The Sodimization
of Innocence
Homo-Church Invades the
Catholic Kindergarten
By Randy Engel
[Editor’s note: Certain sections of Harcourt
Religious Publishers’ Growing In Love
are too explicit to be printed in a Catholic family newspaper. However, any adult
reader of CFN wishing to verify these texts may contact the author using
addresses provided at the conclusion of this article.]
Leave it to the Church’s Lavender Lobby! Just when
the moral stench of the Clinton-Lewinsky affair has begun to disperse and the
air made breathable again, and the crimes of the clerical homo-peds have moved
from nightly network news to the more discrete shadowland of out-of-court
settlements in chancery offices, along comes the Homosexual Network within the
Catholic Church to up the scandal ante with a third generation of sexual
catechetics specifically designed to bring the Homosexual Agenda into the
Catholic home and grade school.
With the American hierarchy firmly in tow, and after
having successfully colonized virtually every seminary, diocese and religious
order in the United States, Homo-Church is moving into parish life with a
vengeance. And with the parish comes the parochial school with its endless
supply of potential new recruits and fresh meat. Forget the old motto of the
Rene Guyon (pedophile) Society “sex by eight, or it’s too late.” Now its ‘start
at five, why deprive.’
Growing in
Love (GIL), hereafter referred to by this
writer as, Growing in Filth (GIF), is the successor to the infamous New Creation sexual catechesis published
by William Brown and Co., now called Harcourt Religion Publishers (HRP), that
made the rounds of Catholic schools in the 1980s. It bears the Nihil obstat of
Rev. Richard L. Schaefer, Censor De Putatus and the imprimatur of Archbishop
Jerome Hanus of the Archdiocese of Dubuque (IA). The imprimatur was attached to
GIF on January
8, 2000, the feast of St. Thomas Aquinas!
The parent company of Harcourt Religion Publishers,
producers and distributors of GIF and
other Catholic religious textbooks is Harcourt General, Inc. of Chestnut Hill,
Boston a multi-billion dollar anti-life, pro-homosexual publishing
conglomerate.
In May 1999, Harcourt’s Health Science Company,
Churchill Livingston, produced A
Clinician’s Guide to Medical and Surgical Abortion - the first how-to-kill
unborn children manual to be published in the United States in over fifteen
years. Unlike Harcourt’s Catholic HRP textbooks, the Harcourt abortion text
carries the imprimatur of National Abortion Federation. Other Harcourt
publications promote population control, contraception, sterilization,
arbortifacient chemicals and devices, eugenics, and “gay and lesbian” studies.
(1) Harcourt also participates in Planned Parenthood’s employer matching donor
plan.
Clearly, Harcourt is neither a friend of the Roman
Catholic Church or of the unborn child. Just as clear is the fact that Catholic
bishops and parochial school administrators should not be filling the coffers
of the killer conglomerate but patronizing HRP. As for the imprimatur found on
HRP catechetical texts, it is as appropriate for Catholics as a Jewish
good-housekeeping seal would be for I.G. Farben. (2)
Growing in
Filth not only
represents an important paradigm shift in the degree of perversity in Catholic sex instruction programs, but also
a marked shift in the nature of
sexual acts described in such curriculums, that is, a shift from almost
exclusive heterosexual practices to those of “gays” and “lesbians.” In the
matter of the moral formation of Catholic youth instead of employing “those remedies which produce the double
effect of opening the door to the virtue of purity and closing the door upon
vice,” (3) GIF opens the door to vice
while driving out the virtue of purity.
Growing in Love puts sex in the form of
child’s play. The problem, of course is, that while the child is being subtly
seduced to engage in adult sexual behavior, there is no comparable development
at an emotional and psychological level. This artificially produced sexual
stimulation interferes with the child’s normal maturation process. Particularly
harmful is the unrelenting attempt of the authors of GIF to focus the young child’s mind and imagination on the sexual
acts of their parents. The placement of such voyeuristic fantasies in the
impressionable mind of a child can lead to perverted fixations and sexual
neurosis in later life.
As in all sexual conditioning programs, the child is
robbed of his right to be a child as the latency period is systematically
destroyed. Both his spiritual life and intellectual life are truncated and overshadowed by a precocious and
unnatural sensuality. The child is being turned from his final end who is God
and taught to worship the gods of sensual pleasure and vice. Whatever the
damage assessment, the child will never
be what he could have been had be not been subject to such programs. (4)
The purulent obsession of GIF’s authors with genitalia, and natural and unnatural sexual
techniques reveals much more about the authors’ motivations, I think, than they
intended. As George Orwell observed: “There are things so foolish, that only
intellectuals can believe them.”
The authors of GIF
also reveal their ignorance of human nature in thinking that by giving the
young child a detailed organ recital they are somehow communicating to him the
great mystery of the marital act whereby “two become one flesh.” For children,
as we know, are keen observers but poor interpreters. They are more likely to
associate the marital act, as described in GIF,
as an act of aggression against the mother by the father, than an act of love.
A child can learn more about the true meaning of love through the daily
sacrifices of his parents, or listening to great classics like J.R.R.Tolkin’s The Lord of the Rings or simply by
gazing at crucifix than he’s ever learn in a “sex education class.” But then
again, love, is not what “sex education” is all about is it?
Interestingly, it is Harcourt itself, which alerts
us to the homosexual overtures to be found in GIF.
On its Catechetical Research web site for Growing in Filth, Toinette M. Eugene,
Ph.D., a consultant for the GIF program
states that, “racism, sexism and HOMOPHOBIA,
and other socially isolating evidence of social sinfulness are addressed
thoughtfully, explicitly, and carefully.” [emphasis added]. (5)
Now the term “homophobic” is a gay political verbal
construct. In the homosexual manifesto Jesus
Acted Up, ex-Jesuit homosexual, Dr. Robert Goss, defines “homophobia” as
“the socialized state of fear, threat, aversion, prejudice, and irrational
hated of the feelings of same-sex attractions” which can be held by
“individuals, groups, social institutions, and cultural practices.” And the
most influential purveyor of the “sin”
of “homophobia” is, of course, the Roman Catholic Church. (6)
Clearly, both Eugene and HRP welcome pro-homosexual
propaganda which is why the morally sordid paw prints of the Homosexual
Movement are found all over the pages of Growing
in Filth.
Starting With Grade K
The
following brief comments are based on a selection of pages from GIF Family Resource (FR), Student (S)
and Teacher (T) manuals. Many sections are repeated
verbatim for other grade levels. Please note that experience has shown that
explicit sexual materials found in adult texts, always find their way to the school children especially to the more
sexually sophisticated student who is drawn to matters of an adult prohibitive
nature. This material is then filtered down to the younger, more innocent
child, so that few, if any children, are left morally and spiritually
unscathed. Also remember that when the classroom door is closed the teacher IS
the text.
What Does
Being ‘Gay’ Mean?
People, who are gay, or homosexual, are sexually attracted to people of their own gender instead of the other gender. A man who is gay loves another man. A woman, who is gay, or lesbian, loves another woman. Some children grow up in families where the adults are homosexual partners, although people who are gay are not allowed to be legally married to one another…”
The first thing one notices
in this description of unnatural sex is the use the politically loaded term
“gay” – the language of homo-agit-prop.
Secondly, coming as it does on the heels of a description of
conjugal love between man and wife, the implication is clear – homosexuals do
what loving heterosexual do, the only difference being that they do it with a
person of the same sex.
How dare the authors of GIF
compare the narcissistic and ego egocentric scratching of an erotic itch
with the marriage act! For Catholics, marriage is a sacrament and conjugal love
is blessed by the Church while homosexual acts are an unnatural perversion and condemned
by the Church. The two cannot be equated in any sense.
Of course, the authors of GIF know that most Catholic parents haven’t the foggiest notion of
what homosexuals do in bed or baths. And the authors are content to keep them
in a state of ignorant bliss so that they can convince parent and child alike,
that homosexual sex is pretty much normal sex. But it is not!
Homosexual acts are esthetically disgusting, morally
degrading and biologically disastrous. Further, whereas monogamy is the ideal
(if not the practice) among most heterosexuals, rampant promiscuity and
anonymous sex is the preference of
homosexuals, at least until the age of 30 or 35, at which time they begin to
suffer from the homosexual-inflicted ageism (as in sexism).
Proponents of GIF say
that this religious curriculum is about “healthy relationships,” but the
homosexual “lifestyle” is really a “deathstyle.” When one adds to homosexual
practices the degrading reality of the urban homosexual milieu with its
prostitution, pornography, the occult, drugs, organized crime, homosexual
domestic violence, and murder and mayhem., it’s clear why the authors don’t
want to “out” the truth about homosexual behavior. (7) “Donna” may be amusing
to the casual heterosexual observer when “she” prances and camps around in an
effeminate manner with her falsetto voice and limp wrist (as in Will and Grace) but when he, that is
“Donald” kills, he kills like a man, and the mutilated corpse he leaves behind
is far from amusing to look upon.
GIF’s homo-agit-prop continues later in the
text with the discussion about “nontraditional living situations.”
Some children live with two women or to
two men… Same-sex partners may also adopt children, act as foster parents, or
conceive children through artificial insemination. The Catholic Church
consistently teaches that any non-marital live-in relationships involving
sexual intimacy of whatever expression are morally wrong because they do not
reflect what marriage and family are to be.
Homosexual cohabitation and the adoption of a child by two
homosexuals are perverse practices. Homosexuals live in a fantasy world and
“playing house” or playing “mommy and daddy” or “butch and femme” is part of
that fantasy world. In such sad cases, the adopted child is the looser. Until rather
recently, the Church opposed adoption by homosexual partners but that
opposition has begun to erode under the relentless pressure of the Homosexual
Lobby.
As for the matter of
artificial insemination, the text in no way indicates that this practice is
absolutely condemned by the Church – for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
This omission alone, which should have been picked up by the censor from the
Archdiocese of Dubuque, is enough to prevent Harcourt from procuring an
imprimatur.
At the third grade level, parents of children seven to eight are encouraged to give their child a very explicit description of the marriage act. The authors of GIF also provide a comprehensive and explicit sexologist’s description of all forms of sexual stimulation.
Oh! How I yearn for the good old days when Catholic schools taught that an “ejaculation” was a short prayer taught to children and youth such as “My Lord and My God?”
HIV and AIDS
According to the authors, parents of second grade children should educate their young children about AIDS:
… Most children are aware that AIDS is a serious, life-threatening disease, and some children may associate HIV infection and AIDS with a sense of social stigma (as in illicit or perverted sexual behavior?). In early childhood it's most important that your child gain a clear idea of what AIDS is and how he or she can avoid infection….
This is pure nonsense and the authors of GIF must know it, unless they need an excuse to discuss homosexual behavior and drug use. After almost two decades of research, scientists still not have unraveled the complex mysterious of AIDS. But a small child is expected to have “a clear idea of what AIDS is…”
Poor Biology and Dangerous Theology
In the FR book for third grade level students, under a section titled, “What is sexual intercourse?” parents given an explicit description of the marital act and the act of conception. The last two sentences read:
…If there is an egg cell present, a sperm cell may join with it to conceive a new life. If the fertilized egg implants itself in the uterus, the woman becomes pregnant…”
The first moment of every human being’s life is the
moment of fertilization or conception. Then, almost immediately, the fertilized
egg splits into a two-cell embryo, then a three-cell embryo, then a four-cell
embryo and thereafter continues in multiples of two. By the time the growing
embryo nests in his mother’s uterus, she (the mother) has been pregnant for at
least one week. Here biology and theology agree perfectly.
So why do the authors of GIF claim otherwise? Why do they use a verbal sight-of-hand to
redefine pregnancy as beginning at implantation rather than at fertilization or
conception?
From a practical view, I suspect this deception
would enable the authors to categorize, both for parents and students, early
chemical or mechanical abortifacients such as intra-uterine-devices (IUDs) or
post-coital pills as “contraceptives.”
From a theological point of view, the authors’
deception would certainly serve to undermine the Roman Catholic Church’s
doctrine of the Incarnation – that God became Man at the moment of His
conception as well as the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception – that Our Lady
was free from original sin from the moment of her conception.
Catholic belief in the Incarnation is why, at least
until the promulgation of the Novos Ordo by Pope Paul VI, we genuflected as we
professed the Nicene Creed –
“Who for us
men, and our salvation,
came
down from heaven [here all kneel]
AND
WAS INCARNATE BY THE HOLY
GHOST
OF THE VIRGIN MARY
AND
WAS MADE MAN.” [all rise]
Again, how did Growing
in Filth rate an imprimatur?
It may be that, when the battle over GIF reaches Rome and the Congregation for Christian Doctrine, the CCD will declare that there is “no doctrinal error here” as it did with the New Creation series. (9) But I think the average Catholic who is not brain-dead would fine this description of perverted sex unfit for any person regardless of age.
And what will the final outcome be at the end of thirteen years of this sexual filth and homoerotic propaganda in Catholic grade schools and secondary schools? It will, in the words of psychiatrist Dr. Melvin Anchell be the emergence of a “horde culture,” characterized by “sexual indulgence and devoid of love.” Where the “indoctrinated show no guilt, nor do they display concern for morality.” (10) They will indeed be the new barbarians!
To the Spirit
of the World
Most Catholics probably don’t remember the last time
they heard the American bishops raise their voices to condemn classroom sex
instruction programs. That is because that event happened over fifty years ago
on November 17, 1950.
At that time, the bishops acting in unison under the
umbrella of the old National Catholic Welfare Conference (NCWC) issued a formal
statement supporting the traditional Magisterial position in opposition to
classroom sex instruction. After asserting that parents have both the “natural
competence” and “duty” to instruct their children in matters related to sex,
the bishops closed with …”We protest in the strongest terms against the
introduction of sex instruction into the schools.” (11)
Less than a year later, and again in 1953, Pope Pius
XII also sounded the alarm against the creeping invasion of sex instruction
into the classroom and called upon an assembly of French Fathers and Families
to “unite… with your bishop certainly… in order to fight together…to stop and
curtail these movements (sex initiation) under whatever name or under whatever
patronage they conceal themselves or are patronized.” (12)
Unfortunately, by the mid-1960s, with the rise of
AmChurch and the replacement of the NCWC by the post-conciliar National
Conference of Catholic Bishops/United States Catholic Conference (NCCB/USCC),
the American bishops suffered an attack of collective lockjaw, and with few
exceptions, they have been silent ever since.
In 1967-1968 the bishops handed over the NCCB/USCC
Family Life Bureau in Washington, D.C. to young Rev. Joseph Bernardin’s
protégé, Father James T. McHugh, who became the Great Architect of classroom
sex instruction. (13) In short order, so called sex education, modeled after
SIECUS/ASSECT/ Planned Parenthood anti-life programs, (14) was moved from the
“condemned” to the “enthusiastically-supported and promoted” side of the
catechetical ledger. At the same time, over at the NCCB/USCC’s Office of
Education, traditional catechetics were being trashed and replaced with
Modernist textbooks. This double whammy
would insure an upcoming generation of Catholics who would be illiterate in the
Faith but candidates for a doctorate in Sexology.
In 1968, in their pastoral letter Human Life In Our Day, the American
bishops placed their seal of approval on Fr. McHugh’s sexualization agenda for
Catholic school children and youth. “Systematic” sex instruction programs for
parochial and CCD students (many already in place and running) were now mandated as a “grave obligation.”
Between that time and the present day, the NCCB/USCC
have released a litany of pro-sex initiation documents and “guidelines” which
the major catechetical publishing houses have dutifully translated into
religious sex programs like GIF. In
their defiance of the Magisterial teaching of the Church prohibiting classroom
sex curriculums, and in their support of sexual catechesis, the American
bishops as a whole have demonstrated a long-standing and complete abdication in
front of the spirit of the world.
Sadly, the American bishops’ four decade campaign of
attacking the innocence of Catholic school children cannot be dismissed as a
mere domestic aberration in the Church of a wayward National Episcopal
Conference. The Roman Catholic Church as founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ is a hierarchical church. Therefore, every major crisis in the Church
today, from the systematic rape of the Liturgy to the rape of children’s souls
by, can be traced to its root cause [as well as its ultimate cure] to Rome and
laid at the foot of the Papacy and the Holy Office.
The last pontiff to publicly defend, without
ambiguity, the ruling of Pope Pius XI against classroom sex initiation programs
was Pope Pius XII who proclaimed, “…these rules have not been rescinded, either
expressly or via facti.” (15) Since
his death in 1958, no pontiff or Vatican discastery has seen fit to either reaffirm or enforce the 1929 rulings.
On December 1, 1983, the Sacred Congregation for
Catholic Institutions (Education), in reaction to the constant stream of
sex-porn reaching Catholic school children under the guise of Catholic “sex
education,” released a pivotal document on the issue titled, Educational Guidance In Human Love [EGHL]. In my book, Sex Education – The Final Plague, I devote an entire chapter to EGHL because it typifies the manner in
which Rome has dealt with this issue since 1958.
When EGHL
was initially released in the United States, Father Thomas Lynch, Father
McHugh’s replacement at the Family Life Office, praised the document, which he
said “gave a creative green light to sex education.” The NCCB/USCC Committee
for Pro-Life Affairs likewise claimed EGHL
provided “a theological foundation and moral principles, which guide the development
of such programs in parochial schools.”
Interesting as it is telling, however, it was the
Planned Parenthood clone, Center for Population Options, and not the NCCB/USCC,
that publicly recognized that EGHL
marked a departure from the Vatican’s Magisterial teaching prohibiting
classroom sex instruction. According to the CPO, the document represented the
first official support from the Vatican for “positive” classroom sex
instruction. It also noted that it may serve to silence Catholic opponents of
sex education in both parochial and public schools and concludes that EGHL has already opened up a “new
dialogue” between sex education advocates (i.e., SIECUS, AASECT and Planned
Parenthood) and the Catholic Church.
Undermining
the Magisterium
The tactics used by the drafters of EGHL (Father McHugh was the Vatican’s
“expert” from the United States) follow the familiar Modernist tactic of
undermining a Magisterial teaching without actually denying it.
First, they radically redefined the term “sex education” divorcing it completely from its historical roots, its well-known anti-life, anti-family nature and its primary function – to produce polymorphous perverts. Then, having redefined the normative meaning of "sex education" beyond recognition, the framers of EGHL proclaimed that Pope Pius XI correctly "declared erroneous the sex education which was presented at THAT TIME, which was information of a naturalist character, precociously, and indiscriminately imparted."(emphasis added) (16) The new school sex programs were no longer “naturalistic” because they were now incorporated into religious catechetical programs, hence the term “sexual catechetics.” Therefore, they no longer fall within purview of the 1929 ban. EGHL concluded with a challenge to Christian educators to take up the “positive” work of sex education!
Unhappily, the opponents of classroom sex
instruction could claim only a few supporters from the Catholic hierarchy.
Among them were Bishop Austin Vaughan, Auxiliary bishop of New York and Edouard
Cardinal Gagnon, President of the Pontifical Council for the Family. The former
attacked the November 1990 sex education “guidelines” developed by a secret
in-house Sex Education Committee of the NCCB/USCC and the latter attacked the New Creation series at the Vatican in
1989 and was rewarded with a back-handed slap in the face by Cardinal Joseph
Ratzinger of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
With the publication of EGHL, pro-sex education forces, within and without the Church,
thought the controversy was laid to rest. But they were wrong. The battle raged
on.
So it was that in 1995, the Vatican tried its hand
again at damage control once again with The
Truth and Meaning of Human Love (TMHS)
issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family now under the direction of
Cardinal Lopez Trujillo.
Initially the PCF document was hailed by some
Catholic anti-sex ed groups as one that would finally “pull the plug” on
parochial school sex curriculums. There were at least two groups however that
publicly opposed TMHS – Parents
Roundtable headed by Marie Zaccaria and the U.S. Coalition for Life, headed by
this writer. I think time has vindicated the latter.
Since the publication of TMHS, no sex program in use in the United States has been recalled.
Indeed we now have added to the sex curriculum repertoire the most perverse
program to hit the Catholic home and school scene in almost forty years – Growing in Filth.
Why didn’t Parents Roundtable and the USCL back TMHS? Simply because in the 30,000
worded document with the usual assurances about parental rights, and “opting
out” of objectionable courses, etc., the only word that could help return
sanctity and sanity to Catholic religious education was conspicuous by its
absence. That word is NO!
Father McHugh (by now a bishop) confirmed this
opinion when he informed opponents of classroom sex programs that TMHS
could NOT be used to make their case because the document does NOT
ban sex education. On the contrary, he stated that TMHS was not intended to prohibit such programs because that would
be contrary to church policy, which, he said had given birth to many good
programs in the schools.
In all probability, when Benziger issued its Becoming A Person sex program more than
thirty year ago, parents thought – “It can’t get much worse!” Then along came
William Brown and Co. with New Creation and
parents saw it can get worse. Now New Creation is being replaced with Growing in Filth and outraged Catholic
parents like those from the diocese of Syracuse, N. Y., are screaming – “This
is it! Can anything be worse?”
The answer of course is YES! Homo Church is
just warming up! It has a full agenda just waiting to be activated in parochial
schools and Catholic students will obviously be at the receiving end of their
educational probes.
As noted earlier, there are many types of homosexual
behavior that GIF does not
specifically mention. Parents can realistically anticipate that these will find
their way into the Catholic classroom at all levels if the level of influence
of the Homosexual Network is permitted to grow within the Church.
In terms of revisionist Scripture studies, Homo
Church will inform your children that the sin of Sodom was the sin of
“inhospitality,” not sodomy. Likewise
your children will be told that they must “re-vision” God as Erotic Power and
that the “Eucharistic meal is an act of defiance against homophobic
oppression.” (17)
How will you react to a lesbian crucifix with a
female corpus being brought in for a retreat run by lesbian nuns for your
teenage daughter or granddaughter? (18)
How will you react when your child come home and
asks you if Christ was a homosexual and about his “special” relationships with
St. John and Lazarus? (19)
Think about it! And then for
God’s sake and those of future generations of Catholic school children Act upon
it!
Demand a Total
Ban from Rome!
All Catholics, but parents and grandparents in
particular, need to express an immediate sense of outrage over so-called
Catholic “sexual catechetics.” And Growing
in Filth is as good a vehicle to express that outrage as any that has been
produced over the last forty years.
There is much we can do to drive the Homosexual
Movement back into the shadows, but certainly depriving the movement of our
sons and daughters should be at the top of that list. The USCL program outlined below is not intended to be an end all
solution to the mani-fold problems facing the Church today, but demanding and
getting theologically and morally degrading religious texts OUT of Catholic
schools and bringing traditional doctrinal catechetics BACK INTO our schools
seems to me to be a good start. Let us follow Pope Pius XII’s advice! Let Catholics
everywhere unite behind a total ban on classroom sex programs, under whatever
ugly guise they raise their heads, because time is running out for us – IT’S
NOW OR NEVER!
1.
Please
send a communication to Archbishop Hanus in support of the USCL position on the removal of his
imprimatur from all Harcourt Religion Publisher’s catechetical materials
including Growing in Love.
Most
Rev. Jerome Hanus, O.S.B
Archbishop of
Dubuque
1229 Mount
Loretta Ave.
P. O. Box 479
Dubuque, IA
52004
Voice:
319-556-2580
Fax: 319-556-5464
e-mail dbqcabsec@arch.pvt.k12.ia.us
2. Send a second communication to Cardinal Ratzinger asking for a total
ban on
so-called “sex education,” in
all its forms and the re-establishment of traditional doctrinal catechetics in Catholic schools.
Prefect Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger
Piazza del S.
Uffizo 11
00193 Rome,
Vatican City State, Europe
3.
Send
a SSAE to the USCL, Box 315, Export, PA 15632 or e-mail the USCL at tengel@bellatlantic.net and we will send you sample
letters and additional material on the continuing
battle to remove so-called sex education from parochial (and public) schools.
We will also e-mail parents documentary materials they may want concerning the
explicit sexual content of GIF.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the
Author: Randy
Engel, National Director of the U.S. Coalition for Life is an internationally
known pro-life activist and writer and the author of Sex Education – The Final Plague and The McHugh Chronicles, both available from the USCL.
References and Notes:
1.
Contact
the USCL for a complete list of Harcourt anti-life publications or visit
Harcourt General, Inc.’s publications web site.
2.
I.G.
Farben was Germany’s industrial chemical colossus, which during WWII produced
poisonous gases for the gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps.
3.
See
Pope Pius XI, Encyclical on The Christian
Education of Youth, issued December 31, 1929 which contains the most
authoritative prohibition of classroom sex instruction to date.
4.
For
a complete and documented review of the harmful consequences of classroom sex
initiation programs see Randy Engel, Sex
Education-The Final Plague, Tan Publishers, Rockford, IL, 1989.
5.
Dr.
Toinette Eugene, “Relationships that Make a Difference – The Importance of
Including Culture and Scripture in Family Life and Human Sexuality Education.”
6.
See
Robert Goss, Jesus Acted Up – A Gay and Lesbian Manifesto, Harper, S.F., 1994.
7.
See
Enrique T. Rueda, The Homosexual Network,
Devin Adair, CT, 1982.
8.
Ibid.,
p. 97.
9.
In
the Spring of 1989 as the national debate over the thrice-revised New Creation
[John put this title in italics]series reached crisis proportions in the United
States, various Vatican offices were also drawn into the battle. William
Cardinal Baum, Prefect for the Congregation for Catholic Institutions
(Education) lined up with Archbishop Daniel Kucera of Dubuque whose Imprimatur
was on the Wm. Brown sex program against Edouard Cardinal Gagnon, President of
the Pontifical Council for the Family. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect for
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, weighed in against Gagnon and the
beleagured Catholic families fighting New Creation [italics]claiming that
"anxiety about doctrinal aspects of the program...would seem to be without
foundation."
10.
See
comments of Dr. Anchell in Engel, Sex
Education the Final Plague, p. 152.
11.
“The
Child of Two Worlds,” statement of the Catholic bishops of the United States,
Nov. 17,
1950.
12.
Pope
Pius XII, Address to French Fathers and Families on Sept. 18, 1951.
13.
See
Randy Engel, The McHugh Chronicles,
1997.
14.
Sex
Information and Education Council of the United States, American Association of
Sex Educators, Counselors, and Therapists, and Planned Parenthood, Inc.
15.
April
13, 1953 statement on validity of Pope Pius XI’s prohibition against sex
initiation programs.
16.
Educational Guidance in
Human Love,
November 1, 1983, Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, St.
Paul Editions, p.41, no. 5.
17.
See
Goss on “A Queer Theology.”
18.
See
Rosemary Curb and Nancy Manahan, Lesbian
Nuns: Breaking Silence, Naiad Press, 1985 for an enlightening report on the
subject of lesbians in and out of the convent.
19. See
Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician –
Charlatan or Son of God, Harper and Row, San
Francisco, 1978.