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

[glendab]

Wow after reading some of the horrid comments that some have made regarding the Sister’s talk, I can only think one word: AGENDA. Sounds like more than one person in that high school has already been indoctrinated in the LGBT AGENDA and it found an opportunity to air its ugliness in Sister’s talk.

Thanks be to God Sister arrived when she did. It has brought the hidden into the open and ya know, the prayer power behind one Sister can work wonders. So those who may have been on the fence at this school about the issue may actually fall out on the correct side of the fence after all the dust settles. If anything, it is forcing kids to talk about something from the Church’s perspective and since they’ve already gotten the “bad guys” views handed to them from God knows where, (obvious by the things they said in their petition) that may very well be there reason Sister was asked to speak in the first place. Kudos to the school folks to brought Sister there.

Glenda

 

[Lormar]

Wow after reading some of the horrid comments that some have made regarding the Sister’s talk, I can only think one word: AGENDA. Sounds like more than one person in that high school has already been indoctrinated in the LGBT AGENDA and it found an opportunity to air its ugliness in Sister’s talk.

Thanks be to God Sister arrived when she did. It has brought the hidden into the open and ya know, the prayer power behind one Sister can work wonders. So those who may have been on the fence at this school about the issue may actually fall out on the correct side of the fence after all the dust settles. If anything, it is forcing kids to talk about something from the Church’s perspective and since they’ve already gotten the “bad guys” views handed to them from God knows where, (obvious by the things they said in their petition) that may very well be there reason Sister was asked to speak in the first place. Kudos to the school folks to brought Sister there.

Glenda

 

[Cristo_Vive]

I’m not going to say anything bad about the Sister. She has as much of a right to express her views, as LGBT people have the right to live their lifestyle. Plus I wasn’t there to hear what she had to say.

 

[SoulSolace]

For the school, it’s a serious issue. They are having a meeting with the parents next week.
The reaction of some of the students is disturbing. In essence, some students at a Catholic school are objecting to Catholic teaching given by a Catholic nun.

Hmm… really? Well, it’s a secular paper.
Read more here: charlotteobserver.com/2014/03/27/4799363/charlotte-catholic-high-calls.html#.UzccbKjEJ8E#storylink=cpy

Thanks for the link.

From the article;** A record of the comments was not available. But students attending told their parents she criticized gays and lesbians and made inflammatory remarks about single and divorced parents.**

What exactly is inflammatory? Only total acceptance and embracing of the LGBT is considered non-inflammatory these days.

More from the article;

The petition, which has drawn more than 2,000 supporters, listed 10 objections to her remarks, including this: “We resent the fact that a schoolwide assembly became a stage to blast the issue of homosexuality after Pope Francis said in an interview this past fall that ‘we can not insist ONLY on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods.’ We are angry that someone decided they knew better than our Holy Father and invited (this) speaker.”

There are a lot of different areas to focus on. Pope Francis didn’t say it was never to be focused on.:banghead:

 

[SMGS127]

What exactly is inflammatory?

Well, again, we don’t know the record of her speech, but if she indeed spent a good portion of a discussion on marriage discussing how homosexuality has supposedly led to a decline in fatherhood, I’d say that’s fairly inflammatory.

If she merely mentioned the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, that for sure would not be inflammatory, but that also wouldn’t take a 30-minute speech to do (the amount of time that was reported she spent on the issue). I suggest we wait until we can get a record of her speech before reporting for action on either side of the issue, besides to be clear on the Church’s teachings.

 

[Corki]

To what address would a message supporting Sister be sent? Is there a petition on her behalf?

In the linked article are links to both the original petition against Sister as well as a petition in support of the school and the principal. (I have signed the latter)

 

[fastenatingguy]

It is obvious that many “Catholics” schools are infested with heresy. It would probably be better if a lot of them were simply closed.

I would think that is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why not just re-educate them and if non-responsive, purge them of those who will not accept the Truth? Let’s face it, we have a lot of work to do to properly catechize lots of folks under the age of 50.

 

[Coatimundi]

I don’t think a speech opposing same-sex physicality is bad. But I don’t like speeches that try to say “oh look at all of our societal problems, and homosexuality is the root cause.” That, in my opinion, is fairly inflammatory and should not be spoken at a Catholic school. Now, I have no idea what her exact words are, so I’d like to see the transcript of her specific speech, but I’d like to think that a speech on the benefits of marriage does not need half of it devoted to attacking same-sex behavior.

Yes, those are the thoughts which occurred to me. Certainly the topic of homosexuality is relevant to a discussion of differences between the genders, the role of the family in nurturing each child’s unique gifts, the importance of real friendships and emotional intimacy, and the impacts of contemporary culture and the media on our concepts of sexuality. But to spend half of the speech on homosexuality seems imbalanced.

If the news report and the petition are to be believed, she didn’t simply discuss the Church’s views on homosexuality. She also made some questionable assertions, which may have been what triggered the backlash. For example, the news article mentioned that she linked the rise of homosexuality with the decline in fatherhood. The petition states that she claimed homosexuality occurs mainly as a result of a parent’s shortcomings, masturbation or pornography.

I disagree with the petition, and feel it is misguided. It is disrespectful to Sister Laurel, and the petition is more divisive than productive. A private meeting with her to discuss her presentation should have been the starting point. This may well have been the ending point, too, with a happy outcome for all. Instead, the situation gets thrown into the public spotlight, where it will not receive the thoughtful and compassionate attention it deserves.

 

[GraceSofia]

I don’t think a speech opposing same-sex physicality is bad. But I don’t like speeches that try to say “oh look at all of our societal problems, and homosexuality is the root cause.” That, in my opinion, is fairly inflammatory and should not be spoken at a Catholic school. Now, I have no idea what her exact words are, so I’d like to see the transcript of her specific speech, but I’d like to think that a speech on the benefits of marriage does not need half of it devoted to attacking same-sex behavior.

That’s the thing. We don’t know what she said. We know what a few teenagers think they heard.

From reading comments on a news article (not a good source, I know), it seems that the parents who heard the talk were okay with what she said. The parents who were NOT there got riled up by what they heard she said.

If the news report and the petition are to be believed

I’m skeptical.

Wow after reading some of the horrid comments that some have made regarding the Sister’s talk, I can only think one word: AGENDA. Sounds like more than one person in that high school has already been indoctrinated in the LGBT AGENDA and it found an opportunity to air its ugliness in Sister’s talk.

Thanks be to God Sister arrived when she did. It has brought the hidden into the open and ya know, the prayer power behind one Sister can work wonders.

 

[Petaro]

Thank God we have a Dominican of this nun’s intellect in a country beset with mediocrity of pedagogy.
Is some of the problem found in the current “teaching” methods that encourage uninformed discussion amongst immature students, whilst the teacher becomes the facilitator resulting in the replacement of real learning of facts whether religious or secular and leaves their charges to ill-directed goggle research and wiki references?

This leads many under-educated to assume their opinion is as good as the knowledge of their teachers.

Certainly there are signs of an organised agenda against this good nun, however the proof of the orthodoxy of the “catholic” school will be seen in its response to the petition of the under-taught.

I know I speak out against the paucity of your American education system, much to the consternation of loyal Americans who cannot understand a foreign friend’s admonition to greater erudition as an aim that will add value to our Western cultural heritage, in all countries.
This seems to me just further proof that the educational system needs wise reform.

 

[oneofmany]

I wish we had a few bishops or many to speak the way she has. It’s too bad we lost so many nuns who taught in our schools. They know how to teach the truth. We need to support them or lose our kids.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

A number of ingredients would, I think, ignite this sort of firestorm:

(1) The sister is probably quite intelligent and a sharp speaker, so that students found much of what she said compelling – whether they wanted to or not.

(2) The sister is a controversialist, who uses evocative stories to make her points. (The petition seems to imply that she made use of a story about a male couple who adopted a boy for the purposes of abusing him).

(3) The sister is somewhat clueless about the place that this dialogue is at right now. Lecturing on homosexuality can’t be done like lecturing on contraceptives, because there are no people who are (plausibly) *naturally *contraceptive users. Speakers on homosexuality have to show a ton of compassion for gay people first, and only then speak on immoral activity.

So I think the good sister rushed in where angels fear to tread, and found out why the angels are so wary.

I would like to clarify, though, that she is quite right that, in Catholic teaching, the natural consequences of actions are the best ways for us to discover that these actions are immoral. If saying that gay sex has serious negative consequences is hateful, then Catholic doctrine is permanently hateful. But the goal of pointing out these consequences isn’t to rip on gay people, but rather to explain why gay sex is wrong, and why people shouldn’t have gay sex.

If there are no bad consequences to gay sex, then the Catholic church has no reason to oppose it. We’re not Protestants, who sometimes act like God made things wrong for no practical reason whatsoever.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’d like to start by saying that I am most definitely an orthodox Catholic.

But I guess what I don’t understand about this story is why she tried to link homosexuality to a reduction in fathers. The rise in acceptance of homosexuality came at the same time as the rise in abortion, which most certainly has led to a much more significant reduction in fatherhood. And while there are certainly gay men who can enjoy productive marriages with women, if we were suddenly physically prohibited by God from engaging in same-sex relationships, do you particularly think that the gay men who are actively gay now would suddenly marry women in high #s?

Are you sure that’s the causal direction she was pushing for? It seems more likely she was saying that the frequency of homosexuality today stems from the reduction in fatherhood – and this too would be “linking” the two things.

I don’t think a speech opposing same-sex physicality is bad.

The question is how a Catholic theologian can explain the natural consequences of homosexual acts without sounding like he/she hates gay people. This is a somewhat difficult dance, and I think the good sister can be forgiven for making some missteps (if she did). All the more reason why we need more gay or SSA outspoken (and orthodox!) Catholic theologians – to educate people like the sister about how to speak about these issues more delicately.

The whole thing makes me tempted to out myself and start giving speeches similar to the sister’s speech, but clarifying that I myself have same-sex attraction and clarifying how awesome God’s love for gay people is.

If she merely mentioned the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, that for sure would not be inflammatory, but that also wouldn’t take a 30-minute speech to do (the amount of time that was reported she spent on the issue).

HUGE numbers of young people are rejecting the Church because of this issue. Surely 30 minutes is not too much to spend on it – though perhaps it should be spent talking about the issue with more compassion.

 

[glendab]

Hello Grace!

**That’s the thing. We don’t know what she said. We know what a few teenagers think they heard. **
From reading comments on a news article (not a good source, I know), it seems that the parents who heard the talk were okay with what she said. The parents who were NOT there got riled up by what they heard she said.

I’m skeptical.

**PERFECT! **

Glenda

 

[Memaw]

A number of ingredients would, I think, ignite this sort of firestorm:

(1) The sister is probably quite intelligent and a sharp speaker, so that students found much of what she said compelling – whether they wanted to or not.

(2) The sister is a controversialist, who uses evocative stories to make her points. (The petition seems to imply that she made use of a story about a male couple who adopted a boy for the purposes of abusing him).

(3) The sister is somewhat clueless about the place that this dialogue is at right now. Lecturing on homosexuality can’t be done like lecturing on contraceptives, because there are no people who are (plausibly) *naturally *contraceptive users. Speakers on homosexuality have to show a ton of compassion for gay people first, and only then speak on immoral activity.

So I think the good sister rushed in where angels fear to tread, and found out why the angels are so wary.

I would like to clarify, though, that she is quite right that, in Catholic teaching, the natural consequences of actions are the best ways for us to discover that these actions are immoral. If saying that gay sex has serious negative consequences is hateful, then Catholic doctrine is permanently hateful. But the goal of pointing out these consequences isn’t to rip on gay people, but rather to explain why gay sex is wrong, and why people shouldn’t have gay sex.

If there are no bad consequences to gay sex, then the Catholic church has no reason to oppose it. We’re not Protestants, who sometimes act like God made things wrong for no practical reason whatsoever.

Certainly it must be the Holy Sister that’s all wrong, not society or us by golly. We better step back and see whats happening to our American society and the effect it is having on our Catholic people, who should be standing fully for the TRUTH Christ gave us. If we don’t think the possibility of Hell is a serious negative consequence to our sins, then we really do have a serious problem. God Bless, Memaw

 

[pnewton]

It is obvious that many “Catholics” schools are infested with heresy. It would probably be better if a lot of them were simply closed.

Maybe you didn’t actually read the thread, but this story supports the opposite or what you are saying. If you really think it would be better to close Catholics schools and that public schools offer a more moral environment, then I think you have a singular opinion.

As to the story, I can not imagine anyone being punished for telling the truth. If there was some violation that occurred or it was deemed imprudent, it would be better to simply advise and move on. This whole petition thing is stupid. They already have been shown to have false names. It is easy to get those who promote homosexuality to promote homosexuality. It means nothing. Any actual student involvement will only highlight the importance of what the sister said.

 

[signit]

But I guess what I don’t understand about this story is why she tried to link homosexuality to a reduction in fathers. The rise in acceptance of homosexuality came at the same time as the rise in abortion, which most certainly has led to a much more significant reduction in fatherhood. And while there are certainly gay men who can enjoy productive marriages with women, if we were suddenly physically prohibited by God from engaging in same-sex relationships, do you particularly think that the gay men who are actively gay now would suddenly marry women in high #s?

I don’t think a speech opposing same-sex physicality is bad. But I don’t like speeches that try to say “oh look at all of our societal problems, and homosexuality is the root cause.” That, in my opinion, is fairly inflammatory and should not be spoken at a Catholic school. Now, I have no idea what her exact words are, so I’d like to see the transcript of her specific speech, but I’d like to think that a speech on the benefits of marriage does not need half of it devoted to attacking same-sex behavior.

If the news report and the petition are to be believed, she didn’t simply discuss the Church’s views on homosexuality. She also made some questionable assertions, which may have been what triggered the backlash. For example, the news article mentioned that she linked the rise of homosexuality with the decline in fatherhood. The petition states that she claimed homosexuality occurs mainly as a result of a parent’s shortcomings, masturbation or pornography.

That’s my opinion, too.

I agree with Catholic teaching and support the right of Catholics to teach it. But I’d also agree that these are “questionable assertions.” It reminds me some of the things said by anti-gay expremists (they’re pedophiles, they “recruit” young people, young people can “catch” being gay from other young people, etc.) and that sort of things turns off the more mainstream Catholics and Christians.

 

[SMGS127]

Are you sure that’s the causal direction she was pushing for? It seems more likely she was saying that the frequency of homosexuality today stems from the reduction in fatherhood – and this too would be “linking” the two things.

I would also consider that inflammatory, so it doesn’t make much difference to me.

The question is how a Catholic theologian can explain the natural consequences of homosexual acts without sounding like he/she hates gay people. This is a somewhat difficult dance, and I think the good sister can be forgiven for making some missteps (if she did). All the more reason why we need more gay or SSA outspoken (and orthodox!) Catholic theologians – to educate people like the sister about how to speak about these issues more delicately.

I am not suggesting that she intentionally wanted nothing but to insult gay people. But it’s taken as a fairly strong insult if you use an [extremely rare] example of two men abusing an adopted son in your speech about the benefits of marriage. It’s taken as a fairly strong insult if you link a reduction in fatherhood and/or masturbation to development of SSAs, regardless of causal direction. Regardless of intention, if these comments were indeed made, I can quite understand why the student body is (justifiably) angry. They are patently untrue or make untrue implications (such as the abusive parents story) that have no purpose other than to vilify gay people, again regardless of intent.

The whole thing makes me tempted to out myself and start giving speeches similar to the sister’s speech, but clarifying that I myself have same-sex attraction and clarifying how awesome God’s love for gay people is.

You’d probably have a much more welcoming environment for sure, even if you gave a speech at the same school.

HUGE numbers of young people are rejecting the Church because of this issue. Surely 30 minutes is not too much to spend on it – though perhaps it should be spent talking about the issue with more compassion.

I disagree. It is unnecessary to spend half a talk on marriage on the issue of homosexuality. If you want to discuss natural law requirements of marriage for a half hour, which ties into homosexuality somewhat but also ties into other issues, I can understand. But giving a talk under the pretense of discussing the benefits of marriage, and then using that talk to suggest inflammatory comments about gays and lesbians, will understandably upset quite a few people and for good reason.

 

[Ana_v]

I can say something first-hand about Sister’s lecture “Masculinity & Femininity: Difference & Gift”, because it was delivered at my College one evening in January of this year.

For evidence, take a look at this announcement posted on my College website:

aquinascollege.edu/calendar-event/masculinity-femininity-event/

Her talk is a condensed version of her “Masculinity & Femininity” video-lecture series on the Newman Connection website, which is divided in 8 parts; you can find her videos and
watch them (free of cost) at this link:

newmanconnection.com/institute/courses/rich-gift-of-love

Now, someone might object that the talk I heard is not identical to what was delivered at Charlotte Catholic High School, because Sister does not read off of a script (though she does use PowerPoint) and that in turn is because she has delivered this talk around the country dozens of times and has mastered the material.

However, I can tell you this much: the talk is rooted in Catholic teaching (it begins with a fascinating insight into the symbolism of Michelangelo’s The Creation of Adam, and a more literal and exact translation of some Hebrew words and verses in Genesis --about the creation of man and woman – which we will not get from our Bibles, but which are absolutely beautiful because they convey a much fuller meaning). She incorporates sociological data into the talk for *support * of her point which is that we invite destruction into society when we violate God’s plan for human sexuality .

The data serves the purpose of demonstrating correlations and providing context for he type of society in which we live; through this she is able to make the case of an actual decline of masculinity, the obfuscation of the sexual differences between male and female, and the rise of homosexuality.

The students seem to be misrepresenting her point.

To get a taste of Sister’s lecture-style (she speaks in charity) without going through the trouble of scrolling through the Newman Connection site, watch this brief 3-minute clip:

“What is Self-Gift?”

youtube.com/watch?v=90Yp0GtSTXc

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Certainly it must be the Holy Sister that’s all wrong, not society or us by golly. We better step back and see whats happening to our American society and the effect it is having on our Catholic people, who should be standing fully for the TRUTH Christ gave us. **If we don’t think the possibility of Hell is a serious negative consequence to our sins, then we really do have a serious problem. **God Bless, Memaw

But what is the *evidence *that homosexual offenders go to hell? It is based on two things: (1) Scripture, and (2) Natural Law.

Right now, TONS of teenagers are rejecting the authority of Scripture *because *Scripture says that homosexual sex is wrong. So you can’t appeal to Scripture to defend its own authority – that’s circular.

Moral: we must make them believe that gay sex is wrong without relying on Scripture. How can we do this? There is a long Catholic tradition that teaches that gay sex can be known to be wrong without God revealing it. This is the Catholic position. Any disagreement with that position is heretical.

But to say that gay sex can be known to be wrong without Scripture is identical to saying that gay sex leads to bad consequences in the world. That is what Natural Law Theory is all about: bad consequences.

Hell is not the only bad consequence of sins – nor is people’s going to hell the way that we know something is a sin. If teenagers don’t believe that homosexual action is wrong, they CERTAINLY won’t believe that God sends people to hell for it.

I just don’t understand this idea that gay sex is forbidden by God independent of its earthly consequences – as if God were completely arbitrary!