They call this a "Child Protection Policy" -- how does it protect our kids to defend mortally sinful behaviors such as masturbation, fornication, and sodomy?

This is in a SSPX UK school! Someone sent this to me in an email. And according to this same person it is not even government funded! To quote him: "It's not even government funded mate..... totally independent funding from parents and benefactors"

SAINT MICHAEL'S SCHOOL
Harts Lane School
Burghclere
Newbury
Berkshire RG20 9JW
United Kingdom

-----------------------------------

I don't think I've ever felt so shocked, disgusted, dismayed, betrayed before.. Poor, saintly, Archbishop Lefebvre is totally betrayed and kicked in the ... for good measure...

* Solitary Masturbation
* Having girl/boyfriends who are of the same, opposite or any gender
* Interest in erotica/pornography
* Having sɛҳuąƖ relationships
* Consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender........

The above is just a small sample of "safe and healthy sɛҳuąƖ development" contained in a new, so-called, Child Protection Policy at an SSPX school. It's found on the SSPX UK website under the title "SMS Child Protection Policy 17.07.2016" and according to the docuмent web address was added to the website on or around 16th July 2017.
The offending section is Appendix IX, which is entitled "Brook sɛҳuąƖ Behaviours Traffic Light Tool".

http://www.sspx.co.uk/sMS%20CPP%2017.07.16.pdf

Brook, is a notorious pro-abortion, pro-contraception, sɛҳuąƖ 'advice' organisation.
This disgusting 'Child Protection Policy' docuмent first made an appearance one-year ago when it was sent to staff and some parents of the school. The previous headmaster, who was recently replaced, erased the offending appendix IX from the file in front of concerned parents when it was bought to his attention. He told parents he knew nothing about the appendix being added to the docuмent and sent out an email apologising for his "lack of oversight."
Now it is back and publicly displayed on the SSPX website along with other official school policy docuмents.

http://www.sspx.co.uk/sms-policy-table.htm

This is utterly despicable!


St. Michael's School

An independent school founded in 1991 to give a traditional Catholic education to children from 5-18 years.
 

• JUNIORS: day school, boys & girls
• SENIOR BOYS: boarding & day  
• SENIOR GIRLS: day school starting Sep16, Seniors 2,3,4

[size={defaultattr}][font={defaultattr}]
 
St. Michael’s is nestled within 30 acres of beautiful countryside.  It is a school of the Society of St. Pius X.
For further information:
Rev. Fr. John Brucciani
Headmaster
St. Michael’s School
Harts Lane
Burghclere
Hampshire RG20 9JW
stmichaels@fsspx.uk[/font][/size]


The devil has turned this fight up to 11. Let's pray and fight to defend the innocence of Traditional Catholic children!

UPDATE: The SSPX authorities at St. Michael's have taken down the whole links page, as well as the PDF -- in under 9 hours! They must keep an eye on CathInfo at all times...

The fact that there has been no swift iron fist by Bishop Felay to annihilate this reprobation tells me he is in tacit approval.

It is presumption, but what if the children are already so corrupt that it seems "practical" to install such a filthy accommodation? Remember Post Falls? And to be honest, I think a number of children churned out by SSPX schools aren't too different from those that go elsewhere... that is my limited, negative opinion. I realize, though, that there are still plenty of good children out there and they need real action to protect them.

The SSPX died a long time ago, it is only apparent in recent years. People need to take matters into their own hands to pressure a reformed direction or get off the Titanic.

Condoning and/or promoting mortal sin is NEVER ok. Deep deep corruption in the SSPX is no surprise, but deviant and immoral? It was only a matter of time, like one foot follows the other. 

I have no intention of condoning this matter. If what was written is perceived as such, I retract what was said.  What I mean to say is what do you do if the superiors "think" this is neccesary in order to deal with an already rampant and out of hand situation?
If anything, everyone should send them e-mails telling them how disgraceful their polocies are, instead of just lingering around the net being outraged and engaging in useless banter. "Action speaks louder then words," and sending and e-mail and saying a prayer is better then sitting here reading this.

Agreed.

Well I understand that Fr. S had removed that page, and that once he left, the page was re-instated.

If he were still there, I bet that docuмent would still be gone. And the school would still be functioning just fine!


But even if it were required by law (and 100% enforced), I'd still have to ask: Is this what we've come to? To operate schools, we must "officially" condone deviant behavior, even if "unofficially" we speak against it?

This smacks of a compromise; the proverbial "grain of incense" offered to a false god. Like the priests of England submitting to the King as the head of the "Church of England" instead of the Pope. It might seem like a small thing, but it's not. It's a sellout.

Isn't this the first step down a slippery slope? What about teachers who are lukewarm to begin with -- they'll look at this docuмent, and think the school is "mainstream liberal" and begin to act accordingly.

At first, it's a legal technicality. But as time goes on, more and more teachers will read it and take it seriously -- having failed to "get the memo" -- and the liberal snowball will continue to roll downhill faster and faster, picking up steam.

I suppose in some countries, which are as wretched as Great Britain, good Catholics are called upon by God to homeschool their children. Apparently even private school is out.

This seems way to far fetched for me.  The sspx is not perfect, but I cannot see this lasting long like before.  I think it has to be a mistake.

It's a docuмent every school in the United Kingdom is required to have. I have done the research and searched the title of the docuмent. Multiple schools in the UK come up, all with the selfsame docuмent, layout and wording. The only thing different, of course, is the school's insignia. They're not defending anything, they're required by UK law to have that docuмent.

Can you back this statement up with evidence? You say you've done the research but you offer nothing to substantiate it.

[font=SF Optimized, system-ui, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, .SFNSText-Regular, sans-serif][/font][/size][/color]