a discussion about basic human anatomy, how it all operates when it comes to sex, and how birth control works.

Sorry, Hemant.  Basic human anatomy is basic.  This went far beyond basic and, interestingly enough, spent a whole lot of time on how to “get the job done” rather than the results of getting the job done.  Also, if you bothered to read through it, and you are familiar with the various methods of birth-control, you’d find that the information presented was quite inadequate.  Oh, and how about the various STDs?  Don’t you think, as long as you’re providing them with “basic” information, that you provide them with the “basic” facts about those, considering that their very lives are at stake?

But I digress.  You’re missing the bigger picture, which is that parents don’t think this is the school’s place.  It is their job to teach their kids this subject in a far more appropriate setting.

That’s not to say they’re encouraging pre-marital sex or the use of birth control in any circumstance, but when you’re teaching kids about a faith that condemns contraception and has strong stances on sex outside of marriage, the students better know damn well what those controversies are all about.

Said by the naive atheist.  This is a “Don’t do it but when you do…” type of course.  That’s exactly what they’re going to get too – a whole lot of teens trying to have sex without consequences.  

So here’s what they’re teaching, according to parents who are very unhappy with the decision:

Students are taught that the male and female “mature genitalia will react to sexual stimulus in a similar way.

They are shown a picture of a spread-eagle vagina with names for every part. The picture is shown again in a test question where children have to label all the parts.

At one point the sex-ed states: “Like the scrotum, the outer lips swell slightly with stimulation; in their stimulated state they pull back and expose the Inner Lips.”

Students are taught about “erotic nerve endings” on both the male and female reproductive organs that react with “sexual stimulus.” They learn about an “aroused” clitoris and average penis lengths during erection.

Students learn 10 different forms of contraception, including withdrawal, the condom, the diaphragm, spermicides, the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, birth control implant, depo-provera, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. A test question asks children to name and compare all the different methods as to how they function.

I’m not seeing a problem.

Uh, that might be because you do not have teens or single adult children, Hemant. Do you know what a teen thinks about when you are telling them which parts of the body get stimulated and what happens when they get stimulated?  Might it be the parts of the body that get stimulated and what happens when they do?  Get a clue.

When are these kids expected to learn this material, if not in high school? This is basic, factual material. The only people who shouldn’t be able to handle this are those who can’t say the word “clitoris” without  giggling.

Let me just ask you a couple of things.  First, why do you think they need to learn this in high school?  We all agree that the Church’s teaching is no sex before marriage (although you have also seriously missed the teachings on chastity, purity, etc.).  If that is the case, why do you want them to take a class to help them visualize it so vividly? 

Now , before you throw out “She’s a prude, too!” I’ll just stop you right there.  I know the info that they are presenting to the students. In fact, I know far more than the info presented.  How do I know this?  Try I’M MARRIED AND I HAVE A BUNCH OF KIDS.  I know exactly how birth control works.  I know exactly how babies are made.  I know how men and women react to stimuli.  And guess what?  I didn’t take this course, Hemant!  How did I ever do acquire such information without Fr. Ryan’s Human Sexuality course???

Next, do you think teens don’t know how their bodies react to stimuli? Please.  Did you need to take a course to figure that out, Hemant? 

Still, again, you miss the parents’ point, which is they believe THEY should teach their teen kids about sex, reproduction, birth control, marriage, health  (there’s something not covered at all), and their bodies in general, and not in a co-ed classroom setting of 30?  I mean, I would at least think you could agree that is the best idea.  What’s your beef with that?  Are these teachers somehow magically more prepared than a parent could be?  You know, someone who was a teen, has teens, is married, is having sex in the context of a Catholic marriage, etc.?

Quite frankly, I would submit to you, Hemant, that the parents who think they should pawn this job off to anyone but themselves are the immature parents, hiding in the bunker, who are somehow so completely and utterly embarrassed about the topic that they can’t even discuss it with the people who should be their top priority in life.  Think about it.  You are passing judgment on the real grown-ups of this story. 

That group apparently includes a lot of parents, who are calling this material “salacious” and demanding that the Diocese of Nashville stop making this a required course.

“We feel like the sex-ed curriculum basically amounts to a ‘wink and a nod’ to student sexual activity, especially when the curriculum gives them an exhaustive contraception list and tests the students to make sure they know how all of them function,” one parent said.

“There are so many aspects of the school that we love, but they shouldn’t teach this to our kids. It’s the parents’ right to teach their kids about such sensitive matters. We don’t want our kids seeing images of penises and vaginas. This will only corrupt them. We want the program gone,” states the group of parents.

Just wait till these parents hear about the internet. Minds will be blown…

Grow up, Hemant.  Most of those parents were the first Facebook users and some are bloggers.  They’re only about 5 to 10 year older than you.  They’re hardly using a cane.  In short, they are the internet generation.  Yet they have one thing you seriously lack – experience.

Are you for showing them “50 Shades of Grey” too, Hemant?  Should we present it to them just because “it’s out there?”  How about some hardcore porn too why we’re at it?

Here’s an idea for you.  How about parents present a lesson on sex and marriage that teaches them about the beauty of it?  Maybe a lesson that portrays the Church’s message about it?  What an idea!

They also explain what the curriculum is lacking:

At no point in the entire sex-ed supplement does the word “sin” appear nor are there condemnations of the grave sexual sins of masturbation, fornication, and other sins against the virtues of chastity and modesty. Abstinence is given a passing glance and children are directed to external resources for more information on the practice.

Students are not taught how willed sexual sins cut off the life of God’s grace in the soul and jeopardizes one’s eternal salvation.


All of those are value judgments — and the Church agrees with them — but the purpose of this material in the theology course is to give students the facts before they begin talking about the Catholic faith’s stance on everything.

It’s meaningless to have a discussion about why masturbation is bad and chastity is good when the students don’t even have a working knowledge about how their own bodies work.

Oh, this is rich.  Why, Hermant?  Because people taking this class don’t know what masturbation is without it?  That kind of proves their point.  You, apparently, think that people are clueless if they don’t take this class.  Guess again. Again, bring on the porn.  The kids should know darn well everything before we discuss the “Catholic faith’s stance.” (Insert rolling eyes.)  I mean, really, do you really think that you need to know the ins and outs of arousing someone before you can talk about chastity?  Please.

Besides that, there isn’t a parent complaining about this course that doesn’t want their children to know how they’re bodies work.  As I’ve said before, they’re the parents who are willing to do the “heavy lifting” to teach their own kids in a manner they deem appropriate and at the time they deem appropriate.  Don’t think they could possibly have a clue to when that is because they are not credentialed teachers?  Can I point out that they are 1) Catholics 2) married 3) have teens, so they have apparently had sex at least once 4) love their kids enough to gain the knowledge to teach them via one of the fabulous programs already on the books, 5) etc., etc., etc.  You, Hemant, were a high school math teacher.  How is it again you are an expert in the field? 

It’s the same reason that, in my high school health class, we learned about different kinds of drugs and what they did to our bodies. It didn’t make me want to run out and try them. The point was that we couldn’t reasonably talk about, for example, whether marijuana should be legalized without understanding its effects on our bodies and minds.

And?  Nobody is debating that.  These parents want their kids to know how their bodies work at the appropriate times, by the appropriate means, and by the appropriate manner and appropriate to the child. 

I do love your drug class analogy though.  I’m sure you didn’t mean to but you made the point again for me.  Let me ask you, Hemant.  Were you taught how to tap the vein so you could shoot heroin more efficiently?  We you taught that you could shoot it between your toes so your tracks wouldn’t be obvious?  Were you taught how to avoid an overdose?  If you’d like to use that analogy, you might want to understand that’s basically what this class does for sex.  Did you really need to know how to shoot crystal meth or did you need to know the outcome of doing so?

If these Catholic parents really want their kids to learn Catholic values, they should realize that keeping them in a bubble is the worst possible way to do it. If anything, exposing them to the facts should make it easier to indoctrinate them.

Thanks for telling me how I should parent with your vast knowledge of parenting.  Thanks also for presuming something about which you clearly know nothing.  We don’t live in a bubble and I’m pretty sure the parents at Fr. Ryan don’t either – well,  maybe the ones who cannot foresee a negative outcome of a course in front of them.

The Diocese, to its credit, isn’t budging. If the parents don’t want their kids to take the course, the only option right now is to leave the school.

Parents don’t always know what’s best for their kids. This is perfect example of it.

Catholic parents who truly care about their kids and the Faith study up, Hemant.  I guarantee I have more knowledge about the body, the reproductive system, having children, STDs, abortion, birth control, health, the teachings of the Church, teaching sex education, helping teens to remain chaste, etc., than you will ever have.  In fact, my single, adult children likely know more than  you in most of these areas.  I’m reasonably sure that the parents fighting this program also likely know about raising teens just a tad bit better than you.  When we want to know how to be a good atheist, we’ll come to you.  Until then, shove off.

What’s next in the liberal tackle box?  We’ll probably be hearing about how devout Catholics hate sex. 

P.S.  If you haven’t done so already, please sign and share. https://www.lifesitenews.com/petitions/petition-to-nashville-diocese


My Letter on the Nashville Debacle

Your Excellency and staff of Fr. Ryan High School,

Just so you understand, I have been working in the pro-life world since I was 16.  This is not the course (and I have reviewed many) that will teach these kids how to revere the beauty of sex in the context of Catholic teaching.  This is indeed a “how to” course, and if you don’t think it is, you really have no business working with teens.  Sadly, Planned Parenthood supplies educators with much of the same material as shown.

Clearly there was some missing curriculum from the Life Site News article, and I attested to that.  That said, what was shown was enough.  More context was not necessary to know this course is a near occasion of sin.  And, really, you couldn’t pick a book that didn’t point to the notorious Fr. Richard Rohr?  His fan club alone should have led you to know that you were on the wrong path.

I think Fr. Ryan High School has completely disregarded this http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_08121995_human-sexuality_en.html and has missed a fabulous opportunity to aid the parents instead of usurping their authority.

I highly recommend replacing this scandalous course with the materials from either Pam Stenzel (pamstenzel.com) or Jason and Crystalina Evert programs found here: http://chastityproject.com/seminars/endorsements/jason-crystalina-evert/  These speakers have successfully guided many teens to chaste lives and a healthy view of sexuality.

Just so you understand, I intend to help the parents of Fr. Ryan High School until their canonical rights are restored to them.  After that, I will likely keep reporting until the material and book presented are removed.

Sincerely sorrowful,

One Mad Mom

Can I Be Blunt?

The title was rhetorical.  So, yeah, I’m going to be blunt and I’m going to do it to help protect the children.  If you’re easily offended, you might not like me reiterating the crud found in this one.  Look at the link and don’t read because this one’s going to fall under the category of “You should be mad as hell and not take it anymore!”

No!  No!  No! And nohttps://www.lifesitenews.com/news/u.s.-diocese-backs-school-will-not-let-parents-opt-kids-out-of-salacious-se

Let me be clear, I don’t just want the parents to be able to opt their kids out of this class, I want it to be completely abolished, as in wiped off the face of Catholicism.  If parents throw up their hands and say, “Well, what are we to do?”, you are partly to blame.  I expect parents to attend every single meeting on this one, and I, quite frankly, wouldn’t mind seeing you parents from the Diocese of Nashville also out there picketing the schools, the chancery office, etc., until Bishop Choby gets the message about what’s going on under his nose. Millstones should also be passed out to all employees involved with this debacle.

Parents, I don’t want to hear any whining.  I don’t want to hear about how your kids will be ostracized.  I don’t want to hear how you will be removed from the position of such and such for your local church.  I don’t want to hear you don’t have time.  If that rolled off your tongue, just grab your own millstone and head for the nearest body of water.  I want to hear battle cries on behalf of your children and grandchildren.  This is the immortal soul of your children, for goodness sake!  If you aren’t standing shoulder to shoulder with the parents who brought this to our attention, you are part of the problem.!  Sadly your children and grandchildren are going to pay for your weakness.

U.S. diocese backs Catholic school: won’t let parents opt kids out of ‘salacious’ sex-ed

 Catholic , David Choby , Nashville Diocese , Parental Rights , Sex Education

NASHVILLE, Tennessee, August 31, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) — The Catholic Diocese of Nashville is backing the administration of a private Catholic school in refusing to allow parents to opt their children out of an explicit sexual education program that parents say will corrupt their children by providing them with erotic and even salacious detail. Parents opposing the course say their hearts are broken since they feel betrayed by those in whom they had placed the trust of educating their children.

Their hearts are more than broken.  If Bishop Choby allows this to stand, their parental rights are being trod upon.  It might be nice if those involved with this mess actually gave the Church documents at least a passing glance.  Why don’t we start with Gravissimum Educationis:

3. The Authors of Education

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators.(11) This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered. Hence the family is the first school of the social virtues that every society needs. It is particularly in the Christian family, enriched by the grace and office of the sacrament of matrimony, that children should be taught from their early years to have a knowledge of God according to the faith received in Baptism, to worship Him, and to love their neighbor. Here, too, they find their first experience of a wholesome human society and of the Church. Finally, it is through the family that they are gradually led to a companionship with their fellowmen and with the people of God. Let parents, then, recognize the inestimable importance a truly Christian family has for the life and progress of God’s own people.(12)

The family which has the primary duty of imparting education needs help of the whole community. In addition, therefore, to the rights of parents and others to whom the parents entrust a share in the work of education, certain rights and duties belong indeed to civil society, whose role is to direct what is required for the common temporal good. Its function is to promote the education of youth in many ways, namely: to protect the duties and rights of parents and others who share in education and to give them aid; according to the principle of subsidiarity, when the endeavors of parents and other societies are lacking, to carry out the work of education in accordance with the wishes of the parents; and, moreover, as the common good demands, to build schools and institutions.(13)

Finally, in a special way, the duty of educating belongs to the Church, not merely because she must be recognized as a human society capable of educating, but especially because she has the responsibility of announcing the way of salvation to all men, of communicating the life of Christ to those who believe, and, in her unfailing solicitude, of assisting men to be able to come to the fullness of this life.(14) The Church is bound as a mother to give to these children of hers an education by which their whole life can be imbued with the spirit of Christ and at the same time do all she can to promote for all peoples the complete perfection of the human person, the good of earthly society and the building of a world that is more human.(15) http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html 

Gaudium et Spes has more:

52. The family is a kind of school of deeper humanity. But if it is to achieve the full flowering of its life and mission, it needs the kindly communion of minds and the joint deliberation of spouses, as well as the painstaking cooperation of parents in the education of their children. The active presence of the father is highly beneficial to their formation. The children, especially the younger among them, need the care of their mother at home. This domestic role of hers must be safely preserved, though the legitimate social progress of women should not be underrated on that account. Children should be so educated that as adults they can follow their vocation, including a religious one, with a mature sense of responsibility and can choose their state of life; if they marry, they can thereby establish their family in favorable moral, social and economic conditions. Parents or guardians should by prudent advice provide guidance to their young with respect to founding a family, and the young ought to listen gladly. At the same time no pressure, direct or indirect, should be put on the young to make them enter marriage or choose a specific partner. Thus the family, in which the various generations come together and help one another grow wiser and harmonize personal rights with the other requirements of social life, is the foundation of society. All those, therefore, who exercise influence over communities and social groups should work efficiently for the welfare of marriage and the family. Public authority should regard it as a sacred duty to recognize, protect and promote their authentic nature, to shield public morality and to favor the prosperity of home life. The right of parents to beget and educate their children in the bosom of the family must be safeguarded. Children, too, who unhappily lack the blessing of a family should be protected by prudent legislation and various undertakings and assisted by the help they need. http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM:

227. Parents receive in the sacrament of Matrimony “the grace and the ministry of the Christian education of their children,” to whom they transmit and bear witness to human and religious values. This educational activity which is both human and religious is “a true ministry,” through which the Gospel is transmitted and radiated so that family life is transformed into a journey of faith and the school of Christian life. As the children grow, exchange of faith becomes mutual and “in a catechetical dialogue of this sort, each individual both receives and gives.” It is for this reason that the Christian community must give very special attention to parents. By means of personal contact, meetings, courses and also adult catechesis directed toward parents, the Christian community must help them assume their responsibility-which is particularly delicate today-of educating their children in the faith. This is especially pressing in those areas where civil legislation does not permit or makes difficult freedom of education in the faith. In this case “the domestic Church” is virtually the only environment in which children and young people can receive authentic catechesis.  

255. Parents are the primary educators in the faith. Together with them, especially in certain cultures, all members of the family play an active part in the education of the younger members. It is thus necessary to determine more concretely the sense in which the Christian family community is a locus of catechesis. The family is defined as a “domestic Church,” that is, in every Christian family the different aspects and functions of the life of the entire Church may be reflected: mission; catechesis; witness; prayer etc. Indeed in the same way as the Church, the family “is a place in which the Gospel is transmitted and from which it extends.” The family as a locus of catechesis has an unique privilege: transmitting the Gospel by rooting it in the context of profound human values. On this human base, Christian initiation is more profound: the awakening of the sense of God; the first steps in prayer; education of the moral conscience; formation in the Christian sense of human love, understood as a reflection of the love of God the Father, the Creator. It is, indeed, a Christian education more witnessed to than taught, more occasional than systematic, more on-going and daily than structured into periods. In this family catechesis, the role of grandparents is of growing importance. Their wisdom and sense of the religious is often times decisive in creating a true Christian climate. 

Familiaris Consortio:

36. Hence, parents must be acknowledged as the first and foremost educators of their children. Their role as educators is so decisive that scarcely anything can compensate for their failure in it. The right and duty of parents to give education is essential …  http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html

And a little more from the Catechism


  1. The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children. In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.

  2. In our own time, in a world often alien and even hostile to faith, believing families are of primary importance as centers of living, radiant faith. For this reason the Second Vatican Council, using an ancient expression, calls the family the Ecclesia domestica. It is in the bosom of the family that parents are “by word and example …the first heralds of the faith with regard to their children.”

  3. The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. “The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.” The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable.

  4. Parents have the first responsibility for the education of their children. They bear witness to this responsibility first by creating a home where tenderness, forgiveness, respect, fidelity, and disinterested service are the rule. The home is well suited for education in the virtues. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM 

So get it right, Diocese of Nashville.  You are tramping all over the rights of the parents given by God.  Please, do us all a favor and go crawl back into your liberal holes and retire.  I hope whoever started this offense against Catholic morality and the family comes to a quick reckoning.

“We don’t want the Catholic school to corrupt our kids,” said Susan Skinner whose child attends Father Ryan High School in Nashville, TN and who represents a group of concerned parents. “Why can’t Catholic schools simply be Catholic?” she added.

THANK YOU, SUSAN SKINNER!  I hope and I pray that more parents take their jobs as seriously as you.  I’m sure you are bearing a big cross right now, but your reward will be great in Heaven!

School administration told parents earlier this year that students cannot be opted out from the course, suggesting that when parents send their children to school they hand over their right and duty as primary educator. 

The @#!@#$!@$# they do!  Would you mind pointing that out in Church documents, school administration?!?!?!?!

When LifeSiteNews contacted the diocese for comment on the matter, Director of Communications Rick Musacchio backed the school, stating that the course was “appropriate and necessary” and that “it is our policy that all students participate fully in all required classes.”

Appropriate and necessary in what way?!?!?!  In the kind of way that encourages STDs to all and supplies Planned Parenthood with more fetal body parts to sell?!?!?!?!  Explain yourself, Mr. Musacchio!

LifeSiteNews then reached out directly to Nashville Bishop David Choby, who is considered to be a traditional-minded bishop, to ask if Musacchio accurately represented his position. The bishop’s secretary Elizabeth Clay said the bishop was on vacation and assured LifeSiteNews that Musacchio represented the bishop and that it “is his position” that parents are not allowed to opt their children out of the sex-ed course. 

I pray this is not true and that someone just pulled a fast one on Bishop Choby.  Quite frankly, I wouldn’t put it past a liberal to do so, and it’s not like I haven’t seen it done to many good bishops before.  I certainly hope that the bishop will haul in the behinds of all responsible and give them a good Catholic education.

Well-known Catholic apologist, author, and commentator Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Ph.D., S.T.D., told LifeSiteNews that Catholic parents do not surrender their rights over their children when they send them to school.

“Parents never relinquish their rights over their children anywhere, not even in a state school where parents are able to withdraw their kids from a course or a presentation if they don’t like it,” he said.

The Catholic Church holds that it is the parents’ primary right and duty to educate their children while schools play only a subsidiary role. Pope Pius XI emphasized this point in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge in which he urged parents living under the Nazi regime in Germany to never surrender their moral duty to instruct their children.

Not only do they not surrender their rights, but they do not surrender their duty and responsibility to their children.  For those that do, good luck with that.

I’d like to stop and say right here that I do not think sex education is a bad thing when done in the context of the home.  Human reproduction is a beautiful thing, but when you do it in the off-handed way they’re doing it here, it reduces it to simple bodily function.  And, my goodness, this really is nothing but a guide in how to arouse someone or what birth control works best.  Yep, top-notch sexual education there, boy howdy.  Both my husband and I can do this in a way that is less vulgar and more beautiful than this piece of slop.

 “Parents…have a primary right to the education of the children God has given them in the spirit of their Faith, and according to its prescriptions. Laws and measures which in school fail to respect this freedom of the parents go against natural law and are immoral,” the pope wrote.

Pope Saint John Paul II affirmed parental rights in the 1995 document “The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality” put out by the Pontifical Council for the Family, stating that schools are “bound” to respect parents when it comes to sex-ed in school. 

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 centres 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,” the pope stated. 

Darn it, I missed these quotes.  Oh, well, cut me some slack. The “educators” in the Diocese of Nashville missed every last one.

Commenting on the above passage, canon law expert Fr. Gerald Murray told LifeSiteNews that “any sex education program that is not in accord with the convictions of a child’s parents cannot be made mandatory without violating ‘the right and duty’ of the parents to control what their children are taught in this delicate and sensitive matter.”

“The school must cooperate with the parents. When the school encounters parents who object to the chosen program, the school must offer an alternative which would include releasing the student from attending that program so that the parents can provide an alternative that respects their convictions,” he said. 

Sorry, father.  This whole program should be shot and put out of its misery but the bare minimum should be an alternative..  There’s a bunch of other solidly Catholic programs out there.  This one is garbage.  How about the diocese invest in those and give one to each family?  Some of us have managed to scare them up ourselves.

Even local public schools allow parents to opt their kids out of objectionable course material. Tennessee state law (Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-6-1301 et seq.) requires public schools to notify parents in advance of sex-ed programs and to obtain written consent for a student to participate in or opt-out of the program. 

This is how it is even in California!!!  Does the Diocese of Nashville realize it’s now WORSE than the California public education system with regards to parental rights?  Uh, hello!!!  Who in the heck wants that distinction?

In 1931, the Holy Office following the lead of Pope Pius XI decreed that Catholic institutions must reject classroom sex education, stating that “no approbation whatever can be given to the advocacy of the new method [of sex-ed] even as taken up recently by some Catholic authors and set before the public in printed publications.” In 1951, Pope Pius XII reiterated this teaching, warning that the “problems” of sexual education must not be “pushed aside.”

Look, we all don’t live on farms anymore, so everyday examples in nature are not as common. I get it.  I appreciate a good sex education program.  I do not mind my children learning age appropriate material (and that’s different for each child).  I also like supportive programs such as great chastity and virtue talks that are just fine for a school/group setting.  What I don’t want is anyone teaching sex and love to my children but me (or, for my boys, my husband).  Is it my favorite thing to do?  Nope, but parents need to put their big kid pants on and deal with it like the mature guides they’re supposed to be.  Parenting is not nor has it ever been about being comfortable .  Why would we ever think a teacher could do this better than we could? 

Father Ryan High School’s ‘Human Sexuality’ course

The “Human Sexuality” course taught as part of the Father Ryan High School’s Theology I and II course offers graphic images and erotic sexual details concerning male and female body parts. Some of the problems in the course include [WARNING: Explicit content.]:

Students are taught that the male and female “mature genitalia will react to sexual stimulus in a similar way.”

They are shown a picture of a spread-eagle vagina with names for every part. The picture is shown again in a test question where children have to label all the parts.

Oh yeah, this is should be done in a school setting with teens (even co-ed) and by a teacher rather than a parent who raised them.  Even better?  Yeah, let’s test them on it, too.  Please.  (Sarcasm mode off)  I don’t know how I ever made it through life without being tested. I mean, how did I ever get these kids, much less have a healthy relationship with my husband?  Miracles never cease.  (OK, sarcasm mode wasn’t completely off.)

At one point the sex-ed states: “Like the scrotum, the outer lips swell slightly with stimulation; in their stimulated state they pull back and expose the Inner Lips.”

Students are taught the pleasure points of both the male and female reproductive organs, learning about “erotic nerve endings” that react to “sexual stimulus.”

They learn about an “aroused” clitoris and average penis lengths during erection.

Because, well, you know, if you don’t know all of this in high school, how will you ever get along in life?  Yes, let’s have the teens study and contemplate this.  Ought to help at the prom.  Sigh.

At one point, the sex-ed states that the word “testes” is derived from the practice of two men swearing an oath while holding each other’s testicles.

Oh, come on.  I’m all for etymology, but doesn’t it seem like a 12-year-old boy wrote this? I mean, did they go over the etymology for all of the body parts, or just the ones that bring to mind homosexual behavior?

Students learn 10 different forms of contraception, including withdrawal, the condom, the diaphragm, spermicides, the birth control pill, the intrauterine device, birth control implant, depo-provera, tubal ligation, and vasectomy. A test question asks children to name and compare all the different methods as to how they function.

To be fair, the link given by Lifesite News skips some pages. That said, based on   statements provided in the part we saw like, “The pill can increase a woman’s chance of contracting a sexually transmitted disease (STD)”, I seriously doubt that the program went over the horrors of the more than 30 STDs that can be contracted and their horrible outcomes (most occurring to women and their children) resulting from contracting these.  I will also say that the descriptions of the forms of birth control and their possible hazards were very lacking and inaccurate.  By the way, how, exactly, do you think teens are going to use the information provided?  Hmmm?  Did the faculty ever stop to think that maybe they might use it to pick the most effective one against pregnancy?  Pregnancy, however, is not a disease.

At no point in the entire sex-ed supplement does the word “sin” appear, nor are there condemnations of the grave sexual sins of masturbation, fornication, and other sins against the virtues of chastity and modesty. Abstinence is given a passing glance and children are directed to external resources for more information on the practice.

Students are not taught how willed sexual sins cut off the life of God’s grace in the soul and jeopardizes one’s eternal salvation.

So, in other words, not only is it lacking in portraying the physical dangers of sex outside of marriage, it also skips the spiritual and moral risks.  Bravo, Diocese of Nashville.  Bravo.  Like I said, some people have engraved millstones waiting for them.

Former Texas abortion clinic owner Carol Everett has gone on record to state that the push for detailed sex-ed has its roots in the abortion business more than forty years ago where a “market for abortions” was created by getting kids interested and hooked on sex through explicit sex-education. Explicit sex-ed continues to be developed and pushed on teens by abortion giant Planned Parenthood. 

Exactly! I have researched many of the programs put into the public schools.  This one rivals those devastating programs.

Fr. Stravinskas reviewed some of the more graphic details of the curriculum, calling it “salacious.” He wondered why such details were included in a class devoted to theology. 

To those liberals reading right now and whining about the Church not liking science or sex, grow up.  You’ve just never bothered to read things like “Theology of the Body”, nor have you engaged in a natural family planning course.  The Church, as it’s always been, is on the cutting edge of science.

As part of the course, students are also given the book Growing toward Intimacy by Bob Bartlett. The book is published by Good Ground Press run by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet in St. Paul, MN, a liberal religious order that has links on its website to pro-abortion and pro-homosexual organizations, such as Equality Now and the Matthew Shepard Foundation.

Bartlett’s book quotes often from Richard Rohr, a Franciscan priest and theologian who is deeply involved in the New Age, whose retreats involve men getting naked and leaping over fires, and who openly dissents from Church teaching on contraception, the ordination of women, and homosexuality.

A chapter of Bartlett’s book titled “Learning to Touch in America” quotes the pro-homosexual priest Rohr who states: “We seem to like or even need to be touched, to be reminded that we are alive or that we matter to one another.” Pro-family advocates have warned parents that breaking down a young person’s natural inhibition to being touched by strangers is a common grooming technique employed by sexual predators.

In Growing toward Intimacy, students also read about a counseling session for a married couple where they read that the average couple engages in 2-3 hours of sex a week. They are taught to debunk “sexual myths” involving erection, lovemaking, sexual activity, pregnancy, orgasm, climax, and masturbation. At one point students read a story about teens joking about “orgasm” and not knowing what it means. When in the story one friend admits that he does not know what the word means, another friend tells him, “Go look it up,” suggesting to the students that they can go online to look up sexual words that they are curious about. In other places, students read stories about men visiting prostitutes and teens engaging in sexual activity. The book also contains pictures of teens kissing.

Wow!  Sounds just like what I want my kids reading. Grrr…! I can’t find anything on this book. No ratings anywhere.  I did find the chapter titles so here they are for you to peruse.  They were obnoxious enough: http://www.goodgroundpress.com/files/goodground/files/books/GrowingTowardIntimacyTOC.pdf


 1 Sex Is Not Just a Biological Need

 2 The Sexual Revolution: Who Won?

 3 An Intimate Faith, an Intimate God

 4 Two Myths About Sexuality

 5 Intimacy With Our Bodies and Ourselves

 6 The Wonder and Power of Touch

 7 Bonding

 8 Learning to Touch in America

 9 Intimacy

10 Unhealthy Patterns of Intimacy

11 Using People Hurts

12 Integrated Intimacy

13 Aphrodisiacs, Drugs, and Sex

14 But If We Really Love Each Other

15 People Who Care

My first thought is that it sounds like a “how to” book. (Actually, that’s my thought on the whole program!)   I usually avoid books published by the Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet (I actually know some of them), and I really avoid anything by Richard Rohr.  HUGE red flags!  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Rohr.  I know, Wikipedia.  That said, the footnotes are from many solid publications.  Just the quickest thing I could find with a litany of his stupidity.

Honestly, I can’t understand it.  There are so many good programs to choose from and they settle on this rubbish.

LifeSiteNews emailed Bishop Choby’s spokesperson Rick Musacchio the above details of the sex-ed that parents find problematic, asking him if the diocese still stands behind its original statement about refusing to allow parents to opt out of the sex-ed. Musacchio doubled-down on the original comment, calling the above presentation “inaccurate in subtle but important ways,” adding that the curriculum is “taught in a manner that reflects the beauty and dignity of the human person, the role of man and woman in God’s plan for married life, and the proper role of natural family planning, all in full conformity with Church teaching.”

One has to wonder if Rick saw what we saw.  The dignity of the human person is more than “Here are the parts of the body.  Here is how they are stimulated.  Here’s what happens when they are stimulated.  This protects from some STDs and these don’t.  And here is a list of birth control.”  Talk about separating the procreative and the unitive.  And, again, why would I want you to explain this to my children?!?!

‘Fighting a Goliath’

Concerned parents say they are dumbfounded at the resistance they have encountered at all levels in the exercise of their rights and duties as primary educator.

Skinner told LifeSiteNews that when parents first addressed their concerns to school administration, they were told that the school is “proud” of its curriculum and that the administration did not share the concerns raised. Parents were told that the sex-ed was “necessary” for students. They were told on various occasions that opting their children out was not an option. When parents approached Bishop Choby, a 1965 graduate of the school, with their concerns, they were unable to secure a meeting with him. 

Yeah, this is no bueno all the way around.  I don’t think we can really hang this on Bishop Choby at this point, and, hopefully, this LifesiteNews article will be the first spotlight on the people who I suspect are probably worried about attention on this.  If I were them, I’d also be worried about their jobs, because you do not want to tangle with the moms.  What were they calling us a few years back?  Grizzly moms?  I’m sorry, you just don’t get to tell some of us what your plans for our child when we disagree, and you certainly don’t tell us our rights as Catholic parents are usurped by your authority.  You shouldn’t say that anywhere, but I’m also just going to go ahead and say that you REALLY don’t do that in the south.

“We feel that we are fighting a Goliath. Everywhere we go, we’ve been roadblocked. Nobody is taking our concerns for our children’s spiritual well-being seriously. And the competent authorities seem to have no problem in overriding our rights and duties as parents,” Skinner said.

My money is on the Skinners and their friends.  Like I said, the worst thing you can do is to tick off a faithful, Catholic mother.

Parents at first asked the school to simply delete the problematic content. When the school went on to revise the curriculum (for instance, deleting the price list for contraception and changing a few of the pictures) but kept the objectionable content in, parents felt betrayed by the trust they had placed in the school. LifeSiteNews contacted school president James McIntyre and school principal Paul Davis by phone and email for comment, but did not receive a response by press time. 

Wow!  Really don’t want to see the pictures they swapped out.  Full color, maybe?  Oh, and if I were a teen, taking out the price of the contraception would really make me think twice about using it.  Yeah, that would make it all better.  Not!  Scrap it.  You take out the questionable content and you’ve pretty much done that.

“We feel like the sex-ed curriculum basically amounts to a ‘wink and a nod’ to student sexual activity, especially when the curriculum gives them an exhaustive contraception list and tests the students to make sure they know how all of them function,” Skinner said.

Yes, it does amount to that. She nailed it.  For heaven’s sake, people!  When in the heck are you going to stop the “We know you’re going to do it, so here’s how to not get caught!” Guess what?  The second they cross over that line, there will be consequences.  Spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences will occur the second they go there, no matter what you teach them.  Heck, you can even teach them that, and they might still blow it.  That said, you teach them anything to the contrary, and you are teaching them that they might just be able to get away with sin having no consequences.  Good luck with that.  If there are parents who are backing this program, you’re just complete jerks who probably haven’t taken responsibility for your own sins, or you’re just complete wimps and are more worried about what people think rather than the salvation of your own children.

“The culture at Father Ryan’s shouldn’t be the same as the anti-culture outside its doors. You can’t make saints unless you set the bar high, but when it comes to sexual morality, suddenly there is no bar,” she added. 

I like this lady. She should start a blog!

Parents are now asking that the entire sex-ed course be scrapped. They say they would prefer a program that teaches chastity, self-mastery, and abstinence — all from an authentically Catholic perspective — such as the program YOU: Life, Love, and the Theology of the Body developed by best-selling Catholic authors Jason and Crystalina Evert.

Psh.  That’s just a little too logical.  Teach self-mastery, chastity, and abstinence?!  In a Catholic school?  Who would think of that?  (Yes, heavy dose of snark toward whoever started this ridiculous plan.)

“There are so many aspects of the school that we love, but they shouldn’t teach this to our kids. It’s the parents’ right to teach their kids about such sensitive matters. We don’t want our kids seeing images of penises and vaginas. This will only corrupt them. We want the program gone,” states the group of parents.

Susan Skinner’s husband Jason agrees that the situation is regrettable.

“I have no doubt that the school is trying to do what they think is best for the students, and expect they would say the same of me for my children. I’d like to think our views of theology are similar if not identical. But when it comes to sex education, it appears we have irreconcilable differences of opinion,” he told LifeSiteNews. 

Call me jaded, but you don’t institute this crud if you’re thinking about what is best for the kids.  Sounds like someone has an agenda a mile long.  Again, I have no problem with high schoolers learning about their bodies or how they function, but I don’t agree with teaching them and encouraging them to have sex, which, sorry, is what this program is all about.  I missed the self-mastery part.  Was that in the “The Wonder Power of Touch” or “Touching in America” chapters of Bartlett’s book?

People! Did you have this education when you were in high school?  Think about it. If you did, did it help you to lead a chaste life and love the beauty of sexuality?  I was taught how to put a condom on a banana in my Catholic high school.  Yeah, that was oh so helpful for me in self-mastery, chastity, and abstinence, not to mention intimacy in marriage.  I always felt sorry my parents spent such a pretty penny for that message.  Sigh.

Now, if you parents taught you zip, don’t you think that maybe it would be a tad bit healthier to answer all the questions you had in the context of morality with your children?  Do you really think that should be left up to someone who would likely not be willing to give your kid a kidney if they needed it?  No way!  You can do this way better!

“The minimum request made of the school was to opt our children out of this material just as public schools in most states are legally required to permit. Regrettably, this minor accommodation was deemed unacceptable. I just don’t understand why the only options available are to violate our conscience or leave the school completely.  What sense does this make for either party? How is this right and just?” he said. 

I’d go as far as to say it’s a violation of Canon Law!  Seriously, you are not at the beck and call of the teachers.  They are at the parents’ beck and call and are to assist them.  They’re not there to rule the roost.  http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P2N.HTM

Can. 793 §1. Parents and those who take their place are bound by the obligation and possess the right of educating their offspring. Catholic parents also have the duty and right of choosing those means and institutions through which they can provide more suitably for the Catholic education of their children, according to local circumstances.

Can. 796 §1. Among the means to foster education, the Christian faithful are to hold schools in esteem; schools are the principal assistance to parents in fulfilling the function of education.

  • 2. Parents must cooperate closely with the teachers of the schools to which they entrust their children to be educated; moreover, teachers in fulfilling their duty are to collaborate very closely with parents, who are to be heard willingly and for whom associations or meetings are to be established and highly esteemed.

I’m pretty sure that the Skinners weren’t heard willingly.  They definitely don’t want your means of educating their children.

Please do the action items below.  If you aren’t heard and do not receive a favorable response, get out of your comfort zone and make your voice heard.  I don’t care if you have to paint some signs, get it done for the kids!

Action item: View the petition asking the Catholic Diocese of Nashville to support parental rights here.


Most Reverend David Choby

Bishop of Nashville

Ph: (615) 783-0761



Father Ryan High School

President James McIntyre 

Ph: (615) 383-4200



Principal Paul Davis


Full response from Diocese of Nashville’s Director of Communications Rick Musacchio to LifeSiteNews’ questions:

LSN: Why does Father Ryan insist on teaching graphic sex ed class when a number of parents object to the material?

Diocese of Nashville: Human sexuality is so fundamentally important to an individual’s identity and relationship with God that it must be taught in light of sound theological foundations. It is not sufficient to present it solely as a biological process. Presenting the material in the context of a moral theology class is most appropriate and necessary.

You should be teaching the procreative and unitive aspects of the marital act.  I must have missed the labeling of body parts in Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or Amoris Laetitia.  I mean, if it’s good enough for the kids…  Heck, I don’t even remember getting that list in marriage preparation, and that would have been in the context of marriage!  Then there was our NFP class.  Funny, I don’t remember it there either, and there was a boatload of information about how the human body works!

Think about it.  We are giving our high school students information we don’t even pass along to our engaged couples.  Doesn’t that seem a tad bit off to you?  Maybe I’m naïve.  Maybe I’m a prude, but despite my lack of not receiving quite as thorough an indoctrination as is being proposed for the teens of the Diocese of Nashville, I had a lot of fun learning about some of the marital embrace with my husband!  Imagine that.  Two naïve kids figured some things out all on their own and were none the worse for it.  Sarcasm aside, I’m reasonably sure that’s the case with many in my generation.  Why is it that we think we must give these kids way too much information when they shouldn’t be acting on it?

Saint John Paul II has given the Church a great gift, stressing the importance of its teachings on the sanctity of life and insisting that young adults be formed in light of these teachings. Those same imperatives are reflected in Pope Francis’ recent exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love). Presenting a clear, accurate explanation of human sexuality in the context of theology class not only helps students understand the nature of their own human identity, but also serves as the basis for an understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage and of natural family planning.

Oh, how I’d love to use something a little stronger than hogwash, but it’ll have to do!  I have children of varying ages, and we didn’t use this lesson plan nor did we farm it out to teachers to teach our kids about sex.  You don’t get a family that values the sanctity of life more than ours, who all pretty much work year round in various aspects of the pro-life movement.  Sorry, there’s a difference between accuracy and an overly graphic (some would suggest pornographic) explanation of human sexuality.  I mean, a little common sense please.  Let’s remember the etymology of testicles.  “Yeah, peeps! It was common for men to hold each other’s’ family jewels.”  Oh, and let’s get those rulers out so we can measure…. Yeah, you get it.  

I’m reasonably sure this isn’t what either pope had in mind! What’s the tip-off? I just went through the materials for all six  units of the Pontificum Consiium pro Familia’s program “The Meeting Point” and there’s nothing even close.  It’s not a “how to” program. Guess what?  For all the flaws it may have (not debating any of that in this post), it actually mentions sin.  The only “sex” lesson I could find in it was the beautiful biology video “The Odyssey of Life” which is a digital animation of sperm reaching egg and fetal development. I’d already seen that one.  Maybe I missed it but missing were the lessons on sexual stimulation.  You’d think if that’s what they wanted to portray, they would have done it, Rick.

It is always good to regularly review materials used in our schools. Father Ryan High School reviewed its materials in light of suggestions that were brought forth by a few parents and made a number of changes in the presentation based on their suggestions.

Not enough, my diocesan spokesperson friend.  Not enough!

LSN: Why will the school not allow the parents to opt their students out the class?

Diocese of Nashville: The full curriculum taught in our schools is developed in keeping with guidelines of the USCCB, under the supervision of our local bishop, and designed to meet recognized academic standards in all subject areas. It is our policy that all students participate fully in all required classes and in any elective classes in which they choose to enroll. Theology classes are an essential element of the curriculum. 

So, you’re not usurping parental authority and making sex ed part of the required curriculum?!?  Again, way to outdo California, Diocese of Nashville.

LSN: Does the school actually hold that parents hand over their right as primary educator when they attend your school?

Diocese of Nashville: Quite to the contrary. Our schools actively engage parents as partners in the education of their children. The schools are always open to address parents questions related to any area of the curriculum and to provide materials to assist families so that they may participate fully in the education and formation of young people. We want parents to understand that the entire curriculum has been developed in conformity with Church teaching and presented by faculty committed to presenting all subject matter in keeping with those standards.

Uh, you most certainly do require parents hand over their rights if you are making sex ed required.  Asking their input and then telling them to take a flying leap is quite contrary to letting them decide what they want to teach their children in the sphere of morality.

When LifeSiteNews presented the diocese with a list of concerning material in the sex-ed course, asking if the diocese still stood by its comment, Director of Communications Rick Musacchio responded:

Diocese of Nashville: Your presentation is inaccurate in subtle but important ways. On the whole, it presents a view of the material covered in the class that is lacking in completeness and accuracy. After careful review of the materials covered in the Theology course at Father Ryan High School, the Human Sexuality curriculum is taught in a manner that reflects the beauty and dignity of the human person, the role of man and woman in God’s plan for married life, and the proper role of natural family planning, all in full conformity with Church teaching.

There’s more?! Please, no!  Can I make a suggestion?  Put your materials completely on-line for all to see.  Let’s do! Then we can ALL judge whether it teaches the subject “in full conformity with Church teaching” and the “dignity and beauty of the human person”, or if it’s just another “You’re going to fail so here’s how not to get caught”, or worse, a “how to” program.


*Parents – If you are looking for good “sex ed” material, go to one of the many Catholic homeschool curriculum sites or Catholic Answers for good resource suggestions.



The Frog Doth Croak Too Much!

I spent a day cleaning up all my old “donotlink” links.  I’m so sad that they shut down because I loved being able to refer to the idiot sites without giving them an extra hit for the hit counter.  This is one such site. http://www.slowlyboiledfrog.com/2016/08/the-comprehension-of-canines-and.html

The comprehension of canines and Archbishop Charles Chaput

On Tuesday we learn about research which concludes that dogs understand what we are saying to them. Dog brains care about both what we say and how we say it. That research was published to a peer reviewed scholarly journal.

Apparently Archbishop Charles Chaput’s cognition works a bit differently. Chaput only seems to understand what he wants to hear. He most certainly does not comprehend the importance of peer review. The Philadelphia archbishop will soon replace Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone as the Church’s point man on suppressing gay rights with regard to marriage. Chaput writes:

Before we go on, I’ve written about Mr. Hart’s view before here.   https://onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/the-slowly-boiled-frog/  There is still no evidence to conclude that he is now, or ever was, a practicing Catholic so I’m not sure why he’s so fixated on the bishops of the Church who follow Church teaching.

Mr. Hart cutely tries to compare Archbishop Chaput’s understanding to dogs’ understandings of language.  That falls a little flat when Mr. Hart shows a bit of confusion. He seems to like peer reviewed, scholarly journals but doesn’t like papers based on peer reviewed, scholarly studies that disagree with him.  Hypocrisy noted.

The goal of my column this week is simple: pointing readers to The New Atlantis, one of the nation’s best journals about science, technology and their intersection with ethics. Earlier this week (August 22), The New Atlantis released an important new overview of nearly 200 peer-reviewed studies from the 1950s to the present on issues of sexuality and gender identity, with findings from the biological, psychological and social sciences.

I’m not really sure why Mr. Hart didn’t link to this scholarly piece of work, which took in the results of many studies, but here you go: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/number-50-fall-2016  It’s loooonnnnngggg but worth the read.  Mr. Hart really doesn’t want you to read it because it will make it much harder to dismiss when you do.

Exactly how Chaput would characterize a pretentious quarterly blog, without peer review as “one of the best” is relegated to that conservative catch-all: God works in mysterious ways. It will remain a mystery because Chaput lives in a protective bubble. No one will challenge him directly and he does not respond to critics. His concern is theology and the catechism. He doesn’t care how many kids get f**** (Censored by Mom because profanity does not an argument make!) up in the process as long as the Church’s teachings are defended. 

Do you have any concrete arguments to the contrary?  Where does the science go wrong?  When was the last time you read 200 peer reviewed papers on anything, Mr. Hart?  What’s your medical, psychological or statistical background again?  Oh yeah, you don’t have any.  You really don’t have a background in ethics, that’s for sure. 

The overview, entitled “Sexuality and Gender,” can be found on line here. (See above because Mr. Hart stripped out and doesn’t want you to see.) While the body of the overview may be data-dense for the average reader, the report’s executive summary, conclusion and prefatory notes to each section are clear, well-written and accessible to any interested adult. And we should be interested, because sexuality and gender identity are now sharply disputed topics with big implications for the health of individuals and our wider culture.

So, I’m still trying to figure out where Hart alleges Chaput to be wrong.  Overview of 200 peer reviewed papers.  Check.  Data dense.  Check.  Footnoted to the hilt?  Check.  In fact, far more noting that Mr. Hart will give, since he failed to even link to the paper.  Hart doesn’t like the outcome of the stats, pure and simple. 

Chaput seems to have taken some pointers from a Baptist creationist. Argue and teach the controversy. In point of fact the science on sexual orientation and gender identity is most certainly not “sharply disputed.”

OK, let me break this paragraph into multiple chunks of fallacy.  Let me just ask this first. What in the @#$%#$%?  Is this guy at all in reality land?  Not sharply disputed?  Where would that be? Because that’s not the view from Planet Earth!

The overwhelming consensus on both is that they are innate with some fluidity.

Um, this is where I think that Mr. Hart shows his cards.  If he had read the study, he would note that’s exactly what the doctors have both stated. 

However, while biological sex is an innate feature of human beings, gender identity is a more elusive concept. (http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/conclusion-sexuality-and-gender

You, Mr. Hart, have just agreed with their findings.  That said, you have “sharply disagreed” with their finding that you can’t say that people are “born that way.” 

 Repackaging good science to contend otherwise does not establish a scientific dispute. But there is a controversy.

Wait, if we’re not “divided sharply” then there would be no controversy, right? I suppose he doesn’t consider all of the guys with fancy letters after their names scientific if they don’t agree with him.

It is between science and religious dogma.

They are not contrary, my friend.  Did you notice that neither Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer nor Dr. Paul R. McHugh are ordained?  How about Johns Hopkins hospital?  Surely that must be a religious institution because they won’t do sex change operations.  Face it.  You may not like it but actual people in the field of medicine, science, and psychology do not agree with you. It’s got to be hard for you when the science agrees with what the Church has said.  Ouch!

 Science is based on research that third parties review, primarily for methodology. Religious dogma, for the most part, is superstition based on ancient texts of dubious origin and provenance. “Studies” that torture science to draw conclusions that conform to religious dogma are just more superstition. There should be no controversy that children are best served by real science. Sadly that is not always the case.

I don’t think that Mr. Hart would know true science if it bit him in the behind.  True scientists take in data from all sorts of sources.  They don’t cherry pick. They look for studies that show good statistical methodology.   Like I said, reasonably sure that he didn’t read the study before he started flapping his gums.  I’d like for him to show where the good doctors ignored science.  Until he’s ready to do so, instead of throwing out conjecture, he should just shut the heck up on the good archbishop who has clearly done his due diligence in reading the study.