Fr. Michael Place, STD (apparently a natural choice) represented the USCCB. Known for his advocacy of socialized (oops I mean universal) medicine and consistent life ethic (read the death penalty and elimination of poverty)he is now the head of the Internation Federation of Catholic Health Institutions.
Their "Consensus" included a definition of sexual health: "A state of physical, emotional, mental, spiritual and social well-being related to one's sexuality and sexual activities."
"They said, however, that they were unable to agree on a definition of the term, "sexual orientation."
The most telling statement comes from the wisdom of the Guttmacher Institute- naturally:
"So in a way, you could say that traditional foes learned that consensus is possible and that we believe that consensus can contribute to development of a coherent public health policy," said Dr. Sharon Camp, president of the Guttmacher Institute.
Other areas which they agreed should be subjects of research are:
— The content of school-based sex education.
— Connections between violence and sexual health.
— The impact of religion on sexual practice.
— The sexual health of military personnel, persons with disabilities, prison populations and the aging.
— Barriers to parent-child communication about sexuality.
— The impact of the Internet on sexual health.
Some participants realized the problem with this program and though they began the "Process" with good intentions bailed out. The group "Concerned Women of America" released a statement about the efforts here. Focus on the Family also parted ways with the group.
So, taken for granted is that we must have school based sex education in spite of what Canon Law says, that such education is reserved to the parents. I guess that is water under the bridge with the Talking About Touching and Virtus Programs Dioceses are implementing in spite of parental protests. On every other topic that research is called for it is obvious what the agenda is- the agenda of Planned Parenthood and every other proabortion lobby that represent. Didn't the term "Consensus Project" set off a few warning bells? Didn't anyone at the USCCB think- maybe we shouldn't be involved? Apparently if anyone did show concern, those good instincts were suppressed.
"...for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?" 2 Corinthians 6:14