Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Includes “Brook Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool”

Outrageous “Child Protection” Policy in English SSPX School explicitly accepts Sexual Perversion

[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:

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)

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 sexually explicit and perverted written content.

St. Michael’s school has a 34-page “Child Protection Policy, Procedure and Guidance” document that contains an extremely scandalous 3-page appendix, as we will demonstrate in a moment. The document 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 documentation 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):

The URL to this page (now no longer functional) was http://www.sspx.co.uk/sms-policy-table.htm. Notice that the eighth document title from the top says “SMS Child Protection Policy 17.07.2016”. This is the scandalous document in question.

Second, here is a screenshot of the top portion of the first page of the “child protection” policy:

This document 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:

Page 1 of the document 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 document.

Most of what the document 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 Sexual Behaviours Traffic Light Tool”.

Brook is a secular British “sexual education” organization that promotes contraception, abortion, gender ideology, and sexual perversion:

Brook’s “traffic light tool” categorizes different “sexual 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 sexual development”) behavior for boys and girls 13-17 years of age:

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

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 sexual 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:

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

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:

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

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 sexual 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 document 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 document “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?


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:

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 Sexual Behaviour Traffic Light Tool, which describes as normal certain sexual 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.

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 sexually 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 document publicly accessible on the internet.

Naturally, one has to accept a public policy document 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” sexual behavior. These three pages were referenced in the table of contents. The policy itself assured the reader that the document 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 document, especially not if it is being claimed that this document 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.

34 Responses to “Outrageous “Child Protection” Policy in English SSPX School explicitly accepts Sexual Perversion”

  1. Aliquantillus

    My guess is that this simply an error, not SSPX policy. Perhaps some standard secular protocol which follows the guidelines of the Brook organization in matters of sexual abuse was adopted by the school and not sufficiently checked. Everyone knows that the SSPX is fully committed to the traditional moral teachings of the Church. So I wouldn’t make anything big of this for now.

      • Julia O'Sullivan

        I agree with Aliquantillus. It is too broad and blunt a play to be deliberate. Filth slithers into purity like a snake, not like a battering ram.

        • CumExApostolatus

          After reading the updated post here on Novus Ordo Watch, do both you and Aliquantillus still think this is an oversight, a ‘mistake’, the snake ‘slithering’ in rather than a battering ram? I contend that people such as you need to come out of your comas. Those who are running the show WANT YOU TO KNOW who is running the show. You’d better go along to get along or, as they say in baseball, “You’re OUT”. How much more evidence do you need??

    • Timotheos

      Well, that’s certainly possible. But unless the SSPX publicly apologize for this supposed ‘mistake’ and outrightly condemn the toxic content contained in this policy document (rather than just furtively removing it from their website), one is justified in suspecting that their underlying moral convictions are very much in tune with the rest of the Novus Ordo sect to which they belong.

  2. BurningEagle

    This goes hand-in-glove with their stance with Jorge’s Novus Ordo. They want to have the exterior trappings of Tradition, yet not live according to the traditional morals and doctrines of the Catholic Church. Just as they use the 1962 reformed liturgy of Angelo Roncalli, they also have an “aggiornamento” agenda to modernize or moderate their “catholicism” to fit their needs. Just look at that grotesque church they built in Spain. It is indicative of their modernized, moderated “catholicism.”
    They want to have their mostly traditional Mass, and that is all. The rest does not matter. At best, they are spineless.

  3. Jaime Antonio

    May god bless Bishop Felay – he is the stand bastion standing between the authentic church of Christ and the Devil. Vatican has already fallen with its new Moto Proprio declaration.

    Bishop Fellay – please stand up for what ABp LeFebrevre stood for…….

      • George

        NOW, you’re being too hard on the SSPX. I don’t think you realize how difficult it is to run a large, schismatic, quasi-Catholic organization in today’s world.

        • BurningEagle

          You forgot heretical. They deny canonizations are infallible. Its the Society of what possibly could be Saint Pius X ,or S?PX. Red October is fast approaching again. How many of them will commemorate “Saint” Angelo Roncalli (AKA John XXIII) on October 11, his “feast day?” And, how many of them will commemorate Chuck Wojtyla (AKA, John Paul II, AKA The Deuce) on October 22, his “feast day?”
          Most will not. Most of the S?PX clerics say canonizations of a Pope are not infallible.

  4. Julia O'Sullivan

    You know……..I’ve worked in enough dysfunctional organizations to know that these do-dos at the top tend to not vet their materials. Bloopers all over the place! This is way more serious than a “blooper,” but I’ll bet that the thing was posted without review. THAT in itself is shocking enough!!!

  5. anna mack

    Just a thought. There are two points to consider here: 1) The UK is one of the most secular and proudly Godless countries in the world; 2) There is no such thing as a truly “independent” school in the UK, since all “independent” schools are heavily controlled by the state (“independent” literally just means that your children can only go to them if you pay money directly to the school rather than through taxes). There isn’t really any way out of this kind of thing other than to close down the school, and I imagine that the SSPX makes too much money from it to do that.
    Absolutely not an excuse for the SSPX’s behaviour (I personally consider them to be the very worst that the NO has to offer) but this could be the reason for it. People should run as fast as they can from the SSPX and all its works.

  6. bigmama

    I know none of you will listen, reading the comments on this post, but I still want to make the truth stand whether you like it or not.

    This post was written by a married man whose behaviour is very much into question and is just very bitter as this was not accepted by the SSPX. I know the people involved in this, so know the facts.

    The posting of the extremely offensive policy was due to an update of the school policies copied from somewhere else. Due to a lack of oversight or distraction, the Brook Tool was overlooked and published as part of St. Michael’s School Child Protection Policy and was withdrawn as soon as noticed. Errare humanum est. If you never make a mistake, throw the first stone!

    St Michael School has never and will never stand for what the author of this article claims. Every religious and member of staff is fully dedicated to do the best they can for all the pupils and to giving them a fully Catholic education and all on a shoe string. It is not a perfect place, as nowhere is, but try they certainly are.

    Please, before deliberately spreading filth, claiming the SSPX stands for all sorts of vices, don’t get the information from an embittered individual who’s only motive seems to be extremely questionable.

    A parent from St Michael School

    • Novus Ordo Watch

      Thank you for posting your comment. I can assure you that I have no desire to spread untruth about anyone or anything. In this case, I simply took the policy as posted at face value.

      Please help me understand. Yes, we all make mistakes. I just don’t understand how something like this can go into a policy document by mistake. Please provide some more information, if you would. Thank you and God bless you.

      • bigmama

        Very simple. When you update the school policies, you copy them from an official site. The new headmaster, although British, has only just started working in this country after many year abroad and was not aware of how bad things have got in the UK and therefore did not expect this kind of material to be included in the official site he was copying the policies from. As soon as he realised, he withdrew this extremely offensive material. No big underlying conspiracy to pervert our children here, just human error.

        • Novus Ordo Watch

          You mean he didn’t bother to read the policy he was mandating for his school, even though it says that this policy is “reviewed annually”, and no one else noticed the problem either?

          What the headmaster ought to do now is release a public statement in which he apologizes profusely, explains what happened, and offers to repair the scandal.

          I’m trying to be reasonable here. This is no small matter. We’re not talking about a little footnote somewhere, or a web link that was easy to miss or that, unbeknownst to people, went to the wrong address. We’re talking about 3 pages full of this stuff with big disclaimer boxes at the bottom that link to the Brook web site.

          Please understand that when something like this appears in a document on a public web site, the burden of proof is not on the people who draw attention to it and condemn it.

          • bigmama

            Maybe you are superhuman and can deal with the enormous amount of work starting in a new school/new year/new country and do everything perfectly, but surprise, surprise! Priests are human and can only do so much. If you do not expect evil to be in the school policy and you have enormous amount of work to do, you can easily oversee this.
            He has actually explained what happened in a letter to staff and parents and do not need to do anything else as this is an internal policy which only affects St. Michael School. The people who need to apologise are: the one who wrote this article out of malice, as he knew perfectly well St. Michael School will never stand for that; and every blog/website which has been spreading this slander.
            People with an ax to grind will always reject the simple truth to make it fit their own personal agenda.
            Reminds me of Screwtape letters…

          • poapratensis

            Oh, please. If this wasn’t a SSPX affiliate you wouldn’t have even posted. Been 8 years and still not a word condeming Bishop Dolan/Fr. Cekada’s 2009 SGG school scandal. Why, because they’re on your “side”. SSPX can do no right, Sedes can do no wrong, apparently.

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Granted, if it had been a Jesuit or some other Novus Ordo institution, it wouldn’t have been very newsworthy, I suppose, and I happen to think that the people who are now so vociferously objecting to the post would have had no objection had the exact same situation been reported of a Novus Ordo school in this manner.

            I wasn’t in charge of Novus Ordo Watch in 2009. I can assure you that plenty of sedevacantists from that parish made plenty of noise at the time to get the situation corrected, insofar as lay in their power.

          • poapratensis

            My observation is to the contrary. No substantial change was made to the problematic element at SGG school. The messengers were shot, and a cover up was attempted. At least the SSPX parish school seems to be correcting the problem.

            Still, I commend your willingness to post my comment. It really speaks to your intellectual integrity, something lacking almost everywhere today.

        • anna mack

          Oh, dear, by trying to defend the school you have made it sound even worse. I would be very worried about my children being at a school where the headmaster (the ultimate authority along with the governors) does not even read his own policies but merely copies and pastes from the Internet! What else does he not do? and where on earth were the governors in all this? I have been a school governor and one of the board’s key jobs is to scrutinise a school’s policies and procedures.

          • bigmama

            As I said, “People with an ax to grind will always reject the simple truth to make it fit their own personal agenda. “

          • anna mack

            Sorry, I don’t have an agenda. This is simply a disturbing story that should alarm any Catholic. I can understand your position, though, as you are very close to the subject so cannot view it dispassionately.

  7. Novus Ordo Watch

    If the headmaster of the school could release a public statement, I would be more than happy to link it in the post. I’d say considering the publicity this has received, a public statement would be called for.

    • bigmama

      I am afraid you made it public by releasing an article written by someone with a personal vendetta, therefore you will have to answer in front of God Almighty for this outrage. Having a public forum make YOU responsible for what YOU publish and instead of giving a voice to the sick man who wrote this article you should have checked the facts and his motivation. When you get your info in a cesspit, you get sh… It sticks and smells and roses is not the perfume I am thinking of…

      • Novus Ordo Watch

        Madame, I do not have a personal vendetta against any of the people there. I do not know them. Everything I wrote in this post above was personally researched/verified by me using publicly available information on the SSPX web sites. Nothing in the post above is based on speculation or hearsay.

        The only exception to this is the update I made on Sep. 12 in which it is stated: “the offending material had been removed by Fr. Summers, but when he was replaced, it was put back up.” That is based on George Lydda’s testimony as reported by the “Call Me Jorge” blog. That is the only thing in the entire post above that I have not personally verified, and I indicated as much by stating, “According to a reported published by….”.

        If you could please be more specific with regard to what you claim is wrong, false, calumnious, or whatever in this post, please let me know. Please quote an exact part of the post that you object to. Thank you.

        • bigmama

          Sir, yes, you do have a personal vendetta agains the SSPX as stated by yourself:
          “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 would never use illicit/immoral means to further that cause.”
          You say that you would not use immoral means to further you cause but you happily declare that St Michael’s school has “Outrageous “Child Protection” Policy and explicitly accepts Sexual Perversion”.
          As repeatedly explained to you (in English), this is not a policy the SSPX supports in any way, shape or form, but that inclusion in the school policy was due to a genuine mistake when copying over a big bunch of other files by a new headmaster and was removed as soon as the mistake was found. Obviously, for you not to accept that, implies that you are above making any mistakes yourself. Maybe you think you are God Almighty?
          You demand a public apology because the mistake has been made public on the internet. Who exactly made this public??? You and some other site. So you are the one (and the other site) responsible for spreading this lie under the cover of “informing” people.
          If you were honest, you would remove this rubbish. But I do realise that your hatred is such, that this will never happen. Shame on you

          • Novus Ordo Watch

            Madame,

            Opposing a religious institution on theological grounds is not the same thing as having a “personal vendetta”. It’s not personal at all.

            Please read the headline of the post agian: “Outrageous ‘Child Protection’ Policy in English SSPX School explicitly accepts Sexual Perversion”. That is a statement that is based on objectively verifiable facts. Their policy DID explicitly accept sexual perversion. Whether that was by mistake or deliberate is another matter. FACT is that the policy contained this stuff — not in a footnote or in fine print even but on three pages in fairly big and colorful letters, pages also referenced in the table of contents.

            You may have your own convictions about what happened and who is to be blamed, etc., but in reporting on this I cannot go by someone’s subjective claims and opinions. You base everything on the testimony of one individual. I cannot do that. I have to go by the verifiable facts. Of course it is also a fact that the headmaster released a statement about it, and for this reason I included that as well after the statement was released.

            Because of your bias in favor of the SSPX, you are not dispassionate about the matter. Let’s review:

            FACT: Publicly posted SSPX child protection policy documented contained 3 pages with objectionable content of a very serious matter regarding sexual morality.

            FACT: Policy document states it is reviewed once a year by SSPX district superior.

            FACT: Policy states: “As a school, we review this policy at least annually in line with DfE, HSCB, HCC, National Minimum Standards for Boarding Schools (April 2015) and other relevant statutory guidance.”

            FACT: The authority that imposes a policy and puts together a policy document has the obligation to read it and ensure that it contains nothing scandalous.

            Against these facts, what do you have? I’ll tell you what you have:

            UNVERIFIABLE CLAIM: The scandalous content was added by mistake. (acc. to headmaster)

            FACT: Headmaster, although he claims this was a mistake, has not even apologized for it (at least not that I’m aware of).

            Now you tell me where in this I have acted unjustly or unreasonably.

            Furthermore, I’d like to point out that although all mistakes are, by definition, not deliberate, nevertheless not all mistakes are inculpable. In this case, someone was at least *gravely negligent* about a very serious matter.

Leave a Reply