What do you have to say for yourself ?
I have great admiration for the men and women who belong to Courage in their struggle with oftentimes overwhelming temptations. It is an aptly named organization.
We live in a sex-drenched society that percolates down to our toddlers as we were reminded recently by Senator Obama's bizarre suggestion for kindergarten sex education, and the Democratic Party's pandering to abortion slaughter houses.
Jesus stressed that the road to salvation is both narrow and difficult. And why not? Were it easy, who would really want or appreciate it? Father Groeschel is an excellent guide to and on that road--a man of humility, intelligence and holiness.
We need compassion in this struggle for those on the road, which may include ourselves, as well as for those who just cannot accept the grace to reach the road--hopefully--as yet. But we also need fortitude in opposing the sick and demented social permissiveness that is as dangerous to our society as any acts of terrorism.
John Hetman hit the nail on the head. People having to deal with sexual temptations (whether pornography, homosexual inclinations, or adulterous temptations) ought to be high up in our prayers.
A serious question: why the claim that temptation toward homosexual activity is greater than heterosexual persons? I often hear comments like those offered by John Hetman, that homosexual persons grapple with a "struggle with oftentimes overwhelming temptations." Are their temptations great than that of a heterosexual Catholic priest or a heterosexual single lay person? If so, why? If not, why is this claim so often repeated?
John,
Senator Obama's 'bizarre' suggestion for kindergarten sex education was simply that these children should be taught in an appropriate way that if someone tries to touch them in an inappropriate, they should tell and adult about this.
If you have a problem with that, you ar not someone I want near by kids.
Katherine:
Thank you for the clarification. However, you are referrring to a backtracking by Obama when he was caught promoting the great Democratic Party cause of universal sex education. We have had twenty plus years of Mr. Stranger Danger. Actually, we were taught this back in the 1940s by both parents and nuns.
And your statement, "If you have a problem with that, you ar not someone I want near by kids," is grossly offensive and utterly mean and nasty. Unworthy of the good woman that must reside in you.
why the claim that temptation toward homosexual activity is greater than heterosexual persons?
Strictly biological-drive speaking, it probably isn't. But there are still some quite fundamental differences:
(1) Marriage and children are vocations and are always a possibility for the straight person; chastity is both carrot and stick, in other words. For the homosexual person, it's can be easily seen (and almost all see it at times) as all stick and without real vocational value.
(2) No straight person really sees his heterosexuality per se (as opposed to particular features of it) as a curse, a cross.
(3) Straight people really don't have anything comparable to the contemporary "gay rights" movement, which sets up both an alternate temptation and a group of people who despise you. (Nor are there Caveman types among Catholics ready to assume the disgusting worst of one at the drop of a hat.)
Katherine, I am a grandma of 4/married 36 yrs/nurse & happy daughter of our Almighty Father. I have a huge problem with the Dems' sex ed program & I can promise you that you need to be much more afraid to have a grad of those programs around your kids than me!
John,
There was no backtracking by Senator Obama. He noted that he supported an age appropriate sex education program (with a parental consent provision) while an Illinois State senator. This program included teaching kindergarten kids about responding to attempts to touch them inappropriately. Shocking, Mitt "Flip" Romney, who supported a similar program as Governor, attacked the Senator. Romney said the appropriate amount of K level sex ed is "zero".
So, we are left with two possible conclusions: 1) Romney, and by extension those who take up his rhetoric does not believe that kindergarteners should be taught not to let people touch them inappropriately, or; 2) Romney, and by extension those who join with his rhetoric, are just a bunch of dishonest political hacks misrepresenting the words of others.
Dear Katherine:
I have no idea of how old or experienced you are. But giving you the benefit of being young in both, let me reiterate my previous comment that these types of warnings have been dutifully given to children by their parents for generations if not miliennia. There is very little reason for any school, public or private, to enter into a realm of parental responsibility in teaching these essential, yet intimate, facts to their youngsters. I speak also as a parent of two children now thankfully beyond the educational reach of the liberals.
And I also have no idea of why you even mentioned former Governor Romney, unless it was to deflect the heat off of your idol, the junior Senator from Illinois--who happens to be one of my very own. Alas.
Finally, your conclusions are dishonest. There is a vast difference between warning a child not to let someone touch them in an intimate/personally dangerous manner--something that can be done without school intervention and sex education. I stick to my original assertion--that mandatory universal sex education is the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party of which, the junior Senator from Illinois is a leading light.
We also know just how much the school systems and the judiary in liberal states value parental consent--Massachusetts recently being a prime example forced sexual education in the public schools.
I love Groeschel....I went to a retreat once conducted by him, was fantastic.
So, we are left with two possible conclusions: 1) Romney, and by extension those who take up his rhetoric does not believe that kindergarteners should be taught not to let people touch them inappropriately, or; 2) Romney, and by extension those who join with his rhetoric, are just a bunch of dishonest political hacks misrepresenting the words of others.
You forgot:
3) That it is not the state's responsibility to teach sex education to our children. That responsibility resides with the parents alone.
Dear John:
I am a mother and grandmother and have been around for quite some time.
Your original assertion was no that some program of mandatory universal sex education is the ultimate goal of the Democratic Party. Your assertion was to a specific comment by Senator Obama. Ans Senator Obama's comment was that K age children should be taught to report those who inappropriately touch them.
Now you make a new assertion that these types of warnings have been dutifully given to children by their parents for generations if not miliennia and therefore it is unneccesary that the schools reinforce this message. Unlike your first assertion, you at least now have a debatable point. However, I think the evidence that recently and sadly ha scome to our attention shows that what has been done "for a millenia" is not sufficient. Some children have responsible parents, some children do not. I am not willing to leave the later group open to abuse. If being against child abuse amkes me a Democrat, so be it.
Kate
"If being against child abuse amkes me a Democrat, so be it."
Thank you, Katherine, again for your attempt exegesis of my comments. I do think, however, that you are being way too modest. More than being "against child abuse" makes you a Democrat. I suspect from posts elsewhere here of yours that I have read that you are really one of those true blue liberals that actually sing "Gather Us In" at Sunday mass; and have memorized all of the Marty Haugen ditties.
"Some children have responsible parents, some children do not."
Katherine, I would not trust this government nor any government for that matter to determine just who is and is not a responsible parent. That's a mine field of utter danger as anyone who has raised children knows only too well.
Given that Mr. Stranger Danger routines are plentiful and common throughout much of our educational system, that should be sufficient. In any event, sex education, if any more than the overload now, is best done with the parents themselves. That way, we do not have an notoriously incompetent bureaucracy further damaging our children--especially the youngest and most vulnerable. And that way parents can engage in dialogue and debate with their instructors...not be brainwashed as small children would.
As you say that you are a mother and a grandmother, I find it odd and even shocking that you don't already know this. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once noted that the Lord placed the ultimate responsibility of educating children actually upon the children's father..."Thou shall teach them diligently!" It's good to bear that in mind, dear Katherine, as you get on your liberal soapbox to call for for further secular humanist brainwashing of our most vulnerable.
John,
Sadly not only have I failed as a parent in being the exclusive educator of my children, but I spent my family's money paying tuition to some organization to which I sent them for a good part of the day.
Kate
Really, anyone who thinks that the State has no business even dancing around the subject of sex in the presence of 5 year olds is someone who, in your opinion, shouldn't be allowed near children?
That sort of galling, bitter, small-minded, hatefulness, made even worse being all wrapped up in a false mantle of concern, should render you unfit to be near human beings of any age. But I bet you think that kind of thing is ok, since you're one of the good guys, who holds the "correct opinions". And of course, anyone who dares dissent is a likely pedophile.
That "holier-than-thou" shtick is as disgusting from you as from anyone else.
Commenting by HaloScan
