Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church


Vatican Sex Ed–World Youth Day–child abuse?

August 9th, 2016, Promulgated by Diane Harris

Two separate incidents have been brought to light by LifeSiteNews regarding what is difficult not to call “child abuse.” And one might go so far as to clarify the occurrences more specifically as “Sexual Abuse of Children.”  Here are the two incidents:

I’m not going to dissect the articles and make the obvious argument. I think with straightforward reading anyone should be able to see the intended seduction of young consciences, and interference in parents’ rights. Beyond these souls, these actions are, IMO, a direct attack on parenting, church teaching and the tradition of World Youth Day.  Once parents can no longer trust a WYD agenda or ‘safe environment’ the whole WYD structure will fall apart.

If this were to continue, Zika virus may be the least of the risks in Panama.


29 Responses to “Vatican Sex Ed–World Youth Day–child abuse?”

  1. avatar Ron says:

    Always take reports from LifeSiteNews with a grain of salt. They are notoriously anti-Pope and anti-Vatican.

  2. avatar Diane Harris says:

    @Ron, I don’t reach the same conclusion as you after following LifeSiteNews for years. I think LSN’s diligence in reporting is commendable and courageous. But I will stay open to your conclusion if you cite a few examples of how LSN “always” has been “anti-Pope and Vatican.”

  3. avatar Ron says:

    Now, Now – don’t distort what I said. I did not say “always” in terms of their being “anti-Pope and anti-Vatican.” I said “always” in terms of taking reports from the site with a grain of salt. Two separate sentences. The always is clearly a warning to readers. It is not saying they are always anti-Pope. In fact, they have said some positive things about the Pope.

    But they also have a habit of putting rumors and allegations in the most negative light, such as regularly giving a negative spin to mass media reports about what the pope allegedly said, only to have it turn out later that that’s not what the Pope actually said, or that the statement was taken out of context.

  4. avatar Ron says:

    And don’t give me the “that’s just one example” argument. There are many more. But I have work to do that requires my attention. So, just go back to my original statement: Be cautious about reports from this site. Not DON’T EVER BELIEVE THEM, just be careful and check other sources because they do have a bias.

  5. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Ron, I recognize you have given a link to an LSN story. However, that is only half the response. Where is the link to a credible story saying specifically what LSN (allegedly?) got wrong, and what therefore is the truth/correction?

  6. avatar Ron says:

    Here’s one analysis, going back to the original Italian –

  7. avatar Scott W. says:

    I have to agree with Ron here. It’s not that LSN is deliberately deceitful, but rather they are like a sensitive smoke alarm that beeps at everything but can’t tell the difference between mildly burnt toast and a sofa on fire. This is actually an acceptable thing because better to beep and discover the threat is false or minor than silence when it is real and grave. But it does mean we have to verify.

  8. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Unfortunately, the prime objective of this post (the question of sexual abuse lurking under the WYD veil) has been lost in the comments, devolved to a credibility attack against LifeSiteNews. Nevertheless, much is still missing in the current commentary, in response to Ron’s allegations, so here it is:

    1. Ron’s blanket admonition to take reports from LSN with a “grain of salt” is magnified by his accusing LSN of being anti-Pope and anti-Vatican. On the contrary, I see LSN as having a great love for Christ’s Church and for the Truth. Can anyone see LSN’s work during the papacy of Pope Benedict as being anti-Pope? I doubt it.

    2. Singling out LSN when so much of the macro-media is enmeshed in lies, innuendo and politics misses the point which Zoe Olles sets forth, that verification is essential. But breaking a story (especially stories that others are afraid to break) isn’t easily verifiable at first. So it is important to know the track record of the reporting organization. And LSN has an outstanding track record. Does anyone bat .1000? I don’t know, but perfection is less important than the ability to admit a mistake. Unfortunately, key players in this papacy do not have a track record of either perfection or the ability to admit mistakes. Transcripts are rewritten with changes, for example, and translations not equivalent (Synod re marriage, e.g.) So I’ll bet on LSN’s behaving ethically and responsibly and not accept attempts to muddy their reputation.

    3. I also noted that the original LSN article on the notorious abortionist Emma Bonino was dated Feb. 25th and Scott Eric Alt made his claims of LSN error just 9 days later. If one reads the Alt article, one can see twists of some facts and emphasis, IMO, but does not defeat the essentials of the LSN article. There is much to criticize in Alt’s allegations, including any appeal to logic, which is clouded by the standard dose of ambiguity in interviews aloft.

    4. Ron sets forth the LSN article and Alt’s criticism but unfortunately stops there. He does not give courtesy to LSN’s defense, which was released on March 11th. I highly recommend reading it: IMO, this rebuttal 4 days after Alt’s article should legitimately have been included in Ron’s criticism. And its comments from highly credible observers is well worth noting.

    5. Alt’s diminishing the seriousness of honoring an avowed abortionist cannot be dismissed with sarcasm. Fortunately, there are many people much more realistic than Mr. Alt regarding the significance of a Pope’s honoring a non-repentant abortionist and her public scandal. Yes, there is a lot more to Emma Bonino than LSN pointed out; however, it is all pretty bad. Who is she? Read this: People who know her history of evil behavior do not reflect approval of Pope Francis’ honoring her, and putting so much that is truly Catholic at risk (like weakening those who fight for the rights of the unborn.) Don’t miss the Soros’ funding allegations either.

    6. It would be hard to let this go without drawing further attention to Alt’s grammatical argument, which I find not only nonsensical for dismissing the true outrage of the situation, but also insensitive to and denigrating of African culture and faith. Alt corrects Italian grammar to read the Pope’s saying of Bonino: “…she is the person who knows Africa the best. She has offered a great service to Italy to learn about Africa. They say: those people think very differently than we do. True, but never mind. We have to look at people, at what they do.” Well, I find the Alt correction (if Alt is right) to be insulting to Africans. It is so reminiscent of the denigration by the German bishop at the Synod of all African bishops, as thinking differently than the liberal dissenters. (Praise God for the work He has been doing in Africa!) Just the juxtaposition of the abortionist to Africans, refugees or not, reminds us of the racial bias in abortion (the disproportionate killing of babies of color), and it reminds us of so much of the Western establishment’s financial pressure on African countries to permit abortion and same-sex unions. The African continent — what Pope Benedict sees in his book Jesus of Nazareth as the injured man by the wayside, being bypassed by Priest and Levite alike.

    7. The last point (for the moment) which I’d like to make is to pick up on Ron’s opening remarks, not targeting the most reliable media I know (LSN) but on our own obligation in these times of propagated uncertainty, rife ambiguity, and fear that we do have an obligation to know our faith, and to recognize and refuse to honor evil. LSN has helped me to do that too.

    Now, might we return to the real issue of seduction of the bodies and souls of children?

  9. avatar Ron says:

    I won’t respond to most of the last post – no point.

    But two things: First, in your original response you distorted what I said. No acknowledgment?

    Second, when I said anti-pope I was perhaps not clear. Mea culpa. They are not anti-pope in general – Pope Benedict walks on water! – just sometimes tend to be anti-Pope Francis.

  10. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Ron, at the risk of further extending what was not the purpose of the original post, I will reply further to your request re your comment: “Always take reports from LifeSiteNews with a grain of salt. They are notoriously anti-Pope and anti-Vatican.” I don’t see any distortion in my reply. You explained what you meant and I didn’t challenge you then, but I don’t see those two sentences as really separate.

    Your word “always” is a pretty strong word, leaving no room for judgment if something needs examination or what can be taken at face value, and leaving no allowance for LSN’s excellent reputation and track record. Then you seemed to explain your reason by using the rather inflammatory word “notoriously” which implies some wrong-doing rather than simply lack of clarity or typos or errors in attribution, for example. Moreover, you even supplied a motive which added to the offensiveness — that “they” are anti-Pope and anti- Vatican. It would seem to me that if one should “always” take what they wrote with a “grain of salt”, then the reason was explained by your perception of their motives. I didn’t get into all that in my first reply, but perhaps I should have, for the sake of completeness, but I didn’t want to speculate on your motives in making the original comment.

  11. avatar BigE says:

    I found the title of this thread to be pretty sensationalistic and overly dramatic. Especially in our church, the words “child abuse” should be used with extreme care and where appropriate. What is or isn’t taught in a sex education class is nowhere near an event that calls for that description.

  12. avatar Diane Harris says:

    I absolutely agree with you, BigE. It is “pretty sensationalistic” and “overly dramatic.” Deliberately so — for the sake of the vulnerable. At one time, parents who began to think “sexual abuse” by one of their parish priests was castigated for using such a term or even thinking such a thought. And that very reluctance and repression led to more ‘abuse’ under the cover of clericalism, secrecy and fear.

    The very reason I have chosen to use this language is to prompt thoughts and concerns about the link between seduction of thought and seduction of body. If you have seen the “sex education” materials shown at WYD, then please comment. I have 3rd party input, from people I respect, that expressed serious concern about the titillating aspects of the “education,” seemingly oriented to ‘turning on’ rather than to self control. Read the links, see the R-rated movies being used in the sex-ed program. Notice the absence of many aspects of Church teaching.

    The reason for the question mark in the title of this post is to present the question of whether or not such a program BY THE CHURCH doesn’t serve to open up a casual disregard for barriers, and lead to the seduction of the mind and heart and soul, desensitizing the young to sexual approaches and activity. It is in that sense that I consider the question to be timely, and of deep concern. And the absence of church teaching to be of even greater concern.

    Regarding the second link: The prevalent pro-same-sex attitude in both culture and among some churchmen, is of great concern. It is from that mindset that Synod language was generated to see ‘value’ in same sex activity. A priest explaining away Sodom and Gomorrah is but one illustration of an unreasonable tolerance, and eisegesis rather than exegesis. All misappropriations of Sacred Scripture deserve condemnation, but presentations to the young and impressionable, weakening their discernment, is reprehensible. IMO, of course.

  13. avatar raymondfrice says:

    In a previous life before I retired I was required to investigate “child abuse ” cases for the juvenile justice system. I realized that “child abuse” was a generic type term and we had to investigate whether or not the abuse was physical, mental, or sexual or all three or in various combinations. We had to be very precise before we appeared in court over the issues.

    Reviewing the program that was presented at WYD, It was probably presenting a program that was pretty mild compared to what youngsters see today on the Internet or media. Being an “oldster” (74) left me a llttle surprised but suspect the youngsters seeing it thought” ho-hum” !!

  14. avatar raymondfrice says:

    On the positive side of WYD, data indicates that of all the youth who have entered religious life since 1980, 80% of them had attended a WYD. Seems like a good investment!!

  15. avatar militia says:

    I don’t care if it might be ‘ho-hum” to some. Regardless, it is a betrayal of trust.

  16. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    It may be the case that it is “ho-hum” for a typical child of the modern world to be presented with sexually enticing scenarios and graphics. However, in raising my children I am doing my best to protect them from such an attitude I think I have a reasonable hope that they would be shocked/scandalized when presented with such material. If both of these things are true, are we now saying that WYD is for “worldly” Catholics, but not for those who have been raised to be devout Catholics?

  17. avatar raymondfrice says:

    If both of these things are true, are we now saying that WYD is for “worldly” Catholics, but not for those who have been raised to be devout Catholics?

    Have you ever heard of the common phenomenon of Catholic youngsters being raised in a restrictive and “cloistered” environment in Catholic schools and having a high percentage of them going haywire when they leave home and go away to college? Ask any Catholic college administrator!!

  18. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    That’s an oversimplification and I don’t have time to peel apart the various aspects of it. I don’t think restricting my children from temptations of the flesh (in a world that treats indulging in mortal sin like drinking kool-aid) implies that my kids will go nuts when they’re on their own. But thanks again for attempting to instigate yet another argument.

  19. avatar Diane Harris says:

    This matter is not going away with a few “ho-hum” dismissive comments or by attacking the children objectified in the process …. you can sign a petition here:

    and read more about the flashback here:

    Notice particularly the alleged absence of reference to Christ’s teachings …. same problem so many Synod attendees had understanding what the fuss is all about re marriage. I see a connection.

  20. avatar raymondfrice says:

    But thanks again for attempting to instigate yet another argument.

    I never thought this blog was a “mutual admiration society” as the song goes.

    In addition, I think your kids will most likely follow their home values and of course you know that in a loving home, family values prevail. Just make sure they are listening and not texting!!

  21. avatar Ben Anderson says:

    You’re welcome to disagree on this site and present contrary opinions. If you want to be taken seriously by me, you’ll want to familiarize yourself with some of these and do your best to avoid them:

  22. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Wonderful link, Ben. Thanks for posting.

  23. avatar Diane Harris says:


    It looks to me like Cleansing Fire’s jumping on this potential scandal early (thanks to the reliability of LifeSiteNews) was very timely. Those who were responsible for creating this mess, and those refusing to close it down have much to answer for.

  24. avatar Diane Harris says:

    On CF on August 9th we made the link between the Vatican Sex Education Program and sexual abuse of children. Today (Sept 2nd) we see the following stories as the subject develops further:

    One thing that is clear is that laity and especially parents learned a lot about the seduction involved in sexual abuse of children during the pedophilia crisis, and are determined not to let it happen again, not to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. The parents too had been seduced into trusting and learned from the awful experience. Could it now be happening in a different way, lulled into a sense of trust under safe environment training and the guise of classroom teaching? Yes, of course it could.

    A classroom teaching is a near perfect ‘cover’ for the abomination. We’d like to think that anyone guilty had been caught and held to account but one group hardly touched by the investigations would seem to be the close friends and other priests in community or even the same rectory with the perpetrators. Not all of them ‘knew nothing,’ did they? And we’ll never know how many perpetrators were not caught, and may still be ‘in the system’, lying low and waiting for just such an opportunity.

Leave a Reply

Log in | Register

You must be logged in to post a comment.

-Return to main page-