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

[fastenatingguy]

See now, you are completely getting me wrong, and I’m a bit put off by your suggestion that I am thinking with my, errr, nether regions.

Let’s work on a little linguistics. When a person says that “X is wrong because of Y” there are two possible things that could be meant:

(1) The cause of X’s being wrong is Y.
(2) One way that we know that X is wrong is because of Y.

I agree with #2, in this case. I think that we can know that gay sex is wrong because God forbids it. But it is a very different thing to say that God’s will is what *makes *gay sex wrong.

You yourself have said that sodomy is abhorrent. Good. Now ask yourself this: If God said that sodomy is good, would that make it good? Your likely response is to say that God wouldn’t do that! But WHY wouldn’t God do that? Presumably because there is something about sodomy that God judges to be abhorrent for a reason. God RECOGNIZES that sodomy is abhorrent. This makes it impossible for God to “change his mind” about sodomy, the way God might change his mind about whether we can eat pork (for example).

If you agree with what I wrote above about God recognizing the evil of sodomy, then you cannot say #1 – that God’s opinion is what makes sodomy wrong. Rather, you have to say that the intrinsic nature of sodomy is objectionable – which is my position.

I don’t disagree at all. God forbids these things because they’re bad for us. He doesn’t forbid them randomly.

I agree with everything except that last phrase. It is downright rude – if not unChristian – to say that you don’t want to hear about a person’s struggles to love God and resist sin. I hope that’s not what you meant.

Agreed.

In order to love thy neighbor, you have to do something, and that can be any of a lot of different things. But certainly ignoring them isn’t one.

 

[djames99]

The majority of Catholics in my experience are motivated out of love. It is the exceptions that are played out for all it’s worth and brought to the forefront by the afflicted. Of course there are various levels of experience in conveying the truth, just as it takes experience in all social relationships. Not all carry the charism of evangelization, but circumstances find them having to express opinions and answers on occasions. The apostles themselves gained experience on their journeys and were met with the same barrage of rejection in some cases. But to say there was a hostile intent and motive I think that is the exception, and a rare one, not the rule.

It’s the medicine that isn’t wanted. It’s the extra something that is required for them to do to put them on the right path. No matter what evangelical tact and strategy, the one afflicted will need to change,trust,give God the benefit of the doubt, and actually help him/herself to do something. In these times of demands to have everything with the least effort, and along with surrendering all confidence to an elective system and majority opinion, this mentality is what we observe.

But the irony is that the pill is out there for anyone to take. There IS no more reason for being afflicted with this. The cure is in the hands of our Blessed Mother for those who sincerely desire it.

Meanwhile the Church needs to be strong and unchanged. When the afflicted comes out of it, he doesn’t want to see that the Church changed to accommodate the desires of the evil one who was controlling him.

Got a cold, take mom’s medicine. Got HS, take our Mother’s graces.

 

[robwar]

I forcefully disagree with your conclusion that many Catholic schools should be closed in response to “being infested with heresy”.

In this case, it is the students and probably many of their parents (as primarily responsible for the education of their children) who are “heretical”. Nowhere does the article suggest that the school or diocese were objecting to the doctrine she was teaching.

To me, this story is an example of why Catholic schools are essential in fighting the “heresy” that you claim “infests them”. Pius X Catholic High School held an assembly to inform the students about the true teachings of the Church. They are attempting to cast light on the error in modern thinking about homosexual conduct and marriage. They took time out of a school day, which schools today do not do lightly due to the tremendous academic pressures placed upon them.

While students are in a Catholic school environment there is an opportunity to instruct them and reverse current thinking. They certainly would not receive this opposing viewpoint in public schools! Where would they go? To a Christian school that doesn’t teach our beliefs?

I also disagree strongly with your statement that Catholic schools are infested with heresy. I have been a lifelong Catholic. I have been in many, many Catholic schools and in parish Sunday School programs as a student, a teacher, a parent, and a Director of Religious Education. The vast majority of Catholic schools do an excellent job. They see their mission as guiding the religious education of these young people as an integral and primary part of their academic education. Do they make mistakes? YES. Do they have instructors who sometimes do the wrong thing? YES Are they imperfect? YES Has God frequently worked through seriously flawed people and institutions? (Paul’s pre-conversion life comes to mind.)

The Catholic Church does not back down from a fight. It faces heresy head on and repeatedly, continuing the fight as long as it takes! How long did Arianism exist before the Church made inroads into its spread? How long will it take to teach the Church’s beliefs on this issue. Who knows? But don’t tear down the institutions who are currently on the front lines.

:clapping: thanks for that! praying for sister as well

 

[Fusiontron]

Ah yes the false dichotomy of liberal vs. conservative Catholic continues . . .

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So to ask for prayers, I come here. She is doing the right thing! We need speakers like her, and the fact that a student body at Catholic school would petition against her is indicative of the possibility of bad formation in Catholic teaching being received by the students.

IMO, what leads to bad formation in any religious teaching is the injection of personal prejudices when conveying what the actual teaching is. This nun may have had good intentions but, based on what the people who were there are saying, that is exactly what she did. Nothing of what she said which the students, faculty, and parents objected to is required to be believed by Catholics and it is contrary to science. I hope she uses this opportunity to reflect on her message and make needed changes.

 

[SMGS127]

Where is the transcript or the video of this speech since you seem to have an understanding of what she actually said?

I’m not saying I do. I’m saying that the following events have occurred:

a) Parents and students complained that a speaker at a Catholic school reportedly made inflammatory comments that had nothing to do with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

b) The chaplain laughed off these complaints as ridiculous.

c) The parents and students then protested over the inflammatory comments that, again, had nothing to do with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

d) A bunch of posters on CAF (across both threads on the topic) slandered the kids as heterodox/heretics. One person claimed that those who supported the protesters didn’t support the Church. One person suggested the kids be expelled for their protest. All over a protest that would be completely legitimate if their claims are true, as the comments they are actually protesting over have nothing to do with doctrine of the Church whatsoever.

I think a few people on here owe apologies to these kids and their parents.

 

[JimG]

Judging from this website, Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel has given her talk at many schools. This is the first I’ve heard of any controversy, but perhaps it has just not been noted. When looking through this site, near the bottom of the page is a short video excerpt from one of her talks.

 

[Dawnia]

I’m not saying I do. I’m saying that the following events have occurred:

a) Parents and students complained that a speaker at a Catholic school reportedly made inflammatory comments that had nothing to do with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

b) The chaplain laughed off these complaints as ridiculous.

c) The parents and students then protested over the inflammatory comments that, again, had nothing to do with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

d) A bunch of posters on CAF (across both threads on the topic) slandered the kids as heterodox/heretics. One person claimed that those who supported the protesters didn’t support the Church. One person suggested the kids be expelled for their protest. All over a protest that would be completely legitimate if their claims are true, as the comments they are actually protesting over have nothing to do with doctrine of the Church whatsoever.

I think a few people on here owe apologies to these kids and their parents.

You’re assuming that what the students and parents claims are true. We don’t know that.

“We the students of Charlotte Catholic High School would like to issue a formal complaint regarding Sr. Jane Dominic [Laurel]’s speech,” according to an online petition. “We believe that same sex couples have the ability to raise happy, well-adjusted and successful children … We believe that homosexual couples are capable of monogamy. As rational people, we know that most homosexual people lead healthy, normal and productive lives like their heterosexual counterparts.”

The petition tells another story. I think it is the nun who is owed the apology.

 

[JimG]

Here’s a write up about a previous talk she gave, apparently on the same subject.

She’s talking about differences between men and women, That, I’m afraid, has become a dangerous topic.

 

[SMGS127]

You’re assuming that what the students and parents claims are true. We don’t know that.

The petition tells another story. I think it is the nun who is owed the apology.

If the nun claimed that gay couples are incapable of monogamy, I’d say that’s pretty inflammatory. Do you not agree? Why did you bold that part of it?

 

[Dawnia]

If the nun claimed that gay couples are incapable of monogamy, I’d say that’s pretty inflammatory. Do you not agree? Why did you bold that part of it?

Because I didn’t read close enough. I would have bolded the line directly above it too. It shows that they don’t hold to Catholic teaching about homosexual activity and their complaints aren’t about misinformation, but Catholic teaching that homosexual activity is wrong.

 

[esieffe]

Where is the transcript or the video of this speech since you seem to have an understanding of what she actually said?

Thank you!!! People are coming apart at the seems about this, and there is NO transcript to be found. Again I say… this happened in NORTH CAROLINA not Berkeley, not Haight-Ashbury What we DO know is that there are a bunch of said conservative North Carolinian’s that are very angry.

 

[JimG]

Here’s another write-up from one of her talks:

A quote: “She explained to the young people in the audience, many of whom were couples, that strong marriages create strong families, and strong families create strong societies.”

Well, that’s pretty radical stuff for a progressive society! But it gets worse: "We have an even more fundamental vocation,” Sr. Laurel said. “The vocation to masculinity and femininity.”

Oh boy. Masculinity? Femininity? Now I see what all the fuss was about. Nothing will outrage an audience more than talk about masculinity and femininity.

 

[SMGS127]

Because I didn’t read close enough. I would have bolded the line directly above it too. It shows that they don’t hold to Catholic teaching about homosexual activity and their complaints aren’t about misinformation, but Catholic teaching that homosexual activity is wrong.

I don’t know. Nowhere in the petition does it say that they’re protesting because she said the Church opposes same-sex physicality or views it’s sinful. It merely counters points she supposedly made (gays can’t be monogamous, children raised by gays have problems). To be completely honest, I would have signed that petition if I was at that rally and heard her say that gay people raise screwed-up children or that gay people can’t be monogamous, because nowhere in it does it attack the Church’s teaching. That’s not to say she DID say that, but I would absolutely sign this exact petition if I was there and she did.

We can’t know what she said or didn’t say, but the students seem absolutely adamant that there were parts of her speech unreleased to the public, and since it does not seem to be an isolated experience by a single student or anything like that, I’m inclined to believe inflammatory comments were said.

As Catholics, we’re held to a higher standard. I’m not going to defend someone against a petition until it’s clear that they haven’t done what the petition suggested. This appears to be a case where a speaker went far and beyond Catholic teaching and suggested slanderous comments about gay couples. If that’s wrong, and she said no such thing, then I would of course defend her. But the current overwhelming consensus by those who attended appears to be that she did, indeed, make inflammatory comments.

 

[esieffe]

I’m not saying I do. I’m saying that the following events have occurred:

a) Parents and students complained that a speaker at a Catholic school reportedly made inflammatory comments that had nothing to do with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

b) The chaplain laughed off these complaints as ridiculous.

c) The parents and students then protested over the inflammatory comments that, again, had nothing to do with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

d) A bunch of posters on CAF (across both threads on the topic) slandered the kids as heterodox/heretics. One person claimed that those who supported the protesters didn’t support the Church. One person suggested the kids be expelled for their protest. All over a protest that would be completely legitimate if their claims are true, as the comments they are actually protesting over have nothing to do with doctrine of the Church whatsoever.

I think a few people on here owe apologies to these kids and their parents.

Thanks to you as well. If you look at my first comment, I was responding to what was posted in the news column, and what I was focusing on was the fact that there was a sweeping generalization of sing parents made. Not all single parents are single due to immorality issues.

Too often people don’t click on links to find out what was really said or what the real problem was about. I don’t think anyone had an issue about SSA or SSM, that was not the focus of the parents anger. Good for you SMG for actually researching the topic!

 

[SMGS127]

Thanks to you as well. If you look at my first comment, I was responding to what was posted in the news column, and what I was focusing on was the fact that there was a sweeping generalization of sing parents made. Not all single parents are single due to immorality issues.

Too often people don’t click on links to find out what was really said or what the real problem was about. I don’t think anyone had an issue about SSA or SSM, that was not the focus of the parents anger. Good for you SMG for actually researching the topic!

And thank you as well. I’m tired of hearing Catholics trash Catholic youth without any personal knowledge of the people they are attacking. I do not mean to generalize those who supported the Sister in this comment at all, because this post is really targeted at only a select few posts that were selectively rude to the kids, but there are always one or two comments in almost every Catholic high school thread I read on CAF that make me shake my head at the lack of charity shown.

 

[HappyCatholic01]

I am very glad that this conference is being held and that people are standing up for Sister and for the faith.

I do have certain concerns, based only on hearsay (well it’s all hearsay for all of us, really) but various people have suggested that some troubling statements were made–e.g., gays are trying to convert you, gays are pedophiles, etc.

Here are the words of one commenter, who claims to be the one that “started” much of this:

Shelley Burton Earnhardt · Appalachian State University

As the author of the original email that seems to have sparked this dialogue, I am here to say that the original and actual issues have not only been lost, but were first misconstrued and now have been totally replaced by another agenda. Our debate is NOT about Catholic teaching - period. The talk Sister gave was NOT consistent with the videos you can access online. Some of her points were the same as what you can see there and were indeed valid teachings of the Catholic church, with which we CCHS parents support, accept and fully expect from our Catholic educators.

What we do NOT accept are her additional comments, purported as fact, regarding gender generalization and the biology of the brain, the souls of men and women, single and divorced parents, and homosexuals. These you CANNOT ACCESS ONLINE. These comments were preposterous, unfounded, hurtful, not compassionate, not forgiving, inaccurate and, most to the point, NOT CATHOLIC TEACHING. Not one comment below has been posted by someone who was in the room for this particular session. You ask how we know they were spoken by her, then, since parents were not present. I received one message reminding me that I am relying on my teen, “…who by their very nature are emotional, reactionary and rebellious at times.” First, at nearly 17 years old, I trust my daughter. Then, when hundreds of students repeated identical phrases to their parents, how could we or why would we not believe them? How could we or why would we not stand up and use our voices to protect them and retain our right to be their first educators?

The school Chaplain who asked Sister to come for this type of talk, a talk regarding our children’s sexuality and relationships, had an obligation to tell us she was coming and what her message would be, so that we could decide if they should attend. Afterward, he had an obligation to try to offer healing or help to those students who were upset by her words, particularly those who were offended during the talk. Rather, he has defended her completely, has said nothing to the students and to one boy who spoke to him about not appreciating her content, he was belittling and condescending. We want a shepherd for our students while they are there, not this. So, those of you who have taken this issue further than what I have stated above have missed the point completely and distorted the original message. I believe I can state that with authority since I wrote it. I am of the belief that I merely put into words what was obviously a very important issue for most of the families at CCHS, or we wouldn’t be where we are.

My prayer is for mutual respect and for harmony in our community, for more transparency and less politics between the Diocese and our schools (and parishes, for that matter), and the end to the debate over what brand of Catholicism is best. I wonder, “WWPFD? What would Pope Francis do?” Charlotte Catholic has been a thriving high school for decades, long before our present Chaplain arrived, long before my four years there in the 70’s, and it has helped produce thousands of faithful and compassionate adults. There must have been something right and good going on all those years.

^^^^ lots of text but an important read!

Ummmm, since when does a Catholic have an obligation to tell you they will be speaking on issues related to Church teachings? Notice she didn’t aim that part at anything nasty, just the topic being discussed, meaning she believes there should be an opt out for students who don’t want to hear certain teachings.

Should the greedier students be notified when the school is going to discuss the need to be generous and care for the poor?

Please. They didn’t like what they heard, and unless more proof comes forward (doubtful), they don’t like what Christ teaches and believes. They need to explain that to Christ himself, not those who relay his message. That is cowardly on their part. But they won’t; it is easier to attack a nun that simply admit you disagree with Jesus.

 

[z_0101]

IMHO
We need to close this thread
There is too little information to have any sort of discussion at this point.
There are too many people becoming very negative with each other

 

[esieffe]

kpeople:

The only concern I had about this whole thing was NOT the homosexuality stuff, but rather about single or divorced parents. It would be very easy to take this subject out of context, if for example you were a student or a parent from such a household.

The RCC has invested untold amounts of money in helping single mothers and their children to counter the culture of death, more specifically, the crime of abortion. Our Church rightly helps single mothers who have made the choice NOT to abort, or give those who are thinking about it an alternative to murdering the unborn.

These mothers who go on to raise their kids, and go a step further and enroll them into a Catholic school, should not have to hear from anyone dedicated to a life of prayer and service to Our Lord, that they are somehow without morals when clearly they have picked up their cross and followed the Lord.

Now… I am not saying that is what Sister did in her speech. Frankly I don’t know, because I have not been able to find a transcript of her speech. I hope this is not the case, and what we have are a bunch of students and parents that have been poorly catechized.

That just leaves divorced /annulled parents. Sometimes, separating from an abusive or utterly sinful spouse is the only way to protect their children and again, I hope they were not lumped into the basket of immorality in a High School speech.
:coolinoff:

 

[esieffe]

IMHO
We need to close this thread
There is too little information to have any sort of discussion at this point.
There are too many people becoming very negative with each other

Gosh I hope I have not been too negative, that certainly was not my intention. If I came across that way, I apologize. I do agree with you on one point, and that is there is too little information to go on.