Outrageous “Child Protection” Policy in English SSPX School explicitly accepts sɛҳuąƖ Perversion
September 11, 2017

Includes “Brook sɛҳuąƖ Behaviours Traffic Light Tool”

[color][size][font]
[UPDATE 17-SEP-2017 00:10 UTC – Statement from St. Michael’s Headmaster and our reaction added — scroll to end of post]
[UPDATE 12-SEP-2017 16:09 UTC – please see second paragraph below]
The Society of St. Pius X’s District of Great Britain operates a school dedicated to St. Michael the Archangel in the small village of Burghclere, England. According to its official web page, St. Michael’s School is an “independent school founded in 1991 to give a traditional Catholic education to children from 5-18 years.” It is “independent” in the sense of not being funded in whole or in part by the secular government. The same page clearly notes that St. Michael’s is “a school of the Society of St. Pius X.”
A prospectus of St. Michael’s lists Fr. Patrick Summers as the headmaster (principal) and Fr. Gary Holden as the housemaster (boarding school supervisor).
UPDATE 12-SEP-2017 16:09 UTC: The current headmaster is Fr. John Brucciani (presumably related to the Great Britain District Superior, Fr. Robert Brucciani). Fr. Patrick Summers had been the headmaster in the past. According to a report published on the Call Me Jorge… blog, the offending material had been removed by Fr. Summers, but when he was replaced, it was put back up.
Under the heading “Moral Formation”, the prospectus advertises the school as follows:
[/font][/size][/color]

Education is more than the mere imparting of facts, it also consists in the instilling of virtues. Through the school’s teaching, the example of teachers and fellow pupils and the sacraments of the Church, the child learns the practice of virtue and that his Catholic Faith is an integral part of everyday life. Self-control, good manners and disciplined behaviour are instilled with a view to developing the child’s character and sense of moral responsibility. This is also enhanced by participating in the domestic organisation of the houses by keeping dormitories and classrooms clean and tidy under the supervision of prefects who are expected to set an example of good conduct. As a small school, we are able to create a family atmosphere in which the children are cared for in a friendly yet disciplined setting.
“Disorderly inclinations must be corrected, good tendencies encouraged and regulated from tender childhood, and, above all, the mind must be enlightened and the will strengthened by supernatural truth and by the means of grace, without which it is impossible to attain the full and complete perfection of education intended by the Church, which Christ has endowed so richly with divine doctrine and with the Sacraments, the efficacious means of grace.” ([Encyclical] Divini Illius Magistri [of Pope Pius XI])
(Source)

[color][size][font]
This is a very noble description, but when one looks at what the school includes in its “child protection policy”, a very different picture emerges.
Unfortunately, we must issue a disclaimer before we allow you to read any further.
CAUTION: The remainder of this post contains sɛҳuąƖly explicit and perverted written content.
St. Michael’s school has a 34-page “Child Protection Policy, Procedure and Guidance” docuмent that contains an extremely scandalous 3-page appendix, as we will demonstrate in a moment. The docuмent says it was last revised in July of 2016, and it had been posted at the school’s web site until a short while ago. (It has since been removed after a post on Facebook began to draw public attention to it.) Knowing how things like this tend to disappear rather quickly, we downloaded and saved a copy and took screenshots so that we have all the docuмentation necessary to expose this horrific scandal.
First, here is a screenshot of the table of school policies that were available online until the SSPX webmaster removed the page (click image for a larger version):
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
The URL to this page (now no longer functional) was http://www.sspx.co.uk/sms-policy-table.htm. Notice that the eighth docuмent title from the top says “SMS Child Protection Policy 17.07.2016”. This is the scandalous docuмent in question.
Second, here is a screenshot of the top portion of the first page of the “child protection” policy:
[/font][/size][/color][color][size][font]
This docuмent has also been removed now from its original location at http://www.sspx.co.uk/sMS%20CPP%2017.07.16.pdf. However, we have retained a copy and uploaded it to the internet in entirely unmodified form. You can download it from here:
[/font][/size][/color]

• SSPX Saint Michael’s School “Child Protection Policy, Procedure and Guidance” (July 2016)

[color][size][font]
Page 1 of the docuмent clarifies that this policy “is reviewed annually and approved by the District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)”, a post currently held by Fr. Robert Brucciani. There is no disclaimer that in any way distances the SSPX from any of the content in the docuмent.
Most of what the docuмent contains is entirely decent and sensible and establishes prudent guidelines for the protection of minors. The scandalous, dangerous, and intolerable content is found in Appendix IX (pp. 30-32), which is the “Brook sɛҳuąƖ Behaviours Traffic Light Tool”.
Brook is a secular British “sɛҳuąƖ education” organization that promotes contraception, abortion, gender ideology, and sɛҳuąƖ perversion:
[/font][/size][/color]

• Brook (official web site)
• Brook (Wikipedia entry)
• Brook Statement on Abortion
• Brook on sɛҳuąƖity
• Brook on Gender
• Brook on Contraception
• Brook on “My Body”

[color][size][font]
Brook’s “traffic light tool” categorizes different “sɛҳuąƖ behaviors” into green (safe/healthy), amber(potentially unsafe/unhealthy), and red (definitely unsafe/unhealthy). There are four different tiers corresponding to different age groups: 0-5 years; 5-9 years; 9-13 years; and 13-17 years.
Have a look at what is included in the category of “green” (i.e. indicative of “safe and healthy sɛҳuąƖ development”) behavior for boys and girls 13-17 years of age:
[/font][/size][/color]

• solitary masturbation
• sɛҳuąƖly explicit conversations with peers
• obscenities and jokes within the current cultural norm
• interest in erotica/pornography
• having sɛҳuąƖ or non-sɛҳuąƖ relationships
• consenting oral and/or penetrative sex with others of the same or opposite gender who are of similar age and developmental ability

[color][size][font]
This is beyond nauseating. Notice that the last item does not exclude sodomy (“penetrative sex with others of the same … gender”). Sodomy is a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance — but for this English SSPX school, apparently it is part of a “safe and healthy sɛҳuąƖ development” of teenagers! “Green behaviours provide opportunities to give positive feedback and additional information”, the Brook traffic light tool enthusiastically advises.
Now have a look at what is included in the category of “amber” (not “red”!) behavior, which indicates only that it has the potential of being unsafe or unhealthy, not that it is necessarily so. “Amber”behaviours for children that are 5-9 years of age include:
[/font][/size][/color]

• sɛҳuąƖ bullying face to face or through texts or online messaging
• engaging in mutual masturbation
• persistent sɛҳuąƖ images and ideas in talk, play and art
• use of adult slang language to discuss sex

[color][size][font]
Yes, you read that right: “Mutual masturbation” of children between the ages of 5 and 9 is considered a problem merely potentially in this SSPX school!
The following items are included as merely “amber” for boys and girls 9-13 years of age:
[/font][/size][/color]

• verbal, physical or cyber/virtual sɛҳuąƖ bullying involving sɛҳuąƖ aggression
• exhibitionism, e.g. flashing or mooning
• viewing pornographic material
• worrying about being pregnant or having STIs [sɛҳuąƖly-transmitted infections]

[color][size][font]
This is sick, absolutely sick!
A disclaimer on each of the pages supplied by Brook links to the traffic light tool on their web site and notes that “Brook sɛҳuąƖ behaviours traffic light tool [is] adapted from Family Planning Queensland.” To learn about Family Planning Queensland, see their Wikipedia entry here.
Enough said! This would be bad enough if it were part of a policy for a secular public school. But what in the world is this filth doing as part of a “child protection” policy for a school run by the Society of St. Pius X? What is wrong with these people?!
There is no way that a school that claims to be traditional Roman Catholic could possibly impose, endorse, allow, or even tolerate such a policy. Even if we suppose that the U.K. government requires all schools to include this disgusting appendix in their child protection policies, at the very least this docuмent would have to include the world’s biggest disclaimer stating that the SSPX in no wise approves of, but in fact condemns, its content. Instead, we are assured that this docuмent “is reviewed annually and approved by the District Superior of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX)”!
The Superior General of the SSPX is Bp. Bernard Fellay. When in May of this year, seven SSPX deans in France voiced their disagreement about the developing rapprochement between the Society and the Vatican, Bp. Fellay acted quickly and removed the deans from their positions in a matter of days.
How quickly will Bp. Fellay act here?
[/font][/size][/color]

---

[color][size][font]
UPDATE 17-SEP-2017 00:10 UTC:
The headmaster of St. Michael’s school, Fr. John Brucciani, has emailed out the following statement to staff and parents:
[/font][/size][/color]

Dear Staff and Parents,
You will have become aware of accusations against St. Michael’s in regard to our Child Protection Policy. It is claimed that the policy is proof that the SSPX is promoting the moral corruption of children.
We reassure you that we do not seek nor wish to corrupt the children entrusted to us. On the contrary, we gladly sacrifice ourselves for them, daily.
In 2016, the Hampshire County Council Child Protection Policy Template for Schools (available on their website) was used to update our child protection policy here at St. Michael’s School. The template contained the Brook sɛҳuąƖ Behaviour Traffic Light Tool, which describes as normal certain sɛҳuąƖ activities and attitudes that are sinful. Unfortunately, due to a lake [sic] of oversight or distraction, the Brook Tool was overlooked and published as part of St. Michael’s School Child Protection Policy.
Ten days ago, before any polemic arose, I read (and updated) the policy for the first time. I noticed the Brook Tool. I inquired if its inclusion in our CP Policy was a legal requirement. Since it is not a legal requirement, I withdrew it.
Coincidently, several days after the policy had been amended, the internet became alive with the 2016 version of our CP policy, that has quietly nested on our website undisturbed for over 15 months.
The present attack on the SSPX is particularly disturbing in that it seeks to harm the only means we have of keeping our child [sic] safe from the many evils around us, namely St. Michael’s School.
Please pray for your priests, religious and teaching staff, that we be able to accomplish much for your children with the limited means we have at our disposal.
All our policies will be readily available on a new website we are preparing and which we hope will go live in a week or two.
Please forgive this delayed contact. I hope to write to you more fully very soon. So much to do.
Sincerely in Christ,
Fr. John Brucciani | Headmaster
St. Michael’s School
Harts Lane
Burghclere RG20 9JW
U.K.

[color][size][font]
Reaction by Novus Ordo Watch:
We will let the above statement by Fr. Brucciani speak for itself, but we would like to offer a few remarks in our defense.
It is not our desire to create a scandal where there is none, nor do we seek to calumniate anyone. We have no vendetta against this school, which we had never heard of until a few days ago.
It is no secret that we very much oppose the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as a whole — however, we do so on theological grounds (and, we believe, rather effectively — SEE HERE, for example) and would never use illicit/immoral means to further that cause.
Novus Ordo Watch reports on the doctrinal, moral, and spiritual corruption of the Vatican II Church and its various branches and false alternatives. In recent years, the SSPX has bent over backwards to be reconciled to the Vatican II Church under Francis, which is more Modernist and apparently more sɛҳuąƖly perverted than ever before. In fact, it seems that the worse things get in the Vatican, the more the SSPX is interested in being accepted by them.
The SSPX has been fragmented over this opening towards Modernist Rome (hence the recent offshoots from the SSPX, such as the “SSPX-Marian Corps”), and the turmoil in its ranks is evident. In addition, the SSPX has recently erected a Modernist-looking church in Spain, and the Superior General has apparently bought “Cardinal” Muller’s absurd lie that he wants the SSPX fully accepted so they can help “fight the Modernists”. And so forth, ad nauseam. The list is endless. With all these recent developments about the SSPX, would it really be out of the question that something “funny” might be going on with a particular school as well?
The only motivation for our post here has been to draw public attention to a terrifying, scandalous, and (at the time) independently verifiable fact (not hypothesis, rumor, or lie) involving the SSPX in a particular locality. That scandalous fact was the inclusion of very immoral content in an official child protection [sic] policy docuмent publicly accessible on the internet.
Naturally, one has to accept a public policy docuмent at face value: It means what it says and says what it means. The content in question was not something that can typically be overlooked by mistake: It was not a footnote; it was not fine print; it was not in a foreign language. It was three full pages, with typeface in various colors, written in English, explaining what is and isn’t “safe” or “healthy” sɛҳuąƖ behavior. These three pages were referenced in the table of contents. The policy itself assured the reader that the docuмent was being reviewed once a year not simply by the headmaster or staff but by the SSPX District Superior himself.
Unfortunately, many people have reacted to our coverage of this scandal by “shooting the messenger”, so to speak. Read the above statement by Fr. Brucciani again and notice what is conspicuously missing: an apology for the immoral content in the policy. Mistake or not, content like this cannot be included in a child protection policy docuмent, especially not if it is being claimed that this docuмent is reviewed regularly. Obviously, someone was gravely negligent here (at best), and this grave negligence has led to a scandal.
We very much hope that it really was a mistake and that this issue can now be put to rest.[/font][/size][/color]

Share the knowledge!

Want to prevent situations like this?  Accept NO govt. money of any kind.  That may mean in some countries that the SSPX simply can't operate schools.  

In AZ, no sex ed. in state laws.  Therefore, to dodge the laws, federal gov't put out money to the private schools, to implement sex ed.  

We had St. Matthew's dioceses, and another, I can not remember right now, and Valley Christian (non-denominational), that took the fed. money and implemented sex ed. The schools were private, as you would say, independent.

That is why I say, find the money trail.  One might think they can try Freedom of information Act, but that is kindergarten stuff.  I found that if you are serious to find out, you sue!

That again happened here is AZ.  Who was teaching condoms and such in catholic H. School.  I told a parent/lawyer, the same thing.  She sued and won and got to read the federal grant that paid dioceses to implement.

Keep researching.

I completely agree with NOW's rebuttal:

Unfortunately, many people have reacted to our coverage of this scandal by “shooting the messenger”, so to speak. Read the above statement by Fr. Brucciani again and notice what is conspicuously missing: an apology for the immoral content in the policy. Mistake or not, content like this cannot be included in a child protection policy docuмent, especially not if it is being claimed that this docuмent is reviewed regularly. Obviously, someone was gravely negligent here (at best), and this grave negligence has led to a scandal.

We very much hope that it really was a mistake and that this issue can now be put to rest.

Indeed, Father B's response is morally bankrupt and says worse things about him and the SSPX than the original docuмent scandal did.  Read his response a few times.  He starts by calling out the "accusations" and "claims", and then always uses the passive voice, and no time indicating responsibility.  By using the term "accusations" and "claims", he implies that the attackers are lying.  "We are under attack," it essentially starts off.  Now, Father, you're making this the equivalent of some degenerate attacking you for UPHOLDING Catholic moral theology.  What you did was actually objectively wrong, and all you did was attack the people who called you out for it.  It's one thing to explain that you did not intend anything bad, but admit the wrong first, then apologize, then explain that you did not do this intentionally (to help allay the scandal).  Instead you increase scandal by implying that you would have left it there had you found it to be a "legal requirement".

Besides that, the headline was objectively correct.  Their policy, as published, did in fact explicitly accept sɛҳuąƖ perversion.  This headline did not read "SSPX accepts sɛҳuąƖ perversion" or "SSPX school accepts sɛҳuąƖ perversion" but that the POLICY accepts it.  That's objectively true.