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

[Memaw]

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.

The Church will not adopt children to ‘same sex’ couples. That’s clear enough for me. God bless, Memaw

 

[elgar]

God Bless Sister and all those who are brave enough to speak the Truth whether in season or out of season for the love of Christ! I’ll pray the heat isn’t too much for her, but something tells me she and her other Sisters are prepared to defend both her and the Church’s position on the matter. Shame on all the Catholics who oppose her talks.

Glenda

How very very sad for Sister Jane Dominic Laurel and the real Catholics at the school. Looks like the CINOS out-shouted those parents supportive of her speech. Also, not surprised that Bishop Peter J. Jugis conveniently was not available for the mob scene meeting. The Chaplain and Sister were thrown under the bus. In the end, this will be a lose-lose situation not only for that high school but for the Catholic minority who are becoming more discouraged by the day with confusion stemming from the papacy on down the ranks to Bishops and clerics.

What I find interesting, if this were say a Missouri Lutheran school, it most certainly would not have caved in to the whiners. Some Protestant groups have more principle than most Catholic institutions these days.

 

[GraceSofia]

I am worried about how much intimidation is being brought to this and other issues by those who disagree with the Church’s positions. I can only see it getting worse and more divisive. It’s also becoming increasingly clear that these forces are perhaps even more dangerous inside than outside of the Church.

Well, probably most of the “offended” students and parents are not* inside* the Church. Most Catholic schools have many non-Catholics attending.

But the intimidation is a serious problem. The aim is to suppress Catholic moral teaching. I bet it will be a long time before Charlotte Catholic High School attempts to teach on this issue again, and I wonder if this will discourage other schools from inviting Sister Jane.

Remember Dr. Ken Howell, who got fired for explaining the Catholic teaching on homosexuality?

“Because I addressed a viewpoint that they consider taboo, then that viewpoint had to be excluded,” Dr. Howell said.

 

[bioethics1985]

This is just an observation. I went to Catholic schools for my entire K-12 career. We were taught correct theology, but it was taught in a sensitive manner by teachers who knew the kids in their classroom. Because they knew what students might be facing, they were very gentle about topics like “single parent risk factors.” I am unsure why students would need a detailed discussion of homosexual promiscuity and “risk factors.” I think the clear and consistent message that individuals with a homosexual orientation are intrinsically valuable to the Lord but must remain chaste is enough. Regarding the title of the talk, I wonder why more topics related to gender generally were not discussed. For instance, there is a culture of female objectification in the media and on high school/college campuses nationwide. Students are likely to encounter these things sooner rather than later. Why not talk about gender objectification? Why not rape culture? Why not vocation related to gender? Why not address the misconception propagated by our society generally and some Christian fundamentalists that women are less than men? Why not discuss how the media victimizes men by teaching them that they need to be tough and “forceful” to get ahead? What about care of the body and creation generally? I believe that if the speaker had made a few comments about a variety of gender issues she wouldn’t have gotten the response she did. If it were my child, I would prefer that someone in the school community who knows the children teach these topics. Hopefully, the school offers multiple speakers on a variety of religious topics, including Biblical studies, theology, ethics, and personal development, and this was just a particularly difficult situation.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is just an observation. I went to Catholic schools for my entire K-12 career. We were taught correct theology, but it was taught in a sensitive manner by teachers who knew the kids in their classroom. Because they knew what students might be facing, they were very gentle about topics like “single parent risk factors.” I am unsure why students would need a detailed discussion of homosexual promiscuity and “risk factors.” I think the clear and consistent message that individuals with a homosexual orientation are intrinsically valuable to the Lord but must remain chaste is enough.

I have same-sex attraction, and I can tell you that (for me) that message is certainly NOT enough. **Why **should I remain chaste? Why is homosexual activity wrong? What are the harms associated with it?

If we can’t answer these questions, then teens who are inclined to homosexual activity will not remain chaste – why would they? Treating teenagers with respect involves giving them **real **answers to questions: not “because God said so” or “because the Church teaches it.” Why does God say so? Why does the Church teach it?

One admirable thing about the speaker at this school is that she did feel like she needed to explain how homosexual activity is harmful – good for her. Now, maybe she said some unwise or unnecessarily hurtful things and used some out of date materials. But her intentions were right on.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In the end, this will be a lose-lose situation not only for that high school but for the Catholic minority who are becoming more discouraged by the day** with confusion stemming from the papacy **on down the ranks to Bishops and clerics.

:ehh:

Methinks Jesus would not find Pope Francis sympathizing with gay people objectionable. And me also thinks that nothing Pope Francis said suggested that orthodox speakers at Catholic high schools should be silenced.

 

[bioethics1985]

I have same-sex attraction, and I can tell you that (for me) that message is certainly NOT enough. **Why **should I remain chaste? Why is homosexual activity wrong? What are the harms associated with it?

If we can’t answer these questions, then teens who are inclined to homosexual activity will not remain chaste – why would they? Treating teenagers with respect involves giving them **real **answers to questions: not “because God said so” or “because the Church teaches it.” Why does God say so? Why does the Church teach it?

One admirable thing about the speaker at this school is that she did feel like she needed to explain how homosexual activity is harmful – good for her. Now, maybe she said some unwise or unnecessarily hurtful things and used some out of date materials. But her intentions were right on.

Thanks for the perspective. I was thinking of it from a heterosexual female perspective. I guess I’d rather see these kind of questions answered in a personalized setting. For instance, when I was in school, we had opportunities for individual counseling and small groups. Small groups would meet privately and confidentially and would focus on a specific concern. For instance, I became very anxious about college applications (borderline suicidal ideation) my junior year and attended a group devoted to tackling anxiety from a faith perspective. These groups were not publicized (you could check off ones you’d be interested in receiving information about and the counselors would collect them right away in homeroom), but I do remember hearing from friends that they had an AA Group (one of my friends had to go to rehab our junior year), an Al-Anon group, a group for sexual assault survivors, a group for students who were struggling with a loved one’s death, etc. In this setting, a group could specifically address concerns from those who struggle with same sex attraction. I just think a large group setting might cause more problems and misunderstandings.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thanks for the perspective. I was thinking of it from a heterosexual female perspective. I guess I’d rather see these kind of questions answered in a personalized setting. For instance, when I was in school, we had opportunities for individual counseling and small groups. Small groups would meet privately and confidentially and would focus on a specific concern. For instance, I became very anxious about college applications (borderline suicidal ideation) my junior year and attended a group devoted to tackling anxiety from a faith perspective. These groups were not publicized (you could check off ones you’d be interested in receiving information about and the counselors would collect them right away in homeroom), but I do remember hearing from friends that they had an AA Group (one of my friends had to go to rehab our junior year), an Al-Anon group, a group for sexual assault survivors, a group for students who were struggling with a loved one’s death, etc. In this setting, a group could specifically address concerns from those who struggle with same sex attraction. I just think a large group setting might cause more problems and misunderstandings.

I like the idea of dealing with these things in private settings too. But you need to understand the youth culture today. It’s not just gay kids that are being deeply affected by the issue of homosexuality; straight kids are, too. They often think the Church is evil because of its rules about homosexuality, and they often reject religion because of this. So some sort of public teaching is definitely called for.

It would ideally come, however, through the mouths of people who are gay or SSA. Otherwise, it’s kind of like a bunch of celibates telling married people how NFP works.

(Note: For YEARS, Catholic schools haven’t provided any help to gay kids, and didn’t want to know if you thought you were gay. Now, they are reaping the harvest of their own stupidity.)

 

[bioethics1985]

Completely agree that it would be better if it was someone struggling with SSA who talked to the students. It comes across as way less judgmental and more about actual truths from that perspective.

 

[Barbara_Sears]

I find it interesting that parents, even in the public schools, have trouble with items of sex, sexual orientation, and other related topics talked about to or discussed with their children. Some say they want to control what is conveyed and some just don’t want the topics addressed. I feel badly for today’s children who then learn about such things from the streets or by discussion with their peers (who got there info from who knows where). I was Christian but not Catholic when my children were school age (public school) but I had them included in all classes and they talked to them at home about what they learned and how it fit with our beliefs. Wish all parents would be so open. Better that children hear things now when their parents can talk with them than to learn it from peers without parental knowledge or as an adult with no followup.

My prayers go to the Sister…

 

[agnes_therese]

:ehh:

Methinks Jesus would not find Pope Francis sympathizing with gay people objectionable. And me also thinks that nothing Pope Francis said suggested that orthodox speakers at Catholic high schools should be silenced.

 

[SMGS127]

I have same-sex attraction, and I can tell you that (for me) that message is certainly NOT enough. **Why **should I remain chaste? Why is homosexual activity wrong? What are the harms associated with it?.

The problem is, for every one person who can answer this adequately, you have another ten who will answer with false statistics on lack of monogamy, child abuse, etc. etc. In my opinion, we MUST keep our public speeches focused on natural law, and use private meetings to engage in discussions on the spiritual harm of sins.

I appreciate your want to make it clearer why homosexuality is not healthy for us, but it is actually counterproductive to allow people to use pejorative phrases like “homosexual lifestyle” [in fact, that was one of the complaints in the petition!] or for people to use blatantly false statistics, because when kids associate completely false statistics with the religion, they start to see the religion as false too. Same for pejorative phrases. If people use terms like “homosexual lifestyle” or “f****t” or “homosexualists,” then the recipients of the message start seeing the CHURCH as pejorative too. Kids don’t separate the difference between an individual speaker and the Church’s teaching as a whole very well.

 

[Ana_v]

Dear Catholics:

**UPDATE: **Press Release Statement from Aquinas College:

A Statement from Aquinas College
April 04, 2014

From Sister Mary Sarah, O.P., President of Aquinas College:

The events around the recent talk by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, O.P. in Charlotte, NC have produced a great deal of speculation from many sides. Among the commentators, there are few who were actually present to hear the talk, which was not recorded.

It is the firm belief of Aquinas College that all men and women are created in God’s image and likeness and are made with a capacity to love and be loved. The College supports the Catholic Church’s teachings which are open to the diverse needs and desires of all, which must be considered in light of eternal truths.

We support and affirm that every man and woman, regardless of his or her state in life, deserves respect, and that the health of any culture is gauged according to the capacity of its members to uphold their own beliefs while respecting the beliefs of others. The College’s patron, St. Thomas Aquinas, was known for his ability to thoughtfully consider all things and retain what is true, regardless of the source of that truth.

We believe it is our privilege to bring the best aspects of our faith tradition to bear on the moral and cultural questions of the present age. In her presentation, Sister Jane Dominic spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals. Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise. Sister is a trained theologian from a Pontifical University and has the credentials to contribute to scholarly bodies of work. This she has done in the past with distinction. The unfortunate events at Charlotte Catholic High School are not representative of the quality of Sister’s academic contributions or the positive influence that she has had on her students. The students at Charlotte Catholic were unprepared, as were their parents, for the topic that Sister was asked to deliver. The consequence was a complete misrepresentation of the school’s intention to bring a message that would enlighten and bring freedom and peace.

There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments. The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome and wishes to reiterate that this is not something the College condones or desires to create. There is division where there should be unity. The events and discussions that have transpired over the last two weeks reflect that there is something in this that surpasses an ordinary high school assembly.

Sister Jane Dominic has cancelled her speaking engagements and, at her request, is preparing to begin a sabbatical from teaching at Aquinas College. It is our sincere hope that the community of Charlotte Catholic High School will soon begin a process of healing and renewal, and that all who have been affected by this event will be drawn into profound reconciliation as we approach this great season that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

aquinascollege.edu/college-statement-charlotte-catholic-sister-jane-dominic/

Please, please continue to pray for Sister Jane Dominic and all who have been personally involved in and affected by the controversy that surrounded her talk.

God Bless you!
Ana

 

[SMGS127]

Dear Catholics:

**UPDATE: **Press Release Statement from Aquinas College:

aquinascollege.edu/college-statement-charlotte-catholic-sister-jane-dominic/

Please, please continue to pray for Sister Jane Dominic and all who have been personally involved in and affected by the controversy that surrounded her talk.

God Bless you!
Ana

Man…

As much as I think her comments were highly unfortunate, I never thought she did anything intentional. I find it very sad that she does not feel she can continue to teach, taking this as a learning experience. I’ll throw my prayers in that she doesn’t view this experience as a discouragement from teaching in general.

 

[Corki]

Completely agree that it would be better if it was someone struggling with SSA who talked to the students. It comes across as way less judgmental and more about actual truths from that perspective.

That might be true if the talk were aimed at students who struggled with SSA. But for a mixed body of students and teachers, someone with a more neutral standpoint has more credibility.

 

[Corki]

Dear Catholics:

**UPDATE: **Press Release Statement from Aquinas College:

aquinascollege.edu/college-statement-charlotte-catholic-sister-jane-dominic/

Please, please continue to pray for Sister Jane Dominic and all who have been personally involved in and affected by the controversy that surrounded her talk.

God Bless you!
Ana

This is incredibly sad. Another Catholic voice silenced by “tolerance” bullies.

 

[esieffe]

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.

Hi Corki, hope you are doing well. We have a friendly disagreement on this statement. Though I feel sure you are correct from a doctrinal standpoint in your statement, I feel the “magnitude of sin” has to be greater for individuals outside of marriage, who are promiscuous with multiple partners, rather than simply one whom they have a loving relationship with.

The fact that it is a “loving relationship” outside of marriage may not change the fact that it is sinful, but certainly, diving headfirst into the sea of hedonism, must more sinfully grave then that of a monogamous couple, gay or straight.

The fact that this distinction is not clearly made in the CCC does not necessarily mean that it is not the case.
Best wishes,
-E

 

[FollowChrist34]

I have same-sex attraction, and I can tell you that (for me) that message is certainly NOT enough. **Why **should I remain chaste? Why is homosexual activity wrong? What are the harms associated with it?

If we can’t answer these questions, then teens who are inclined to homosexual activity will not remain chaste – why would they? Treating teenagers with respect involves giving them **real **answers to questions: not “because God said so” or “because the Church teaches it.” Why does God say so? Why does the Church teach it?

One admirable thing about the speaker at this school is that she did feel like she needed to explain how homosexual activity is harmful – good for her. Now, maybe she said some unwise or unnecessarily hurtful things and used some out of date materials. But her intentions were right on.

There is also a much bigger picture here – we live in a culture where one’s sexual activity is perceived as the primary means of achieving self fulfillment. For most people in our society, this belief is beyond challenge and no serious alternative argument has had any broad currency in at least 50 years. Pursuing sexual fulfillment is inextricably linked to the basic need to find and experience love. Without this experience, you are viewed as deprived and/or repressed, abnormal even. (Dating myself a bit here, but I vividly remember my stepmother’s copy of Erica Jong’s Fear of Flying sitting on the coffee table. Of course I ended up reading it. To my credit, my opinion of it was pretty low, but that mindset was and basically still is everywhere.) The notion that a life dedicated to God fulfills you (and redefines all of your priorities, including the role of your sexuality) is just not part of the modern psyche. It is not surprising that kids react the way that they do to the basic teachings of the Church about sexuality. But in reality all of us struggle with these teachings in this culture, straight as well as gay, married or single. It’s human nature. The problem is (and always will be) in us, not in the teaching of the Church.

Now, I know we “good” Catholics all know our Augustine et al. - over emphasizing self-fulfillment through sexuality leads in time to a painful limiting and distortion of the human experience. Love is in effect nullified by the mutual objectification of persons and the prioritizing of gratification as the desired end. Or put more simply, in casual situations, people simply tire of each other when our needs are no longer being met. In addition, the consequences of irresponsible and impulsive sexual acts often seriously hurt those around us as well as ourselves; we in turn are hurt by this behavior in those we trust. Our sexual needs come to dominate our lives and undermine our dignity. It’s really just a variation of living for money, material things, alcohol, drugs, pornography, food, physical attractiveness, work, etc. etc. etc.

A life informed by faith gives us a larger perspective and a means to freedom; it helps us to limit and direct our sexuality back to its original natural purpose (where it is allowed to flourish for our good, i.e., in the traditional marriage structure). This further builds strong, stable communities and societies. (As an aside, the Greek tragedians can teach you probably more than anybody about the destructiveness of the passions, but of course no one reads them anymore…my point is distrust of the passions used to be common knowledge, predating the CCC by quite a bit.)

I really doubt that any kid, or for that matter many adults, want to hear this all of this, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility to inform children and adults in a truthful manner about the role of sexuality in their lives from the Christian perspective. And I also don’t think Church teaching on sexuality or homosexuality will make any sense to anyone who doesn’t already understand and accept the reality of original sin in their lives, which extends in influence far beyond sexuality. You likewise need a firm grasp on the concept of the will of the flesh (i.e., things of the world, including but not just sexuality & your ego) vs. the will of the spirit (things of God, agape love, patience, faith, wisdom, humility, self control, etc.) It all has to be taken in together.

A lot of us learn and relearn and relearn the unpleasant truth of the limitations of the modern approach to sexuality. We’re looking for too much in it and dehumanizing ourselves in the process. I’m afraid the Church has this one right…

 

[esieffe]

Well, probably most of the “offended” students and parents are not* inside* the Church. Most Catholic schools have many non-Catholics attending.

But the intimidation is a serious problem. The aim is to suppress Catholic moral teaching. I bet it will be a long time before Charlotte Catholic High School attempts to teach on this issue again, and I wonder if this will discourage other schools from inviting Sister Jane.

Remember Dr. Ken Howell, who got fired for explaining the Catholic teaching on homosexuality?

“Because I addressed a viewpoint that they consider taboo, then that viewpoint had to be excluded,” Dr. Howell said.

Is a transcript of her talk still not available? I feel this would go a long way towards ending this debate. Again my concern, and I feel that there are many other that feel this way despite the trend of thought on CAF, is about the single parent statements, not the effects or fall out of SSA issues.

 

[Corki]

Hi Corki, hope you are doing well. We have a friendly disagreement on this statement. Though I feel sure you are correct from a doctrinal standpoint in your statement, I feel the “magnitude of sin” has to be greater for individuals outside of marriage, who are promiscuous with multiple partners, rather than simply one whom they have a loving relationship with.

The fact that it is a “loving relationship” outside of marriage may not change the fact that it is sinful, but certainly, diving headfirst into the sea of hedonism, must more sinfully grave then that of a monogamous couple, gay or straight.

The fact that this distinction is not clearly made in the CCC does not necessarily mean that it is not the case.
Best wishes,
-E

It’s true that mortal sin can be multiplied. But it is not true that a monogamous homosexual relationship is somehow not mortal because the two people are faithful to each other.

The petition point I was commenting on was:

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

I don’t think anyone ever said that homosexual couples can’t be monogamous.

It’s like saying a man with a mistress is somehow a better person than a married man who has had several affairs.

And since the topic is a presentation at a Catholic school, doctrine matters.