Sunday, September 12, 2010

Fr. Mullen's Story Gets Some National Attention at Inside Catholic



Alice Slattery said...

A test of truth regarding whether or not Fr. Mullen should be reprimanded for not complying, can be made in the following way: In an ad to be printed in The Pilot, which could be paid for by many supporters of Fr. Mullen, print the details of the curriculum that is to be taught to the children that prove that the children will be made susceptible to considering that acts that are sinful,according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, are now to be regarded as pleasures that they are entitled to perform as long as these acts are not done in public,e.g. masturbation, oral(Franch kissing) and anal sex, etc..
Will The Pilot be willing to print this ad? The Pilot is the 'spokesperson' for the Archdiocese.
In Framingham, when the "Health"sex education texts were to be voted on to be implemented into the "Health" curriculum, the Holy Name Society of St. Bridget's parish, paid for an ad to be put into the Middlesex News(now the MetroWest Daily News). The ad contained statements from the ETR- Network curriculum texts which would prove to the parents exactly what their children would be taught. At first the newspaper agreed to print it, but then the editor decided that it was not suitable for the eyes of their readers since it was a" family newspaper". Yet, the editor endorsed the curriculum! If the statements that were contained in the curriculum were suitable for being taught to the children, then why were they not suitable to be shown to the parents and all of the adults in Framingham who would be paying for the "Health" sex ed program?
The test of truth for the sex education program for the children of the Boston Archdiocese that is the issue that would cause Fr. Mullen to be reprimanded, is very similar to the situation in Framingham. Because the parents were not made aware of exactly what was to be taught to their children, the curriculum was accepted.
Will The Pilot print an ad that would reveal to its readers exactly what the children will be taught regarding what is sinful and what is now to be considered to be normalized acts that they are entitled to engage in,e.g. masturbation,
oral(French kissing) and anal sex, etc.? If it's suitable for the children, then is it suitable for the parents to see exactly what is in the curriculum?
---Alice Slattery

Carol McKinley said...


I can tell you that Fox news, the Boston Globe and others declined to publish the lessons because they considwered the content unsuitable and profane.

As I mentioned in another post, even the auxillary Bishop himself considered it too vulgar to sit through for his holy ears. This lays to rest their mounted defense that parents who object are people who want their children to call their body parts their pee pee.

The objections raised at this juncture should perhaps be focused on the reasons why the Cardinal will not permit programs that leave parents as the guardians of their children's safety.

The absurdity of letting the Chancery staff control the children's ability to go directly to their parents is absurd.

They are the party who was not and is not to be trusted.