1. Explicit examples may cause harm

Church documents put into words the concerns we've had as parents regarding the explicit nature of the TAT curriculum: “Sexual violence with regard to children is not infrequent. Parents must protect their children, first by teaching them a form of modesty and reserve with regard to strangers, as well as by giving suitable sexual information, but without going into details and particulars that might upset or frighten them.”   (--Truth & Meaning of Human Sexuality, #85)

We believe that TAT does exactly this--provides inappropriate details to young children.  To read some of these examples, please see TAT Curriculum.

2. Does not provide enough protection

TAT bases its protection of children on what it calls the "Touching Rule."  This specifies that no one is to touch your private parts except to keep you clean and healthy.  Most perpetrators are clever and can use this as a pretense to abuse a child.  TAT does not say WHO should touch your private parts, only WHY.  We believe BOTH are needed---"only mommy or daddy can touch your private parts to keep you clean and healthy."  Parents can extend that "permission" if they wish to others, such as the doctor or grandmother.  This gives more protection than the touching rule and is much easier for a child to learn and remember.

3. The roots and links to TAT are suspect

The Committee for Children (CFC), who developed TAT, states that they evolved from a group known as COYOTE, a pro-prostitution organization.  There are several chapters of COYOTE in the United States today, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York.  There was once a Seattle chapter (where CFC is based), that eventually became CFC.  When then Archdiocese of Boston was asked about this connection, they downplayed it.  A few days later, the references to COYOTE were removed from the CFC web site, but we capture the information.

Who else recommends TAT?  Planned Parenthood (listed here) and SIECUS (Sexual information and Education Council of the United States, listed here).  What do these connections say about TAT?  You can draw your own conclusion, but having those organizations approve of a particular training program, given their overall agendas, indicates that the program will likely further their own cause.

4. Infringes on parent's rights

This concern is not about TAT itself, but about how the Archdiocese of Boston has implemented it.  Setting aside the secular nature of it, the archdiocese once mandated this for all Catholic Schools and Religious Education programs.  After much protest from parents, they reversed that decision.  But there is still a sentiment that parents are secondarily teaching their children about these issues, which is in complete opposition to Church Teaching, when we read,

"Sex education, which is a basic right and duty of parents, must always be carried out under their attentive guidance, whether at home or in educational centers chosen and controlled by them. In this regard, the Church reaffirms the law of subsidiarity, which the school is bound to observe when it cooperates in sex education, by entering into the same spirit that animates the parents.” --Familiaris Consortio,#37

“However, those in society who are in charge of schools must never forget that the parents have been appointed by God Himself as the first and principal educators of their children and that their right is completely inalienable.” --Familiaris Consortio, #40

When we asked Deacon Rizzuto (the head of TAT's implementation in Boston) if he had read any Church documents relating to this matter, he said no.  He further said that this program is absolutely age-appropriate because it's based on years of research.