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

[JimG]

If she was talking about masculinity and femininity, I presume it was a condensation of the material presented in these talks on the same subject: Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift–Parts I through VIII. I would not discount her presentation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As for #1…

1. We believe that children can thrive in spite of one or both of their parents short comings and/or absence because we know that role models do not exist solely within one’s nuclear family.

It is extremely unlikely that the sister denied that children are resilient, or that children can be raised well by single parents. Such a denial is unheard of.

So what did she probably say? She probably said that children raised by single parents are at a disadvantage. This is unquestionably true. All the social science supports it.

One aspect of this disadvantage is that they have fewer same-sex role models, in many cases. This is a HUGE deal. We must not allow our desire to be sensitive get in the way of our concern for children.

I wish we could hear the speech. All this third- and fourth-hand info is infuriating.

(Oh, and as for role models outside the nuclear family, it takes a unique parent to arrange that. It’s much easier and more common to let children coast, without a role model. Some completely awesome parents – my mother, for example – made that mistake.)

 

[GraceSofia]

From the OTHER petition, the one supporting Catholic beliefs, there are some interesting reasons given in the comments, like this one:

Alex Tarbet CHARLOTTE, NC 8 days ago Liked 9
If I had not attended the talk and just read Emma Winter’s petition I probably would have signed it. However, I was there and the things the petition is claiming Sister said are just plain wrong. The people who are responsible for the petition and signed it after having attended the talk are extremely closed minded. They went into the talk looking for a reason to be offended and horribly misquoted Sister Dominic to be able to justify the “offense” they took.

From the Petition:

VI. We state that we have the intelligence to comprehend that Sister Anne Dominic did not condemn homosexuals.

 

[SonShine135]

I am a parent of one of the children that attended the talk. I can only relay what my child said about the talk. My child’s only issues were that Sister’s remarks seemed to focus on a single study of homosexuality that was done in San Francisco in 1978. Since that time, I have been investigating some of the statistics reported and it seems some statistics are parroted in reports from the past decade, so my child’s perception of what was discussed differed from reality.

She did make a misstatement by saying that homosexual men have on average 500 sex partners in a year. Again, this is secondhand information. Giving Sister the benefit of the doubt, I believe she misspoke if she even said this at all. It is just as reasonable to believe that my child could have just as easily heard the information incorrectly.

I will be attending the parental meeting this evening. Please pray for us.

If I may make an observation, I find it very difficult to find solid studies on homosexuality. It seems every study I find that talks about issues in the Gay community are often disputed, so it is hard to separate rhetoric from reality. This makes it even more difficult to have a genuine conversation on this issue.

I do believe that if the talk on homosexuality, single-parenting, and divorced parenting struck a nerve and seemed oversimplified, many of the parents’ understanding of Catholicism also seems overly simplistic. I know Shelley Earnhardt and I am familiar with the church she attends. It is actually one of the more liberal churches in the diocese with an RCIA program run by a “Nuns on the Bus” type. The founding Priest of her Parish actually was known for giving communion to those who deviated significantly from standard church teachings, even giving it to people who were known Protestants. To hear this type of language coming from her based on what her daughter witnessed is disappointing but not unexpected. Shelley really stepped in it when she released her e-mail to a few “undisclosed friends”.

Needless to say, the usual suspects have come out to complain. The people whose churches are known for fairly watered-down catechisis are the ones complaining. The churches that dive into the fine print, do education on the Papal encyclicals, and have frequent adult formation classes are those who didn’t complain. It really is that simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am a parent of one of the children that attended the talk. I can only relay what my child said about the talk. My child’s only issues were that Sister’s remarks seemed to focus on a single study of homosexuality that was done in San Francisco in 1978. Since that time, I have been investigating some of the statistics reported and it seems some statistics are parroted in reports from the past decade, so my child’s perception of what was discussed differed from reality.

She did make a misstatement by saying that homosexual men have on average 500 sex partners in a year. Again, this is secondhand information. Giving Sister the benefit of the doubt, I believe she misspoke if she even said this at all. It is just as reasonable to believe that my child could have just as easily heard the information incorrectly.

I will be attending the parental meeting this evening. Please pray for us.

If I may make an observation, I find it very difficult to find solid studies on homosexuality. It seems every study I find that talks about issues in the Gay community are often disputed, so it is hard to separate rhetoric from reality. This makes it even more difficult to have a genuine conversation on this issue.

I do believe that if the talk on homosexuality, single-parenting, and divorced parenting struck a nerve and seemed oversimplified, many of the parents’ understanding of Catholicism also seems overly simplistic. I know Shelley Earnhardt and I am familiar with the church she attends. It is actually one of the more liberal churches in the diocese with an RCIA program run by a “Nuns on the Bus” type. The founding Priest of her Parish actually was known for giving communion to those who deviated significantly from standard church teachings, even giving it to people who were known Protestants. To hear this type of language coming from her based on what her daughter witnessed is disappointing but not unexpected. Shelley really stepped in it when she released her e-mail to a few “undisclosed friends”.

Needless to say, the usual suspects have come out to complain. The people whose churches are known for fairly watered-down catechisis are the ones complaining. The churches that dive into the fine print, do education on the Papal encyclicals, and have frequent adult formation classes are those who didn’t complain. It really is that simple.

Thank you for posting. This helps illuminate things.

 

[MJE]

I am a parent of one of the children that attended the talk. I can only relay what my child said about the talk. My child’s only issues were that Sister’s remarks seemed to focus on a single study of homosexuality that was done in San Francisco in 1978. Since that time, I have been investigating some of the statistics reported and it seems some statistics are parroted in reports from the past decade, so my child’s perception of what was discussed differed from reality.

She did make a misstatement by saying that homosexual men have on average 500 sex partners in a year. Again, this is secondhand information. Giving Sister the benefit of the doubt, I believe she misspoke if she even said this at all. It is just as reasonable to believe that my child could have just as easily heard the information incorrectly.

I will be attending the parental meeting this evening. Please pray for us.

If I may make an observation, I find it very difficult to find solid studies on homosexuality. It seems every study I find that talks about issues in the Gay community are often disputed, so it is hard to separate rhetoric from reality. This makes it even more difficult to have a genuine conversation on this issue.

I do believe that if the talk on homosexuality, single-parenting, and divorced parenting struck a nerve and seemed oversimplified, many of the parents’ understanding of Catholicism also seems overly simplistic. I know Shelley Earnhardt and I am familiar with the church she attends. It is actually one of the more liberal churches in the diocese with an RCIA program run by a “Nuns on the Bus” type. The founding Priest of her Parish actually was known for giving communion to those who deviated significantly from standard church teachings, even giving it to people who were known Protestants. To hear this type of language coming from her based on what her daughter witnessed is disappointing but not unexpected. Shelley really stepped in it when she released her e-mail to a few “undisclosed friends”.

Needless to say, the usual suspects have come out to complain. The people whose churches are known for fairly watered-down catechisis are the ones complaining. The churches that dive into the fine print, do education on the Papal encyclicals, and have frequent adult formation classes are those who didn’t complain. It really is that simple.

From Joseph Nicolosi’s (Ph.D) research:
In 1968, Hoffman stated: “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America” (p. 45). A much-cited study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), published by the Kinsey Institute, and often called the most ambitious study of homosexuality ever attempted, gathered its data before the AIDS crisis had begun. This study showed that 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. Furthermore, 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners. The authors concede: “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated” (p.82). “Almost half of the white homosexual males…**said that they had had at least 500 different sexual **partners during the course of their homosexual careers,” (p. 85).
josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/

 

[frobert]

I am a parent of one of the children that attended the talk. I can only relay what my child said about the talk. My child’s only issues were that Sister’s remarks seemed to focus on a single study of homosexuality that was done in San Francisco in 1978. Since that time, I have been investigating some of the statistics reported and it seems some statistics are parroted in reports from the past decade, so my child’s perception of what was discussed differed from reality.

In what way your child’s perception differ from reality? and What specific statistics are you searching for? Perhaps I can help.

She did make a misstatement by saying that homosexual men have on average 500 sex partners in a year. Again, this is secondhand information. Giving Sister the benefit of the doubt, I believe she misspoke if she even said this at all. It is just as reasonable to believe that my child could have just as easily heard the information incorrectly.

Quite a misquote which I have heard/seen repeated many times from people who appear to have an agenda. Think about it, to have 500 sex partners in a year would mean that the average gay male would do little else than seek seek partners and have sex. And the 500 number is an average which would include those males in monogamous relationships and those who are chaste.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

From Joseph Nicolosi’s (Ph.D) research:
In 1968, Hoffman stated: “Sexual promiscuity is one of the most striking, distinguishing features of gay life in America” (p. 45). A much-cited study by Bell and Weinberg (1978), published by the Kinsey Institute, and often called the most ambitious study of homosexuality ever attempted, gathered its data before the AIDS crisis had begun. This study showed that 28 percent of homosexual males had had sexual encounters with one thousand or more partners. Furthermore, 79 percent said more than half of their sex partners were strangers. Only 1 percent of the sexually active men had had fewer than five lifetime partners. The authors concede: “Little credence can be given to the supposition that homosexual men’s ‘promiscuity’ has been overestimated” (p.82). “Almost half of the white homosexual males…**said that they had had at least 500 different sexual **partners during the course of their homosexual careers,” (p. 85).
josephnicolosi.com/an-open-secret-the-truth-about/

I will be the first to agree that promiscuity is a huge problem among gay males. However, studies from 1978 are hardly evidence of realities today. Gay men in 1978 were social outcasts, and all social outcasts would tend toward promiscuity, I imagine – especially if their sexual desires made them outcasts.

I imagine the numbers today are different, but perhaps not as different as one might hope. There are millions of American men who use websites to “hook up” with other men daily. It is far more common for gay men to do this than for straight men – and this is not an idle claim, just look at the personals on a certain popular website I will not name. On second thought, PLEASE DO NOT look at those, lest you scar yourself permanently.

How much of this is addictive activity based on shame? I dunno. Is it less likely for an “out and proud” man to do these things? I dunno. But science should be looking into it. And I hope scientists will.

 

[SonShine135]

In what way your child’s perception differ from reality? and What specific statistics are you searching for? Perhaps I can help.

My child’s perception was that Sister got all of her statistics around homosexuality from that one study. In fact, I believe she cited several studies. If anything was missing from her lecture, I would be inclined to believe that it may have been a lack of citation. This still would not be enough, for me at least, to go ballistic over the material. I do believe a PhD would be happy to provide cited references for all of her material upon request.

Quite a misquote which I have heard/seen repeated many times from people who appear to have an agenda. Think about it, to have 500 sex partners in a year would mean that the average gay male would do little else than seek seek partners and have sex. And the 500 number is an average which would include those males in monogamous relationships and those who are chaste.

Yes. I would agree. I found a similar study that said 500 over a lifetime. That is believable, and what I think she was likely getting at. Of course, I don’t know, because the information is secondhand and I wasn’t there.

Strictly my opinion, but my intuition is telling me that one, a few, or even several students got their knickers in a knot when Sister presented the risk factors associated with single and divorced parents. Students took it to mean that she was attacking single and divorced parents, and then relayed the information as such to their single and/or divorced parent. Likely, these same parents were also unclear on the teachings of the church around chastity and homosexuality. This added fuel to the fire. From my child’s account, Emma Winter’s petition is completely overblown or just plain false. It was designed to inflame and enrage.

@ Prodigal Son- I read your posts from earlier, and I think that it is people like you who have struggled with homosexual tendencies throughout their lives that get really marginalized in these debates. Sometimes, you even get it from both sides, with well intentioned Catholics who do not understand the church teachings, and gay rights advocates that chastise you for living as a husband and father. I salute you sir!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

@ Prodigal Son- I read your posts from earlier, and I think that it is people like you who have struggled with homosexual tendencies throughout their lives that get really marginalized in these debates. Sometimes, you even get it from both sides, with well intentioned Catholics who do not understand the church teachings, and gay rights advocates that chastise you for living as a husband and father. I salute you sir!

Gee, thanks!

 

[Memaw]

Well, at least it is nice to see the thread getting back on track with the OP.

Prodigal, I’m not really sure how to respond to your post other than to say I saw you’re disclosure coming. Here is a suggestion for you: Homosexuality and the Catholic Church by Father John Harvey. He’s the founder of the Courage support groups for persons with problems of a homosexual nature and they do help folks get reconciled to the Church. The book is available at Amazon:

amazon.com/Homosexuality-Catholic-Church-John-Harvey/dp/193292762X/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1396441488&sr=1-2&keywords=Father+Harvey

I imagine they probably have a website and may be available to you in the Diocese where you live.

Eiseffe, I strongly disagree with your suggestion that folks come here to “bare their souls.” This is a Catholic Forum meant primarily to promote* disputation and defense of CATHOLIC positions on all subjects. It is meant as a source for Catholic teaching*. It ISN"T meant as a support group or a therapeutic modality. Those who do “bare their souls” in such a place as this* risk being hurt*, damaged, attacked, ridiculed, etc. simply because that is the nature of this kind of forum. While we do try to defend the Church in a courteous way with charity in mind, there are things that we as Catholics must support and some folks are honestly and rightly outraged at the turn of our society into a type of place where a forced and false tolerance is expected more and more every day. Here, at least they expect the Church’s Truth to be not only stated but promoted and defended and may even consider it a refuge from the intrusive media and it’s agenda promoting diatribe. Sometimes those folks who are outraged at this very issue express themselves strongly and that may hurt the feelings of those with problems of a homosexual nature. No, our government has yet to force tolerance of everyone.

This thread was started because a Sister was under fire for speaking about what the Church teaches. It has little to do with being a support group for practicing and non-practicing homosexuals, bisexuals, lesbians, trans-gendered persons or any other of the myriad of sexual deviants that we are expected as supposedly “good” Christians to adopt and support to “prove” we’re good Christians. That isn’t the Church’s position and it isn’t wise to expect all of the Church’s members to behave like Father Harvey and his support groups. That is the place to seek help - NOT HERE!

Glenda

Amen and Thank You, God Bless, Memaw

 

[MJE]

I will be the first to agree that promiscuity is a huge problem among gay males. However, studies from 1978 are hardly evidence of realities today. Gay men in 1978 were social outcasts, and all social outcasts would tend toward promiscuity, I imagine – especially if their sexual desires made them outcasts.

I imagine the numbers today are different, but perhaps not as different as one might hope. There are millions of American men who use websites to “hook up” with other men daily. It is far more common for gay men to do this than for straight men – and this is not an idle claim, just look at the personals on a certain popular website I will not name. On second thought, PLEASE DO NOT look at those, lest you scar yourself permanently.

How much of this is addictive activity based on shame? I dunno. Is it less likely for an “out and proud” man to do these things? I dunno. But science should be looking into it. And I hope scientists will.

Gay author Gabriel Rotello notes the perspective of many gays that "Gay liberation was founded . . . on a ‘sexual brotherhood of promiscuity,’ and any abandonment of that promiscuity would amount to a ‘communal betrayal of gargantuan proportions.’"4 Rotello’s perception of gay promiscuity, which he criticizes, is consistent with survey results. A far-ranging study of homosexual men published in 1978 revealed that 75 percent of self-identified, white, gay men admitted to having sex with more than 100 different males in their lifetime: 15 percent claimed 100-249 sex partners; 17 percent claimed 250- 499; 15 percent claimed 500-999; and 28 percent claimed more than 1,000 lifetime male sex partners.5By 1984, after the AIDS epidemic had taken hold, homosexual men were reportedly curtailing promiscuity, but not by much. Instead of more than 6 partners per month in 1982, the average non-monogamous respondent in San Francisco reported having about 4 partners per month in 1984.6
In more recent years, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has reported an upswing in promiscuity, at least among young homosexual men in San Francisco.** From 1994 to 1997, the percentage of homosexual men reporting multiple partners and unprotected anal sex rose from 23.6 percent to 33.3 percent, with the largest increase among men under 25.7 **Despite its continuing incurability, AIDS no longer seems to deter individuals from engaging in promiscuous gay sex.8

catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html#04

 

[Elizium23]

This story was updated April first. A pity, for all concerned. This is going to happen again and again; when someone dares to speak Catholic teaching on homosexual acts or marriage in a school, there will be a campaign to shut them up or shout them down. Catholic schools and (faithful Catholic) parents need to be ready.

UPDATE: Dominican sister withdraws from scheduled appearance at diocesan youth event in May

And this only proves her faithfulness by her willingness to obey her superior and the bishop. She should be commended for this.

 

[Corki]

If the petition contains a true representation of what the good sister said then the teens were NOT jumping on a bandwagon and have not only the right but the duty to point out the misconceptions in the sister’s lecture.

Here are a few of the misconceptions from her lecture. Those who are on the bandwagon to condemn the good teens should at the very least be aware of what the the teens were protesting to.

My prayers go out to the good sister and hope she will take the opportunity to accept the criticism as constructive and review what she her lecture.

1.We believe that children can thrive in spite of one or both of their parents short comings and/or absence because we know that role models do not exist solely within one’s nuclear family.

As opposed to the Church’s position that that whenever possible a child deserves to be raised by a loving mother and father. The students seem to reject that teaching.

1. We reject the notion that the actions of one abusive Australian couple should be used to support the idea that same sex couples are unfit parents. Not only is this story weightless, anecdotal evidence intended to incite discrimination, but it further abuses that child.

The story is nether weightless or anecdotal but rather a real case. At worst, it may be an over-generalization. The Church also teaches that placing children with same sex couples is itself child abuse, something these students seem to reject.

1. We reject the suggestion that homosexuality occurs mainly as a result of a parent’s shortcomings, masturbation or pornography.

If sister said that this was the main cause, it would be wrong. However, if sister mentioned this as a possible or contributing cause to homosexual behavior, she is right.

1. We recognize the difference between correlation and causation. As a result we realize that men don’t become gay by masturbating in the presence of one another but rather may engage in these activities because they are gay.

So?

1. We take issue with the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” and the suggestion that it is a distortion for the media to portray homosexual couples “like heterosexual couples.”

There IS a homosexual lifestyle and the media DO have an agenda to portray it as normal. You only have to look at how many prime time shows have added “gay” characters in proportions far in excess of the rate of open homosexuals in the actual population. The students may “take issue” with it but that doesn’t mean that it was incorrect for Sister to point it out.

1. We believe that homosexual couples are capable of monogamy.

This is being presented as if it was a good thing. A monogamous homosexual “couple” is just as wrong as a couple who have a more “open” relationship.

So, yes, these students are jumping on a bandwagon. Not only that, they are parading their own ignorance or disregard of Church teaching and pretending that that makes them right.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The story is nether weightless or anecdotal but rather a real case. At worst, it may be an over-generalization. The Church also teaches that placing children with same sex couples is itself child abuse, something these students seem to reject.

Can you cite me an authoritative Catholic teaching that says the portion bolded above? My impression was that the Church teaches that placing children in such situations was unwise and imprudent. But it seems like whether it is child abuse might depend on the specifics of the people involved, not just their gender.

The Church does not teach that single parenthood is child abuse, so far as I know, so I guess I would be puzzled about why gay parenthood would be child abuse.

 

[Corki]

Can you cite me an authoritative Catholic teaching that says the portion bolded above? My impression was that the Church teaches that placing children in such situations was unwise and imprudent. But it seems like whether it is child abuse might depend on the specifics of the people involved, not just their gender.

The Church does not teach that single parenthood is child abuse, so far as I know, so I guess I would be puzzled about why gay parenthood would be child abuse.

At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God," he said. "At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (writing as prefect for the CDF)

Even if the word abuse was not used in these particular quotes, “violence” and “discrimination” are much worse than being just “unwise”.

The Church does not teach that single parenthood is wrong because it is already the result of one parent abandoning the family. It is not a goal in itself but the unfortunate result of someone’s dereliction of duty. Same-sex adoption is an end goal.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio

Cardinal Josef Ratzinger (writing as prefect for the CDF)

Even if the word abuse was not used in these particular quotes, “violence” and “discrimination” are much worse than being just “unwise”.

The Church does not teach that single parenthood is wrong because it is already the result of one parent abandoning the family. It is not a goal in itself but the unfortunate result of someone’s dereliction of duty. Same-sex adoption is an end goal.

No, you’re right, these definitely lean toward classifying it as abuse. However, I do think that the term “abuse” is such a charged term – children are taken from homes forcibly in such cases – that we ought to wait for the Church to specifically use that term before using it ourselves. If homosexual parenting is abuse, then any form of intentional single parenting is abuse. But I hardly think the Church advocates taking children from single mothers, even if we realize these single mothers intentionally deprived their children of fathers.

 

[Corki]

No, you’re right, these definitely lean toward classifying it as abuse. However, I do think that the term “abuse” is such a charged term – children are taken from homes forcibly in such cases – that we ought to wait for the Church to specifically use that term before using it ourselves. If homosexual parenting is abuse, then any form of intentional single parenting is abuse. But I hardly think the Church advocates taking children from single mothers, even if we realize these single mothers intentionally deprived their children of fathers.

While I don’t think the Church has ever made a pronouncement, intentional single parenting would be almost as bad. I am not talking about a girl who finds herself pregnant and decides to keep the child. But someone who goes out to intentionally become pregnant with no intention of involving the other parent is acting in a perverse manner.

In neither case, as far as I know, does the Church advocate “taking children” but rather avoiding such placements in the first place.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In neither case, as far as I know, does the Church advocate “taking children” but rather avoiding such placements in the first place.

I guess I just feel like “child abuse” in the popular imagination merits the taking of children from the parent. So I would prefer our rhetoric to avoid that particular term. We have enough trouble convincing reasonable gay people to consider the Church, without (even inadvertently) suggesting that – if we controlled the legal system – we would advocate taking children from gay couples by force.

At the same time, as I’ve said before, I do think that all these parenting situations are very far from ideal, and I think that we must unite as a society to maintain the influence of a married mother and a father in children’s lives. Anything less is a disservice to our children.

 

[Corki]

I guess I just feel like “child abuse” in the popular imagination merits the taking of children from the parent. So I would prefer our rhetoric to avoid that particular term. We have enough trouble convincing reasonable gay people to consider the Church, without (even inadvertently) suggesting that – if we controlled the legal system – we would advocate taking children from gay couples by force.

At the same time, as I’ve said before, I do think that all these parenting situations are very far from ideal, and I think that we must unite as a society to maintain the influence of a married mother and a father in children’s lives. Anything less is a disservice to our children.

ok, but I didn’t invent the term. In fact, in my search for the exact quote by (then) Cardinal Bergoglio, the media outlets that were characterizing his words as equating same-sex adoption to child abuse were all pro-“gay” pages.