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.’


Harcourt Anti-Life Publisher


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)


Opening the Door to Vice


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? 


A Strong Homosexual Bias


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?


In GIF’s FR section for parents with kindergarten children, ages 5 to 6, following a general description of what “having sex” means and what married people do in bed, parents are told how to respond to their child’s question about “gays.”


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.

Kindergarten Organ Recital
Throughout the entire early grade glossary we find the proverbial “organ recital” that Catholic sexual catechesis have become famous for. As the grade levels rise, so does the number of exotic sexual references. The repetitive emphasis on certain parts of the female genitalia in GIF is no doubt a reflection of the growing interest of lesbians, including lesbian nuns, in sex instruction programs for children particularly for young girls. (8)

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?”


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…”

Did you notice anything interesting about that last sentence? According to the authors of GIF implantation (not conception) marks the beginning of a woman’s pregnancy.  This is of course a patent deception – a lie!

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?




Also, at the third grade level, the FR book tells parents how to give step-by-step instructions to their little children on the subject of solitary and mutual masturbation. I thought it was a “nice” touch that the authors were considerate enough to remind parents that such acts are better accomplished, “by reading or watching sexually graphic materials,” that is pornography. Double the vice, double the pleasure! Can’t beat that for a “Family Resource!”


For fifth graders, the parent-child discourse provides a detailed description of acts leading up to the conjugal union along with some anti-life birth control propaganda. There is also another reference to heterosexuality as a “tendency” and homosexuality as also a “tendency,” in the fifth grade student activity book. Never mind that heterosexuality is a biological norm for the human species and homosexuality is a perversion of that norm.
That Lewinsky-Clinton Thing
In the FR text for parents of fifth graders,  mom and dad are briefed on every salacious detail they might have missed when the Lewinsky-Clinton affair made news headlines around the world in 1999. The description covers heterosexual as well as homosexual deviant acts. But parents are assured that these acts are something that both heterosexuals and homosexuals enjoy.    


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!


American Bishops Capitulate

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. 


Rome – The Sex Ed Buck Stops Here


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.


Educational Guidance in Human Love

Vatican Gives “Green Light” to Sex Ed


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.



The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality

More Vatican Subterfuge


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.


What Lies Ahead


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!  


Action Line – Pray and Act


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



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.

                                    Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

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 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,        


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.