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

[Ana_v]

I’d also like to note – because the terms are often confused – that while all nuns are sisters, not all sisters are nuns.

A nun is a woman religious who leads a cloistered contemplative life. A sister is a woman religious who leads an active/semi-contemplative life; she serves a public apostolate.

So for example, St. Therese of the Little Flower was a nun; Blessed Mother Teresa was a Sister.

 

[pnewton]

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.

It is most definitely not heretical to refer to Scripture. Scripture is the Catholic position and a Catholic document. Perhaps you did not mean to say what you did, but there is no heresy in showing from Scripture* any* moral truth.

 

[JimG]

I don’t know the content of the talk without having been there. But judging from the reaction, it seems as if merely discussing homosexuality as a social problem, or posing possible causes such as a decline in the value of fatherhood, is seen as an outrage. That seems strange to me, and is something new. Has no one ever discussed the decline in the valuation of fatherhood in this light before?

It seems rather to be the new orthodoxy that all instances of homosexuality must be treated as perfectly normal, moral, and equally valid with sexual complementarity. And that also is something new.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is most definitely not heretical to refer to Scripture. Scripture is the Catholic position and a Catholic document. Perhaps you did not mean to say what you did, but there is no heresy in showing from Scripture* any* moral truth.

Sorry if I was unclear. Of course it’s not wrong to appeal to Scripture to say something is wrong. It’s not always helpful, but it’s not at all wrong.

It is false teaching (and thus heretical) to say that gay sex is wrong merely because God forbids it. The moral law can be known without recourse to Scripture – see Aquinas. How do we know the moral law without looking at Scripture? By observing our consciences, and by observing the results of our actions.

 

[pnewton]

Sorry if I was unclear. Of course it’s not wrong to appeal to Scripture to say something is wrong. It’s not always helpful, but it’s not at all wrong.

It is false teaching (and thus heretical) to say that gay sex is wrong merely because God forbids it. The moral law can be known without recourse to Scripture – see Aquinas. How do we know the moral law without looking at Scripture? By observing our consciences, and by observing the results of our actions.

Thank you for the clarification.

 

[Memaw]

Sorry if I was unclear. Of course it’s not wrong to appeal to Scripture to say something is wrong. It’s not always helpful, but it’s not at all wrong.

It is false teaching (and thus heretical) to say that gay sex is wrong merely because God forbids it. The moral law can be known without recourse to Scripture – see Aquinas. How do we know the moral law without looking at Scripture? By observing our consciences, and by observing the results of our actions.

Whatever kind of a statement is that???
Of course ‘gay sex’ is wrong because God forbids it. If HE didn’t forbit it, it wouldn’t be against “Natural Law”. He gaves us Natural Law and Scripture to back it up. And the Catholic Church to teach us. God Bless, Memaw

 

[SMGS127]

Whatever kind of a statement is that???
Of course ‘gay sex’ is wrong because God forbids it. If HE didn’t forbit it, it wouldn’t be against “Natural Law”. He gaves us Natural Law and Scripture to back it up. And the Catholic Church to teach us. God Bless, Memaw

I agree with this, Memaw, even though we don’t agree much.

ProdigalSon, I really don’t know what you’re trying to say, honestly. If God had given us a world with commandments that included that marriage (and assumedly procreation, but not necessarily so) could/should only be done between members of the same sex, and if He had declared relationships between the sexes to be sin, then that is the world we would have to follow. It makes no sense to separate natural law or moral law from what God asks from us, because it IS what God asks from us. In this case, God asks us to be chaste, and He defines chastity as celibacy until marriage, with marriage being between two potent unmarried people: one male, one female. However, this didn’t have to be the case. He could have easily defined marriage as only same-sex, and if so, we would have to follow that law (although the law obviously doesn’t exist and same-sex physicality is sinful.)

What you are saying is suggesting that God could have created a world and asked us to only procreate with members of the same sex, and yet same-sex relationships would still be sinful. That doesn’t follow through. Sin is entirely about disobedience to God.

 

[Elizium23]

Charlotte Catholic High calls meeting for parents after uproar over speech

Charlotte Catholic High School has invited parents to a meeting Wednesday night to air concerns many of them – and their kids – had about a recent speaker’s comments about homosexuality, divorce and single parents.

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, a Dominican nun based in Nashville, Tenn., addressed a student assembly on March 21. Days later, some students launched an online petition that called her comments “offensive and unnecessarily derogatory.”

The Rev. Tim Reid, pastor of St. Ann Catholic Church, sent an email lauding the nun, saying “she represented well the Catholic positions on marriage, sex, same-sex attraction and proper gender roles … The Church has already lost too many generations of Catholic schools students to … a very muddled and watered-down faith.”

It is so hard for Catholic schools to be Catholic.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Whatever kind of a statement is that???
Of course ‘gay sex’ is wrong because God forbids it. If HE didn’t forbit it, it wouldn’t be against “Natural Law”.

No, this isn’t true either. The Church does not teach that God determines the moral law by divine fiat. God forbids gay sex because gay sex is incompatible with human flourishing.

Now you might say that *God made it *incompatible with human flourishing. But He made it that way **by **producing bad temporal and eternal consequences to it, so my point stands.

A question about your view: Are you saying that God forbids gay sex for no reason at all?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

SMGS127,

I am very interested in responding to a number of things you’ve said, but I have to put my kids to bed first. “See” you in a bit!

Prodigal

 

[z_0101]

Charlotte Catholic High calls meeting for parents after uproar over speech

It is so hard for Catholic schools to be Catholic.

Yes, because the touchy-feel-good relative-moralist ultra-feminist have invaded our media and social media to the point that parents are being told that the children have more rights than the parents do… etc…

… this all comes from that same lie that lead Eve to the first sinful act… the devil is still telling the lies and many of us are still listening – worse it’s no longer Eve, it is our children that he’s after…

… but that’s nothing new… Satin went after God’s children in the garden too… and then again after the “Son of Man” in the garden, nothing new.

However, we’re on to his game now, it’s just getting the parents to come back to the true faith.

 

[Gorgias]

Whatever kind of a statement is that???
Of course ‘gay sex’ is wrong because God forbids it.

Aah… but you changed Prodigal’s statement, and thus, it seems, you’re misunderstanding it.

In the Mosaic covenant, there were certain dietary restrictions: for example, shellfish were prohibited. Is the prohibition against shellfish something that follows from natural law? No, of course not. The prescriptions of natural law hold for all people in all times and places, but the prohibition against shellfish only hold for Jews under the Mosaic covenant.

So, if you wanted to prove that it is ‘immoral’ to eat shellfish, then you could only go to Scripture. If you asked the question, “does this hold for all people, in all circumstances, in all times and places?”, the answer would, clearly, be ‘no’. So, if you were trying to prove the need to abstain from shellfish (to a Jewish person), and that person made the claim that the Scriptures don’t say what you claim they say, then you would have no ability to convince them: after all, the prohibition exists ‘merely’ in Scripture, and nowhere else. (Now, they’d be objectively wrong in their assertion, but that’s not the point being made here: the point is whether and how we might offer a convincing argument. In this case, the only possible argument is Scriptural.)

Yet, this isn’t the best example – after all, the prohibition against shellfish only applies to Jews under the Mosaic covenant. Is there another example we can use? One that applies to all, and is present in Scripture but not in natural law? Absolutely! Ask yourself the question, “is it moral to murder an innocent person?” The answer is that, in all times and places and cultures, it is always immoral to murder an innocent. In other words, it is part of the natural law – which God has written into our hearts – that murder is immoral. So, if we encounter a person who denies the authority of Scripture (which, granted, is in error – but that’s not the point in this discussion!), then we still are able to defend the notion that murder is immoral and harmful to those who practice it.

Prodigal’s approach has the potential to be fruitful: for those who deny Scriptural arguments, an argument from natural law may be effective.

Yet, what about his assertion that it is ‘heretical’ to suggest that we must rely on Scripture for an understanding of the natural law? Personally, I think that ‘heretical’ is a bit strong of a word to use. However, the intent is solid. Can Revelation be used in order to understand the natural law? Of course (cf. CCC 1960: “In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known ‘by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error.’ The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.”). Must recourse to Revelation be made in order to know the Natural Law? No! (Quoting Aquinas, CCC 1955 tells us, "The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.)

Therefore, it is clear that we can make recourse to other principles, outside Scripture, in order to prove our point, vis-a-vis God’s plan for human sexuality.

Of course ‘gay sex’ is wrong because God forbids it. If HE didn’t forbit it, it wouldn’t be against “Natural Law”.

To be fair, Prodigal is saying that homosexual activity is wrong not just because God forbids it in Scripture.

He gaves us Natural Law and Scripture to back it up.

Agreed. Yet, even if we can’t make recourse to Scripture – because, in this case, the presumption is that we’re talking to people who reject the authority or particular interpretation of Scripture on this matter – then we can certainly make recourse to natural law.

Fair enough?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Gorgias,

Although for some reason you’ve taken the name of a sophist, you write like a philosopher. Thank you for explaining the position I was attempting to defend quite clearly and eloquently.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Charlotte Catholic High calls meeting for parents after uproar over speech

It is so hard for Catholic schools to be Catholic.

Indeed. Those who are upset should look in the mirror and decide whether or not they are Catholic.

DGB

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

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!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Babies in bed. Now two responses…

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

It’s *inflammatory *to say that a lack of masculine role models might influence young boys to desire relationships with men, so much so that they fetishize that kind of relationship and continue to long for it as adults?

I can see how you might claim that the statement is false, but I don’t see how it could be inflammatory. Is it inflammatory to say that a person who experiences schizophrenia is more likely to have been abused or neglected as a child? Can’t we say that without implying that all schizophrenia stems from bad parenting?

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.

I agree. That’s why I think she was probably rather tactless.

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.

I think the masturbation thing is just silly. Masturbating in groups actually used to be more common than now, so far as I can tell, and more common in rural areas, and it certainly had nothing to do with homosexuality.

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.

Well, I think we agree that some things about the talk were needlessly inflammatory, so I’ll move onto the next post…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I agree with this, Memaw, even though we don’t agree much.

ProdigalSon, I really don’t know what you’re trying to say, honestly. If God had given us a world with commandments that included that marriage (and assumedly procreation, but not necessarily so) could/should only be done between members of the same sex, and if He had declared relationships between the sexes to be sin, then that is the world we would have to follow.

But God wouldn’t give us such a world, because the consequences of same-sex sexual activity are *intrinsically *bad. Just as God cannot change the laws of mathematical logic, God cannot change the laws of moral logic. Sexual activity (whether heterosexual or homosexual) that does not tend toward a one-flesh union has bad consequences in its very nature. Other aspects of gay relationships can have marvelously good consequences, but the sex part does not.

(It may *appear *to, however, and we may simply need to trust God sometimes that its consequences are bad. Natural law ethics is very complicated, and on first glance it can seem somewhat coarse and utilitarian. Still, when you look at it quite closely, it is richly rewarding and serves as a motivation to avoid sin.)

It makes no sense to separate natural law or moral law from what God asks from us, because it IS what God asks from us.

Here’s what we agree on: “God commands us not to X” implies that “X is wrong.”

Here’s what I think: “God commands us not to X” implies that “X does not help me flourish or be happy as a person”.

Here’s what I don’t agree with: “God’s arbitrary commands must be followed.”

But I *don’t *think God ever commands things arbitrarily.

In this case, God asks us to be chaste, and He defines chastity as celibacy until marriage, with marriage being between two potent unmarried people: one male, one female. However, this didn’t have to be the case. He could have easily defined marriage as only same-sex, and if so, we would have to follow that law (although the law obviously doesn’t exist and same-sex physicality is sinful.)

No, he couldn’t. He couldn’t have made same-sex marriage fruitful, without making it something other than same-sex marriage. That violates the nature of things. The thing that same-sex marriage IS is something that cannot, by its very nature, be holy matrimony.

Similarly, God could not make killing an innocent person morally acceptable by saying it is. The nature of the act itself is morally reprehensible, because of the intrinsic consequences of that action.

What you are saying is suggesting that God could have created a world and asked us to only procreate with members of the same sex, and yet same-sex relationships would still be sinful.

God could not create such a world, because it would be against his nature.

Sin is entirely about disobedience to God.

No, it’s not. All sins are acts of disobedience, but that’s not what makes them sins. What makes them sins is that they fail to accord to our God-given purpose as a human being. And that purpose is, roughly, happiness.

 

[Gorgias]

Although for some reason you’ve taken the name of a sophist

Credit it to a off-beat sense of humor…

Thank you for explaining the position I was attempting to defend quite clearly and eloquently.

You’re welcome!

Yet, I still need to work on my proofreading skills: although I intended to write about a “present in Scripture but not in natural law” example, I decided to provide an example present in both. Unfortunately, I failed to edit my post: I should have written “*s there another example … that is present in Scripture and also in natural law?” and not “*s there another example… that is present in Scripture but not in natural law?”

Sigh… **

 

[SMGS127]

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:

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

Yes this.

Look, I’ve never understood the attitude of “well, she said homosexuality was sinful, so who cares what else she said? Obviously the kids are massively under-catechized!” Or the vaguer “If I insult gay people and get called homophobic, clearly they mean it’s because of my stance on gay relationships!”

While we must be firm on the sinfulness of same-sex physical behavior, we must also understand that there is a certain expectation that we not make wild claims about gay people for no reason either. She took half of a speech dedicated to the importance of marriage and devoted that half entirely to homosexuality, which is an absurd amount to begin with. I will stand up to defend any person attacked for speaking the Faith of the Church. However, this Sister, while she was likely well-intentioned, seems to have not only stepped well beyond the teachings of the Church, but also made several inflammatory comments that are wildly off-base.

The kids and parents have a right to be offended, and it appears to have been with good reason.

 

[esieffe]

The devil is in the details. From what I could ascertain, it was the comments she posted later and some of the excessive remarks about single parents. Not everyone is divorced or single due to immorality.

Most of the comments [but not all] on CAF, about the whole SSM thing are reasonable, well intended, and not mean spirited. Most here, go out of their way to say that chaste singles or… chaste “friends” are not a problem.

As adults, if someone goes off the deep end in disagreement with us, we are not really harmed by their harsh viewpoints. Teens though… well the suicide rate speaks volumes about how we should be careful and protective with our kids. It sounds to ME at least, that Sister took what could have been a good opportunity, to share and to educate, to catechise, and blew it.

This is still a high school after all, in North Carolina of all places not UCLA at Berkeley. Think about it! This happened in the Bible belt, so I have to give these kids the benefit of doubt, especially since Sister’s posts and comments have been removed from public scrutiny.