Dominican Sister of St. Cecilia under fire by students for talk on homosexuality

[Prodigal_Son]

Its the Christian worldview that oral sex “was imported from the homosexual culture”?

No, I agree that’s just silly. And I’m not saying that I think this nun is an ideal teacher – I don’t think she is, and I wouldn’t invite her to a high school I was principal of. I disagree with a whole number of things she said, and believe some of the things she said are offensive.

But the Salon article is pretty clearly not concerned with getting to the bottom of things. The Salon article cherry-picks its evidence to make orthodox Christians look foolish.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If the nun’s words were distorted or if anything said in this were a lie, she would have come out and said so. Yet the fact that the nun has been silent and has not spoken against these accusations proves that she did in fact say these things.

That’s a logical fallacy: argumentum e silentio.

 

[SMGS127]

Thanks. All I can say is that it honestly doesn’t make sense to me why it would be considered offensive. I wouldn’t be offended if someone said Catholic “lifestyle.” The term certainly doesn’t cover every aspect of being Catholic, to be sure, but it tends to evoke that there’s at least a belief in God, a sacramental life, perhaps a rosary dangling from the mirror and such, even if someone means it as a pejorative… I’m not trying to be argumentative or drag this out. It just passes over my head, and the controversy is a bit mystifying to me. I won’t raise it anymore.

TCEL, you brought this up in a previous thread a while back, and I wanted you to know I’ve given it a whole lot of thought since then. The main reason I think that a Catholic “lifestyle” wouldn’t sound offensive is because, in the absence of anyone else attempting to define it in the media, your first thought would be that they were addressing what you think of as a Catholic lifestyle (praying to God, living a Christian life, praying the rosary, etc.). However, they could still mean it derisively (arguing you were worshipping Mary or saints or some other untruth about the Church). For homosexuality, it’s the reverse. The assumptions are that people mean the untruths first, although they could certainly be meaning it in a very matter-of-fact, clean manner, not meaning any of the innuendos found within. Again, I think the difference is that Catholics don’t deal with the media discussing their “lifestyle” as something completely false like gay people have to deal with.

Honestly, I was going to provide you with some examples of conservative media sources using the term “homosexual lifestyle,” but the sources I found using that term were so vicious towards gay people that I’m not going to even ask you to read them.

 

[retire_early]

In reply to Joie de Vrieve:

Homosexuality refers to how one is attracted not how one acts

You are stubbornly wrong, my friend. See a common definition from Wikipedia:

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning “same”, and Latin sexus, meaning “sex”) is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

Style indicates one’s life revolves around it, given that the vast majority of gay people do not focus their lives around gay sex it is incorrect to apply it to sexually active gay people just as it would be absurd to lump a woman who has a glass of red wine with dinner every night with a man who gets completely smashed every weekend

What makes you believe style indicates one’s life revolves around something? You are indiscriminately narrowing the definition of the word to suit your own beliefs. Again, a common definition from Wikipedia:

Lifestyle

is the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture…The term refers to a combination of determining intangible or tangible factors…intangible factors concern the psychological aspects of an individual such as personal values, preferences, and outlooks.
For your last point, I can’t respond because I have no idea what OED means (is it an acronym written without periods behind each letter?) and the other part you wrote in a hurry, obviously, so it didn’t make any grammatical sense (“Also (esp. in to go gay”…)??? Again, the word gay, used to mean homosexual people, only came into vogue in the late 19th century, so can’t see what point you are trying to make.

To sum up: yes, the word “homosexuality” can refer to behavior; lifestyle doesn’t necessarily connotate “revolve around” and the word “gay” acquired a homosexual meaning a little over a hundred years ago, not a thousand years.

 

[buffalo]

Charlotte diocese backs nun who gave school talk promoting Church teaching on homosexuality
“Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church teaching,” says Bishop Peter Jugis' spokesman. “Sister would be welcomed to speak in the diocese in the future.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In reply to Joie de Vrieve:

You are stubbornly wrong, my friend. See a common definition from Wikipedia:

Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable. Joie is right about the way “gay” is used nowadays.

 

[JordanJD]

Charlotte diocese backs nun who gave school talk promoting Church teaching on homosexuality

		“Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church  teaching,” says Bishop Peter Jugis' spokesman. “Sister would be welcomed  to speak in the diocese in the future.”

If this is true and the bishop really thinks this, then he has just handed the church’s critics ammo, see my previous post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11879129&postcount=320

 

[Dawnia]

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “It does no such thing”

But that assembly had many people. They wrote that petition together, if that petition had anything in it that was wrong or distorted either the nun or someone else would have spoken up. Even the few officials who are defending this nun are not claiming anything of hers was distorted. Face it, this nun’s views are one part kernel of truth and 9 parts pig droppings.

Others did and they countered what those complaining said. Try again.

 

[buffalo]

If this is true and the bishop really thinks this, then he has just handed the church’s critics ammo, see my previous post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11879129&postcount=320

What did she say that the Church does not teach?

 

[JordanJD]

What did she say that the Church does not teach?

Oral sex is something only homosexuals can do, masturbating makes you gay, gay people can never be happy, and I know there are a few more I am missing

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

In reply to Joie de Vrieve:

You are stubbornly wrong, my friend. See a common definition from Wikipedia:

Homosexuality (from Ancient Greek ὁμός, meaning “same”, and Latin sexus, meaning “sex”) is romantic attraction, sexual attraction or sexual behavior between members of the same sex or gender.

Notice the “or”, it is having a common definition to reflect different usage patterns. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary and thus doesn’t have a high value with regards to understanding the definition of a word.

What makes you believe style indicates one’s life revolves around something? You are indiscriminately narrowing the definition of the word to suit your own beliefs. Again, a common definition from Wikipedia:

Because “[l]ifestyle is the typical way of life of an individual, group, or culture…”

For your last point, I can’t respond because I have no idea what OED means (is it an acronym written without periods behind each letter?) and the other part you wrote in a hurry, obviously, so it didn’t make any grammatical sense (“Also (esp. in to go gay”…)??? Again, the word gay, used to mean homosexual people, only came into vogue in the late 19th century, so can’t see what point you are trying to make.

To sum up: yes, the word “homosexuality” can refer to behavior; lifestyle doesn’t necessarily connotate “revolve around” and the word “gay” acquired a homosexual meaning a little over a hundred years ago, not a thousand years.

The OED is The Oxford English Dictionary, it is the dictionary to go to when trying to understand words.

In English when a person is quoting something it doesn’t mean they are saying it personally.

I did not claim the word “gay” acquired it’s meaning a thousand years ago.

Are you an English language learner?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Homosexuality refers to how one is attracted not how one acts

NOT how one acts, eh?

Provocative, you are.

Here are a few sources (not those that Gender Equity Center or GLAAD and other super gay-friendly sites like to cite, of course) refuting your assertion

Merriam Webster
Definition of HOMOSEXUALITY

1: the quality or state of being homosexual
2: erotic activity with another of the same sex

American Heritage

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty
NOUN:

Sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
Sexual activity with another of the same sex.

Homosexuality Legal Definition:

Sexual contact between two persons of the same sex.

Even one OED link produced this definition,

homosexuality, n.

The quality of being homosexual, homosexual character or nature; also, homosexual behaviour or activity.

Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words

ho·mo·sex·u·al·i·ty

sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one’s own sex.

So, it can mean state of being or the action / activity associated with homosexuals.

No, I am not an English language learner, just in case you would ask.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

NOT how one acts, eh?

Provocative, you are.

Here are a few sources (not those that Gender Equity Center or GLAAD and other super gay-friendly sites like to cite, of course) refuting your assertion

You do realize you have strange bedfellows, don’t you? Many homosexual advocates consistently argue that homosexuality is defined by sexual activity, because they wish to deny that there is a real distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior. In other words, they wish to say that those people who experience homosexual attraction but do not act on it are being unhealthy – the same way as if you experienced a desire for food but never ate.

Oftentimes you hear the proposal that “having sex with a person of the same sex makes you gay”. But what exactly is that proposal saying, unless we are simply thinking of “gay” as a derogatory term or an insult? Is there any relevant characteristic – besides same-sex sexual activity – that all and only these people have in common? No.

But consider the group of people who experience homosexual attraction. Do they have anything else in common? Yes. They have experienced guilt and shame because of this attraction. They usually struggle with whether to describe themselves as “gay” or “bisexual”. Whatever the cause (or causes) of homosexual attraction are, they share these causes.

Defining homosexuality by attraction allows us to respect these commonalities, which are not shared by all those who have had sex with people of the same sex. (Extremely dissolute heterosexuals have quite often have sex with people of the same sex, but they certainly don’t have much in common with a lesbian who has had exactly one partner.) Defining it this way also allows us to keep the distinction between attraction and action clear in the public’s mind.

The definition of “gay” is, frankly, up for grabs. Usually, it is defined by attraction, but not always. But we *should *define it by attraction, for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[SMGS127]

You do realize you have strange bedfellows, don’t you? Many homosexual advocates consistently argue that homosexuality is defined by sexual activity, because they wish to deny that there is a real distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual behavior. In other words, they wish to say that those people who experience homosexual attraction but do not act on it are being unhealthy – the same way as if you experienced a desire for food but never ate.

Oftentimes you hear the proposal that “having sex with a person of the same sex makes you gay”. But what exactly is that proposal saying, unless we are simply thinking of “gay” as a derogatory term or an insult? Is there any relevant characteristic – besides same-sex sexual activity – that all and only these people have in common? No.

But consider the group of people who experience homosexual attraction. Do they have anything else in common? Yes. They have experienced guilt and shame because of this attraction. They usually struggle with whether to describe themselves as “gay” or “bisexual”. Whatever the cause (or causes) of homosexual attraction are, they share these causes.

Defining homosexuality by attraction allows us to respect these commonalities, which are not shared by all those who have had sex with people of the same sex. (Extremely dissolute heterosexuals have quite often have sex with people of the same sex, but they certainly don’t have much in common with a lesbian who has had exactly one partner.) Defining it this way also allows us to keep the distinction between attraction and action clear in the public’s mind.

The definition of “gay” is, frankly, up for grabs. Usually, it is defined by attraction, but not always. But we *should *define it by attraction, for the reasons I mentioned.

Prodigal: I think InSearchofGrace was merely pointing out that the definition was not limited to the strict definition of orientation, but could also describe behavior. I don’t think she meant to imply homosexuality always had to mean behavior.

Speaking of InSearchofGrace, I have some responses for you to your earlier posts, but I will get those to you tonight. God bless in the meantime (and God bless you too PS)!

 

[TCEL]

TCEL, you brought this up in a previous thread a while back, and I wanted you to know I’ve given it a whole lot of thought since then. The main reason I think that a Catholic “lifestyle” wouldn’t sound offensive is because, in the absence of anyone else attempting to define it in the media, your first thought would be that they were addressing what you think of as a Catholic lifestyle (praying to God, living a Christian life, praying the rosary, etc.). However, they could still mean it derisively (arguing you were worshipping Mary or saints or some other untruth about the Church). For homosexuality, it’s the reverse. The assumptions are that people mean the untruths first, although they could certainly be meaning it in a very matter-of-fact, clean manner, not meaning any of the innuendos found within. Again, I think the difference is that Catholics don’t deal with the media discussing their “lifestyle” as something completely false like gay people have to deal with.

Thanks again. You too have given me something to think about, and it makes sense. I will take your word and think more on it.

 

[SoulSolace]

When I hear the term “homosexual lifestyle” I think of persons who are actively homosexual.
Otherwise, I see people with SSA as simply that. Someone who has the inclination, but isn’t living the inclination.

Just my :twocents:

God bless each of you.

 

[GraceSofia]

When I hear the term “homosexual lifestyle” I think of persons who are actively homosexual.
Otherwise, I see people with SSA as simply that. Someone who has the inclination, but isn’t living the inclination.

Me, too. I admit I have found this discussion about terminology puzzling.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Me, too. I admit I have found this discussion about terminology puzzling.

The core of the discussion isn’t about terminology; it’s about sensitivity. SMGS and I (and others) have been called to be part of the New Evangelization, which centrally includes an outreach to our brothers and sisters who are homosexuals. We believe that they are not lost causes, because we have seen in our own lives that we ourselves are capable of turning away from sin, and clinging to the gospel. We love them, and we want them to be saved.

But we also know that there are profound barriers that the powers and principalities of this world have put in the way of their conversion. These barriers are the work of the devil. Among gay people, defensiveness and pride are barriers. Among those in the Church, stubbornness and fear are barriers.

I believe that when Christians lay down our lives before sinners, the sinners look at the light of our sacrifice, and see the face of Jesus. I believe that when we die to self, Christ lives in us.

What does dying to self mean in this case? For one thing, not causing unnecessary offense. If you want your wealthy brother to enter the Church, it’s better not to call him greedy. Rather, bring him to Christ, and he will recognize his own greed. If you want gay people to come to Jesus, it will not help to use words that they consider offensive – even if you don’t mean to offend!

Paul told us not to consider our rights as apostles, but to consider love of the brethren. This is not about terminology; it’s about love. There are already enough obstacles that stand between the Church and gay people. Let’s not let the words that come out of our mouths to be another obstacle.

 

[Hopey]

The core of the discussion isn’t about terminology; it’s about sensitivity. SMGS and I (and others) have been called to be part of the New Evangelization, which centrally includes an outreach to our brothers and sisters who are homosexuals. We believe that they are not lost causes, because we have seen in our own lives that we ourselves are capable of turning away from sin, and clinging to the gospel. We love them, and we want them to be saved.

But we also know that there are profound barriers that the powers and principalities of this world have put in the way of their conversion. These barriers are the work of the devil. Among gay people, defensiveness and pride are barriers. Among those in the Church, stubbornness and fear are barriers.

I believe that when Christians lay down our lives before sinners, the sinners look at the light of our sacrifice, and see the face of Jesus. I believe that when we die to self, Christ lives in us.

What does dying to self mean in this case? For one thing, not causing unnecessary offense. If you want your wealthy brother to enter the Church, it’s better not to call him greedy. Rather, bring him to Christ, and he will recognize his own greed. If you want gay people to come to Jesus, it will not help to use words that they consider offensive – even if you don’t mean to offend!

Paul told us not to consider our rights as apostles, but to consider love of the brethren. This is not about terminology; it’s about love. There are already enough obstacles that stand between the Church and gay people. Let’s not let the words that come out of our mouths to be another obstacle.

Except sometimes the truth can be painful, like a surgeon with a scalpel removing an infected organ. Sometimes it is necessary to say some things. I do believe from her talks that it wasn’t just the gays who were offended, but those who come from broken families.
There is a part of me that is triggered by certain things. I am sensitive to talks about broken families because of my own background. But the sensitivity isn’t that what the person saying is untrue, or not necessary to say because in her wisdom (the Church) she proclaims the way God intended for a family to be, but unresolved hurts in my life. When unresolved hurt continue, you can not move to acceptance.
There could have been some students there from broken families, single parents, parents living in very sinful situation that are against the commandments/God’s law. It doesn’t mean you suppress the message but you can further add, or help those process it. It should be something for the parents to consider also - time to get their act together.
Not all correction is received with open arms. Correction can hurt at times.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Except sometimes the truth can be painful, like a surgeon with a scalpel removing an infected organ. Sometimes it is necessary to say some things. I do believe from her talks that it wasn’t just the gays who were offended, but those who come from broken families.
There is a part of me that is triggered by certain things. I am sensitive to talks about broken families because of my own background. But the sensitivity isn’t that what the person saying is untrue, or not necessary to say because in her wisdom (the Church) she proclaims the way God intended for a family to be, but unresolved hurts in my life. When unresolved hurt continue, you can not move to acceptance.
There could have been some students there from broken families, single parents, parents living in very sinful situation that are against the commandments/God’s law. It doesn’t mean you suppress the message but you can further add, or help those process it. It should be something for the parents to consider also - time to get their act together.
Not all correction is received with open arms. Correction can hurt at times.

But we are not in the position of correcting non-Christians. We call them to repentance, but we do not tell them to stop doing these things on their own – they need to come to God the Father and be healed.

The Bible clearly teaches that. Jesus called people to repentance, and said that they were sinners. His words to the woman at the well hurt, but the words were not unnecessarily offensive. He said no more than was necessary to make her feel the reality of her actions. He said, factually, what she has done. He did not call her a “woman of loose morals” – even though this was true.

Wisdom is knowing when NOT to say true things.

Please note in my post above that I said that gay people are often quite defensive – which is to say, quick to take offense. Christians, on the other hand, often use “speaking the truth” as an excuse to indulge in self-righteousness.

I’m sure if I said to a gay person that he lived a “gay lifestyle”, and in the same breath said that I live a “lustful lifestyle” or a “hypocrite’s lifestyle” or a “wrathful lifestyle”, he would be much less likely to take offense. But aside from that, I fail to see the point in saying something that does not open the doors of the gospel and does not convict a person of his sins – but only offends him.

I AGREE that the sensitivity is often unhealthy. But it exists. And trampling over that sensitivity does not accomplish the work of the Gospel.