Skip Navigation Links
Home
Donate
Free News via Email
Subscribe for a Friend
Send News Tip
Contact Us
Search
About Us
Is California Catholic Daily important to you?
You can help keep us online!
Advertise with us
Currently more than 150,000 visitors read CalCatholic.com
Churches Worth Driving To

* Submit Your Church *

News from the Trenches
I Couldn’t Do It...
Notes from a
Cultural Madhouse
The End...
Theology. Learn it, live it.
Speech Police! Destruction of language.
St. Joseph. Getting to know him.
CLASSIFIED ADS
San Jose & SF Bay Area - Catholic Funeral and Cemetery Preplanning: Reasonable costs and pay...(read more)
For Sale, burial plot, San Jose: Rare, very exclusive double internment burial plot. Fo...(read more)
Federal Nursing Home Reform Act: A summary of long term care laws regarding the aged and inf...(read more)
See All Classified Ads
Submit Classified Ad
CALENDAR
Covina - A Catholic Men's Conference - from Boys to Men: Presented by St. Joseph Commun...(read more)
Yorba Linda - 16th Annual Mary’s Shelter Golf Tournament: Wedn., Sept. 15, Black G...(read more)
Big Bear - Sacred Heart Retreat Camp Family Work Weekend: Fri., Sept. 3 - Sun.read more)
See All Calendar Items
Submit Calendar Item
LATEST FEEDBACK
Local Martyr I don't know about all of you, but I usually don't wear a dr... [RR - 9/2/2010 4:38:02 PM]
Anti-Catholicism of another era? Yes, Mother Mary has a special love for Muslims, as She does... [C.B. - 9/2/2010 3:48:11 PM]
How to Avoid Witchcraft or X-rated Films for Your Kids Dennis B: you wrote that if parents could afford Catholic sc... [Sawyer - 9/2/2010 3:34:56 PM]
Don Bosco relics to stop in San Francisco JLS, actually I try to stay away from political discussions ... [Mark from PA - 9/2/2010 3:29:37 PM]
“Clearly at odds with fundamental Catholic teachings” Some people idolize professors!! Yuck!!!... [Ski Ven - 9/2/2010 3:15:02 PM]

Links to Other Sites
Prior Site Archives
Article Archives

“Trust your instincts”

Fresno diocese’s guide on child abuse seems to leave a lot of room for interpretation


In the wake of the clergy molestation scandal, the Fresno diocese, like others, has put in place a religious education program to train students (Kindergarten-12th grade) to respond to abuse. But does this “safe environment program, called “Keeping the Promise,” keep the promise it makes?

According to Bishop John Steinbock’s foreword, the program’s “Parent Resource and Catechist Guide” was drawn up “to make a practical connection of Christian values to personal and interpersonal safety skill development that may reduce a child’s vulnerability without compromising their innocence.” Further, “it respects the parents’ discretion regarding how and when the more sensitive topics related to child abuse are introduced to their children in regards to individual readiness.”

Parents may opt their children out of safe environment sessions. Parents who participate receive a copy of the guide, which promises them, “Classroom presentations to young children will not teach the proper names of body parts, especially those areas that are often referred to as ‘private parts.’ Giving specific examples of what is ‘good touch vs. bad touch’ will not be included...”

However, a teachers’ handout adds, “If during the course of a presentation one of the children initiates the topic of inappropriate touch -- you should and must respond.” Admitting “our responsibility to the parents to respect their right to decide when to introduce sensitive topical matter to their children,” the handout suggests exceptions to this responsibility. “It is our responsibility to the children to respond to a question or comment that regards a safety issue,” it says. Such comments should be “age appropriate” and “specifically focused on what the child asked or stated.” If the child seems to have “a more personal issue or is beginning to disclose abuse,” he or she is to be dealt with on an individual basis “as soon as possible.”

Abuse, according to the diocese’s guide, includes emotional (called “insensitive”), physical (“indignant”), neglect (“insufficient,” including failure to show “emotional love and support”), as well as sexual abuse (“inappropriate”). While in the lower grades teachers address situations that make children feel unsafe (grade 1), how to report “unsafe behavior” (grade 3), the dangers of the Internet (grade 4), verbal abuse (grade 6), by eighth grade they discuss specifically the four types of abuse, and students are told they have to fight the “cancer” of child abuse by “caring.” In the high school years, scenario questions suggest that students should be vigilant in reporting abuse.

Teachers, too, are told to “trust your instincts” and report what they think might be abuse -- and not just by Church officials. This includes, according to the guide, not only sexual abuse, but any abuse, including “failure to provide adequate school or educationally related needs” as well as “acts or failure to act by parent or caretaker that has caused, or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional or mental disorders.”

What constitutes “failure” or a “serious” matter is presumably left up to the teacher’s -- and, ultimately, the state’s -- discretion.


READER COMMENTS

Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 12:29 AM By janet
teachers tend to err on the side of caution, at least that's been my experience. Schools fear retaliation by parents through lawsuits and so are reluctant to act & report as they are required by law. I wish this weren't the case as many children in abusive homes could be given the help and protection they need if teachers were to pay more attention and report suspected abuse based on their *insticts*.

Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 8:01 AM By Central Valley
Thank you again CCD for expose the filth of the Fresno diocese. This article clearly shows how the Fresno diocese does not have a sheperd or leader as bishop, we have a follower. Steinbocks has faield to lead the diocese, nothing inovative in his nature, always copy what another diocese is doing. Steinbock may have a forward to the program but like almost all issues of Catholic education in the diocese, he is totally hands off. Bishop Steinbock and other priest may be listed as members of variosu school boards but it is the lay leadership who really comtrols catholic education in the Fresno diocese and there is the problem. Please keep writing about the Fresno diocese because there is alot to write about..........

Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 2:13 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, So you want teachers to report parents to child protective services because the teachers think the parents have failed to show “emotional love and support"? Do you think teachers are really capable of determining this? Don't you think the clause, “acts or failure to act by parent or caretaker that has caused, or could cause, serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional or mental disorders,” leaves a bit too much to interpretation? What parent in his right mind woudl be willing to have his parental rights subject to the instincts of teachers.

Posted Sunday, April 29, 2007 2:44 PM By janet
Yes, Christopher I do agree with the clause that says teachers should report cases where "the actions or inactions of guardians could cause SERIOUS behavioral, cognitive, emotional or mental DISORDERS". Absolutely. I'm concerned that anyone who cares about the safety of children would be more concerned about "parental rights" than child protection. No parent is ever willing to have their parental rights subject to the insticts of teachers or anyone else for that matter, especially abusive parents, but that does not mean that teachers or others should not report suspected abuse. I do think that if teachers suspect emotional abuse (failure to show emotional love and support) based on the observation of their students they should report it. Here's a website on Child Abuse. It lists emotional abuse, symptoms & effects (http://www.helpguide.org/mental/child_abuse_physical_emotional_sexual_neglect.htm) A "Report" is not a violation of parental rights, it's only a report of suspected abuse. It is then the duty of CPS to "investigate". Unless they can "prove" child endangerment, the child won't be removed from the home, but their investigation can be a wake up call to parents who are abusing their children and get them the help they need.

Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 10:58 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, The problem is that what is termed abuse is to broad and too subtle. Lack of emotional love is termed abuse by the diocese's own admission. The Church has taught --- and reason supports --- that family authority is not derived from the state and therefore the state has no direct authority over family members except in cases of clear and grave violation of rights (Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum). The vague statement, "the actions or inactions of guardians could cause SERIOUS behavioral, cognitive, emotional or mental DISORDERS," is too subjective, too vague. It leaves too much up to intepretation by those who have no authority to stand judge over a family. Children are taken from their parents merely upon suspicion of abuse, as an article we posted about Tehachapi parents some time back shows.

Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 4:07 PM By janet
Christopher, I don’t see what the problem you have with those who are *mandated* to REPORT, or in thinking the terminology is too vague. A guideline for *reporting* needs to be vague, whereas, a law and/or the guidelines of those responsible for *investigation and prosecution* needs to be specific. The website I linked earlier on Child Abuse says the same thing as the Bishop: “ Emotional child abuse is any attitude, behavior, or failure to act that interferes with a child's mental health or social development. It can range from a simple verbal insult to an extreme form of punishment. Emotional abuse is almost always present when another form of abuse is found. Surprisingly, emotional abuse can have more long-lasting negative psychiatric effects than either physical abuse or sexual abuse...the site also lists EXAMPLES OF EMOTIONAL ABUSE: *Intimidation - Yelling, screaming, threatening, frightening, or bullying. *Belitting or shaming - Humiliating the child, name-calling, making negative comparisons to others. Telling the child he or she is “no good," "worthless," "bad," or "a mistake." *Lack of affection and warmth- Showing little to no physical affection (such as hugs) or words of affection (praise, saying “I love you.”)… Teachers & professionals who work with children are *mandated* by law to report abuse. The State defines by law what constitutes abuse and the appropriate consequences. The Bishop is mandated to report and to instruct teachers to report abuse. I also think that the Church should be MORE CONCERNED about the abuse of a child's human dignity and rights than the State not less. Especially as a response to the Sexual abuse of children by our Church members.

Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 6:23 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, I object because I don't think the state has the right to intervene in families unless there is a clear, unmistakable, grave violation of the rights of its members. If the state steps beyond its authority and competence and makes laws which violate justice, then it must be resisted, most of all by the Church. The Church should not become the state's agent in violating family sovereignty.

Posted Monday, April 30, 2007 7:47 PM By arc angel
For DAILY VETTED infromation, Locally, State, Nationally and Internationally we suggest: www.bishopaccountability.org/AbuseTracker

Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 12:22 AM By Janet
Christopher, It's is the abusive parents that violate justice, not the State who intervenes to protect the child. The State (responsible for the common good) has laws protecting children. Schools, Churches, Counselors, Doctors, Hospital personnel, and other professionals who work with children are legally bound to report suspected abuse, they are called *mandated reporters*. They can be held accountable in court for *not* reporting. Reporting does not equal intervention, reporting does not require clear, unmistakable, grave criteria. If I see a child who is fearful, who doesn't want to go home, avoids interaction with parents this is sufficient criteria for me to suspect something is not right in their home & call CPS. Intervention occurs by authorities upon investigation of reports the authorities deem credible or serious. Intervention does not equal breaking up the family. In most cases, unless the authorities can prove i.e. X-Rays, marks, bruises, scars, etc. that the child in in grave danger they will not remove the child from the home. Even after removing the child the parents are given ample opportunities to rehabilitate so the child can be returned to the home. In cases of emotional abuse the child is rarely removed from the home, but the parents are given the resources & motivation to overcome their abusiveness. The soveriegnity (sp) of the family does not give them the *right* to abuse their child - physically, sexually, emotionally or through neglect. Children are persons equal in dignity.A child is a gift, not a right.

Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 10:43 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet,
No one said family sovereignty gives the right to abuse. The point is that if parents' authority is not granted by the state, it cannot be abrogated or diminished by the state. Thus, even your "interventions" are a dangerous precedent and are actually a diminishment of parental authority because done without the leave of the parents. The state has the care for the common good but the state's authority is limited; there are certain boundaries beyond which it may not go. I repeat, parental authority is not derived from the state; therefore, the state may not abolish or diminish it. The only time the state may step in is when anyone may step in; that is, when the acts of the parents are so grave as to constitute an abrogation of their authority.

But I've already written about this on the Madhouse blog. I'm not going to go through that again. Your trust in the state and the ability of social workers to determine what they call "the best interests of the child" is a puzzlement to me. You want a watchman over parents because some are abusive; but who's going to watch the watchman? Sooner or later you're going to have to stop at some authority. Why shouldn't it be the parents?

Posted Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:45 PM By janet
likewise, your equating the Bishop's instruction to Catholic teachers on their legal responsibility for mandated "reporting" and the State conducting legal investigations into allegations of abuse as "violating justice" is a puzzlement to me. Parents have to abide by rules & laws that respect the rights of children. Parents aren't exempt from having to abide by the laws. Their children are not their "property" or their right, their children are their gift and responsibility and they must be properly treated. Let's say you're driving down the freeway and while changing the radio station you inadvertently swerve your car. A motorist observes the swerve, suspects you may be a drunk driver and calls the police giving them your license plate # and description of the car. You're pulled over by the CHP responding to the call and carefully checked (investigated) for alcohol or drugs. Neither the caller or the Police have violated justice just because you are innocent. It's the same with teachers who "observe" somethings not right with one of their students and calls in a report, it's the same with the CPS or authorities who conduct an investigation. Now I have heard stories of people who have been pulled over for suspected DUI's, car impounded, taken to the jail only to have a blood test show they were well under the legal limit. Mistakes happen, but that does not mean that the system is broken and cops should stop pulling people over for suspected DUI's or that I shouldn't report when I see a motorist swerve.

Posted Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:35 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, You simply do not seem to understand the nature of authority and its limits. And I don't know how to explain it to you. I shall simply say this, and say no more to you on this subject. The right to drive a car on highways is derived from the state; it can thus be regulated, diminished, or removed by the state. Paternal rights are derived directly from God, not even through the state. Thus, where does the state get the authority to intervene in internal workings of a family?

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:30 AM By janet
Where does the State get the authority to intervene? from God: I. AUTHORITY 1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17 1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will. (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a2.htm) The State's intervention when a child is being abused is the State exercising this God given authority for the "common good" of protecting the more vulnerable members, children, from abuse (physical, emotional, sexual) neglect, and forced labor.

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:06 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, You really have to slow down, think about what's being said, and answer it accordingly. I did not deny the state's authority; I merely said that the state's authority is not absolute. In other words, the state has LIMITED authority. Do you think the state has absolute authority? Parents also have authority. It is not given by the state nor can it be taken away by the state or diminished by the state. I argued that this is so based on Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum in my blog piece, A Great and Pernicious Error. If you wish, reread it and tell where my reasoning is wrong. But if your answer is merely going to be, "the state has authority for the common good," I shall not bother to answer, since I have answered this before.

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:20 AM By janet
Christopher, You asked where does the State get it's authority and I answered where the State gets it's authority. I've read your "great & pernicious error" piece already. I suggest you read the section of the Catechism I quoted from PART THREE LIFE IN CHRIST SECTION ONE MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT CHAPTER TWO THE HUMAN COMMUNION ARTICLE 2 PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL LIFE There's alot more to Church teaching than Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum !

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:21 AM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, Nothing therein contradicts the notion that the state has a limited authority. You are simply reiterating, "the state has authority for the common good" -- a notion I have not disputed. I am simply saying that that authority does not give the state the right to interfere with other authorities. But, you seemingly believe in a state without any limitation to its power. The Catechism here does not contradict Leo XIII (and it really can't, since a papal document is of higher authority than the Catechism), so neither should you. You mustn't dismiss a papal teaching simply because it is pre John Paul II or because it enunciates principles you think are strange. There is more to Catholic teaching than the Catechism and what you have gleaned from your own experience.

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 12:37 PM By janet
I'm not saying the State has unlimited authority. I'm saying the State has God-given authority for the common good, and protecting children from harm, even when the one harming the child is their own parents, is part of the common good and well within their authority. The Catechism says we are to respect that authority "he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." I'm not dismissing Rerum Novarum or pitting it against the CCC. I believe that Encylicals are "teachings" that deepen our understanding and application of our faith to current events and issues. The encylicals build on the Doctrine of the Church. I have noticed that you have a tendency to misapply the teachings, take them out of context and apply them in situations they were not intended for.

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 2:43 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, But the authorities you cite do not even directly address what Pope Leo was addressing --- the rights of the family. They merely lay out the duties of citizens --- a teaching which is at least as old as St. Thomas Aquinas. Where do you find in anything you cited the notion that the state may intervene in family life for anything less than grave reasons?

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:21 PM By janet
The laws regarding child abuse are clearly laid out by the State. In addition, the laws regarding child abuse are written in our hearts in the Natural law. A parent knows that when they are abusing their child either physically, mentally, emotionally or through their neglect that they are not only disobeying the Natural law, they can as a result lose the legal guardianship of the child they are abusing. In addition to abusing their child parents go to great length to hide the abuse and force the cooperation of the child and others towards secrecy because they know that if the abuse is discovered they will be held accountable. Children with a black eye, bruises, or a broken arm will lie to a concerned citizen rather than "squeel" on Mommy or Daddy out of dependency and fear of the abuser. A wife who is abused will lie about her bruises, broken arms, out of dependency and fear of the abuser. This is one of the reasons professionals who work with children are instructed in how to "spot" possible abuse in a child's behavior. The State does not "Intervene" unless it is a "grave" concern. Intervention would be removing the child from danger and filing charges of abuse against the parents. As I've said before - a "report" of suspected abuse and an "investigation" by CPS is not the same as "intervention" and is not a violation of rights. Intervention by the State also gives the accused (parents) the right of due process in that they can have an attorney represent them. Also as I've said before the State only temporarily removes a child in grave danger, and gives the parents 3 tries at rehabilitation. After the third failure the parents guardianship is permanently removed. The child has rights and the State protects those rights when parents fail by acting as an advocate for the child.

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:12 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Yes, right to due process. Like the Tehachapi couple who had their chidlren removed for two months because of a spiral fracture, which is no certain sign of abuse --- as the judge finally recognized in their case. But, hey, what's two months away from one's parents?

You essentially give the state plenary power to determine what is abuse and the power to enforce its decrees. This leaves the authority of parents at the mercy of the state. For, as you have indicated above, abuse for the state is not just grave abuse but bad parenting --- lack of emotional love, for instance, name calling, showing little to no physical affection (such as hugs) or words of affection (praise, saying “I love you."). These are all emotional abuse by the state's standards. But they are not grave abuse! And if they are, then every act of flawed parenting is grave abuse and therefore subject to intervention by the state. If this is not totalitarianism, I'm not sure what is. It certainly flies in the face of Church teaching.

If "grave" means anything, it has to mean threat to life or limb or sexual misconduct. Except in such cases, the state may not intervene.

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 6:49 PM By janet
I used to be married to an X-Ray technician. Sometimes when a child is x-rayed the x-rays show multiple miniscule fractures. These fractures can result from intentional harm i.e. hitting, squeezing, yanking or from unintentional harm i.e. parents using a child's arm as a handle to carelessly lift them about. In either case, harm has been done - there is clear proof on an x-ray of that harm. The X-Ray tech and /or Radiologist who reads the X-Rays is obligated by law to report these findings to authorities. Parents waiting in the lobby for the X-Rays can be met by the hospital social worker and security and the child placed in protective custody while an investigation ensues. A lot of this will depend on the parent’s demeanor when questioned. The parents have the right to an attorney and an opportunity to plead their innocence. That opportunity does not preclude the State from having to "protect" the child. Apparantly you don't think that mental and emotional abuse is grave. I disagree, the Natural law tells me it's as serious if not more so to deprive a child of love as it is to deprive them of food or shelter i.e. "forgive me for what I have done and what I have failed to do". Try to think of studies that were done on babies in orphanages who were dying, then when they found volunteers to come in and hold babies these babies lived. It clearly showed that a child's very life depends on being loved. In addition, the emotional or mental abuse is almost always accompanied by other forms of abuse and neglect. Recognizing emotional and mental abuse can alert authorities to the physical abuse. If the child is showing symptoms of abuse then it's clear that damage has already been done and it's harmed the child. The State does not "intervene" because of I don't know how you can say the state may not intervene. It can and it does. Those are the laws - abide by them. "he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Posted Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:10 PM By Christopher Zehnder
Janet, By your reasoning you completely destroy parental authority. You make it depend completely on the determination of the state. Your vision is not Christendom but the Brave New World. I wonder, too, after you have found nothing in more recent Church teaching to even modify Rerum Novarum you ignore the implications of it. You do not address the text directly.

Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 5:05 PM By janet
Christopher give me a break! It's not all or nothing, It's not either I agree with YOUR interpretation or I'm on the side of Big Brother. You've mischaracterized (strawman) the issue by equating "intervention" which the State only does for clear & grave reasons with "reporting" emotional abuse (i.e. lack of love in the home). You have never made the point between Rerum Novarum and your assertion that the State does not have the right to protect children. I don't disagree with Rerum Novarum or Church teaching - I disagree with your "private interpretation" and application to this situation. I disagree with your false logic strawman, red-herring, and now ad-hominem. I'll have nothing to do with this type of dishonest reasoning. Maybe you should read up on logical fallacies: (http://www.carm.org/apologetics/fallacies.htm)

Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 6:48 PM By Christopher Zehnder
But, dear Janet, I have made the connection betwen RN and my assertion numerous times. You call my logic faulty, but you have never demonstrated where it goes wrong nor have you shown how my interpretation is not faithful to RN. You simply assert that it is not. Further you have never even addressed the pertinent section of RN directly. I wonder if you have even read it. I must object to your characterization of my reasoning as "dishonest." My reasoning may be fallacious, but it is not dishonest. Describing your vision as that of the Brave New World was not an ad hominem but a characterization of your ideas. You know, before you call reasoning dishonest, you should show how or where it is dishonest. You have not done so. Anyhow, I'm done with this fruitles exchange.

Posted Friday, May 04, 2007 7:26 PM By janet
logical "fallacy" = false = dishonest

Post your Comment
Name:
Email: (Optional: Will not display)
Comment:
 
Comments are limited to 1500 characters, and cannot contain offensive or libelous language. For security, comments cannot contain html tags, including < and > symbols - and NO URLS or LINKS. Comments will appear after they have been approved by the editor. Inclusion of your email address is optional so the editor may contact you.



Calcatholic Mobile
Optimized for your
mobile device











Visitors since January 1st, 2009:
javascript hit counter

website created by Vigil Studios © 2006 -  www.vigilstudios.com