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

[esieffe]

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

Hi again Glenda.
If I came across as suggesting that CAF was strictly a place to bear one’s soul, it was not my intention. As a matter of fact, I don’t always enjoy seeing that myself. I DO think that as a part of this ministry, it is an acceptable use of the forums to seek advice for spiritually difficult issues.

I agree the main function here is to learn more about Catholicism and the vast treasury of doctrine, tradition, and yes, the promotion and discussion of Catholic positions and so on.
I would have to find my initial post, but I certainly can’t imagine that CAF should become a Dr. Phil “way station” for “sexual deviants” to seek group therapy, and I am quite sure I did not imply that, nor did I mention a long laundry list of psycho-sexual infrimities.

As evidenced by prayer request threads, explaining an issue for the purposes of framing a prayer request sometimes involves some level of disclosure. People who have had the same struggle chime in and offer advice as well as prayers. It would be nice if we could get (name removed by moderator)ut from a forum moderator to clear up the issue, because really, it is a valid question no matter what side of the fence you sit.

Pax!
-E

 

[SMGS127]

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

Actually, one of the complaints in the petition was that she made the claim that gay people were significantly less likely to be monogamous than straight people. Again, the petition was protesting her supposed usage of inflammatory comments, like this one would be. No one was suggesting that she should’ve come out and said that being actively gay was fine. They were protesting inflammatory, pejorative language (“homosexual lifestyle”), albeit language that wasn’t intended to be inflammatory, and inflammatory comments that were most likely said out of ignorance of the sociological side of the issue, not out of malicious intent.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

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.

Some people think “chastising” nonbelievers with Bible quotes is all that they need to do to “love” the sinner.

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.

Considering the number of people who equate Gloria Steinem with feminism I’m not sure it is just kids who don’t/can’t separate the difference between an individual speaker and [insert group].

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:

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.

When someone trots out “statistics” about how gays have an average of 500 partners it is usually implied that gays are incapable of fidelity.

 

[JimG]

I rather doubt that those who were protesting the talk would be satisfied with anything less than an affirmation that same sex relationships are perfectly normal, moral, and equivalent to heterosexual marriage, that single parenthood is equivalent to intact families, that same sex relationships are all monogamous and healthy, and that our society is in fine shape when it comes to sexual morality. Not having heard the talk, I’m kind of speculating in the dark here, but I’m saddened that Aquinas College thought it best to gently push her under the bus.

There are certainly plenty of social / sexual dysfunctions present in our society, many of them arising over the past half century. Perhaps the school should just have distributed copies of Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” and asked the students to discuss it. It details the statistics of the past half century relating to a great many societal sexual problems including out of wedlock births and declining emphasis on fatherhood, among others. There is a lot of social and sexual pathology involved here. Everything is not all right.

 

[Ana_v]

I rather doubt that those who were protesting the talk would be satisfied with anything less than an affirmation that same sex relationships are perfectly normal, moral, and equivalent to heterosexual marriage, that single parenthood is equivalent to intact families, that same sex relationships are all monogamous and healthy, and that our society is in fine shape when it comes to sexual morality.

Jim, you posted a very fine comment, and I am of the same persuasion. I am also disappointed with the outcome, but I pray and trust that with God’s grace Sister will come out of this even stronger than when she went in.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

I rather doubt that those who were protesting the talk would be satisfied with anything less than an affirmation that same sex relationships are perfectly normal, moral, and equivalent to heterosexual marriage, that single parenthood is equivalent to intact families, that same sex relationships are all monogamous and healthy, and that our society is in fine shape when it comes to sexual morality. Not having heard the talk, I’m kind of speculating in the dark here, but I’m saddened that Aquinas College thought it best to gently push her under the bus.

There are certainly plenty of social / sexual dysfunctions present in our society, many of them arising over the past half century. Perhaps the school should just have distributed copies of Mary Eberstadt’s “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” and asked the students to discuss it. It details the statistics of the past half century relating to a great many societal sexual problems including out of wedlock births and declining emphasis on fatherhood, among others. There is a lot of social and sexual pathology involved here. Everything is not all right.

Notice how that isn’t what the petition is going for.

 

[Dawnia]

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

Does it really matter the degree of sinfulness? I’d guess Hell doesn’t differentiate. If you end up there for taking God’s name in vain or for murder, I doubt the conditions are better for the former than the latter. :coolinoff:

 

[GraceSofia]

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…

This is very sad. Satan will be glad that she’s been neutralised.

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.

No transcript exists. The statement from Aquinas says that it was not recorded. I did read a comment or two in some combox that students had shown video or audio from their phones to at least one teacher, but since it has not surfaced on You Tube or anywhere, I doubt that it exists, or if it does, I suppose that it exonerates Sister.

I rather doubt that those who were protesting the talk would be satisfied with anything less than an affirmation that same sex relationships are perfectly normal, moral, and equivalent to heterosexual marriage, that single parenthood is equivalent to intact families, that same sex relationships are all monogamous and healthy, and that our society is in fine shape when it comes to sexual morality.

That is the goal of the homosexualists. Fall in line with this or else!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

I don’t see why. Students are concerned with the way that Catholic teaching (in their eyes) harms homosexuals. Why not have a gay Catholic respond? Isn’t that response more plausible, just as it is more plausible when a female Catholic defends keeping the priesthood male?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Are we to believe in the absence of a record of the talk Sr Jane Dominic gave to rely on the offended side’s version?

A counter petition states below in part:

Sister Jane Dominic was invited into the Charlotte Catholic community and it is the duty of the students to treat her with the utmost respect. She shared with us the beauty of masculinity and femininity, and how this affects each of us as we grow and develop. She soon entered topics very controversial, yet topics that need to be taught. This is our platform.

   **We the students of Charlotte Catholic High School, acting on our Catholic beliefs, are declaring a formal objection towards all those who do not accept Sister Jane Dominic's lecture on March 21, 2014 as fact and who have signed Emma Winters's petition. We are outraged that the topics talked about are being debated within a community where the shared faith teaches us what truly is holy and that anyone would stand up against a nun, who has given her life for the Lord, and blantly deny God's teachings.** What we believe in, stand for, and object are as follows:

I. We believe that every human regardless of gender, race, or sexual orientation, should be treated with love and respect.

II. We do not approve of homosexual marriage or activities, because we understand that it is against the Holy Bible.

III. We accept homosexual men and women into our community with open arms.

IV. We understand that all of creation sins and that sin is not limited to the homosexual community.

V. We love all of God’s beautiful creation and do not intend to harm anyone.

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

**VII. We understand that Sister Jane Dominic did not say that masturbating will make you homesexual or that the absence of a parent will either. Yet, that she said that by partaking in masturbation will lessen your masculinity and that through the absence of a parent in the home will also make a greater risk for homosexuality.
**
VIII. We believe that it is important to discuss these topics so that the young people of today may better understand righteousness and God’s divine will.

IX. We believe that it is premier to spread the truth and unite the Catholic Church so that our posterity may have a truer and more deeper understanding of God’s perfect plan for our lives.

X. We believe that the Charlotte Catholic High School administration knows what is best for us and that they hold the right to call us to assembly for what they believe we should hear and/or know.

XI. We understand that it is our duty as Catholics to do our best to keep sin from entering the world.

    Finally, we state that Jesus has already overcome sin and that no matter the outcome of this topic the Catholic Church has already administered to this  and the right answer may be found through her or God.

…

 

[SMGS127]

Are we to believe in the absence of a record of the talk Sr Jane Dominic gave to rely on the offended side’s version?

A counter petition states below in part:

The problem with this petition is that it doesn’t actually counter any of the original petitions’ complaints. Where’s the counter to the complaint about an implication about non-monogamy in gay relationships? Where’s the counter to complaints about pejorative terms like “homosexual lifestyle” being used?

The counter petition is seeking to counter a petition that seeks to challenge Church teaching, a petition that does not exist (at least, with regards to this talk). The original petition does not counter Church teaching in any way, and it should not be taboo in the Church to criticize speakers for discussing issues not related to doctrine (e.g. whether gays are monogamous or not) if they use bad statistics or falsely demonize a group of people, whether intentional by the speaker or not.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The problem with this petition is that it doesn’t actually counter any of the original petitions’ complaints. Where’s the counter to the complaint about an implication about non-monogamy in gay relationships? Where’s the counter to complaints about pejorative terms like “homosexual lifestyle” being used?

The counter petition is seeking to counter a petition that seeks to challenge Church teaching, a petition that does not exist (at least, with regards to this talk). The original petition does not counter Church teaching in any way, and it should not be taboo in the Church to criticize speakers for discussing issues not related to doctrine (e.g. whether gays are monogamous or not) if they use bad statistics or falsely demonize a group of people, whether intentional by the speaker or not.

Curiously, the petitioner Emma Winters has taken down the original complaint. Do you by chance have it saved or can refer me to one on the web?

One of the comments on the counter petition is that the Sister did not spend a lot of time on homosexuality.

I would rather review what was actually said (albeit allegedly), not what the petitioner says she took away as implication, which gay supporters were quick to latch on as offenses of the highest order.

Even if, as you say, the original petition does not challenge Church teaching, and the trouble seems to involve a referral to bad statistics, do you justify that a Catholic nun with excellent credentials on the subject, speaking in a Catholic school, be vilified the way Sr Jane Dominick has been? Is it possible that the complainant and her supporters are not Catholic or are CINOs attempting in effect to shut down any discussion that touches on the wrongfulness of homosexual activity?

As one commenter said, “If you do not wish to go to Minneapolis, why are you on the train?”
,

 

[GraceSofia]

Curiously, the petitioner Emma Winters has taken down the original complaint. Do you by chance have it saved or can refer me to one on the web?

Here imgur.com/a/cmhpZ?gallery but you can’t copy and paste from it. Or at least I can’t.

 

[glendab]

Hello Bioethics.

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.

Sounds like you’ve got some very interesting ideas for a few threads to discuss here at CAF… Why not ask those questions you listed here and see what folks have to say?

Glenda

 

[glendab]

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…

Yippie! :extrahappy: Bravo!:clapping:

Very well said.

Glenda

 

[SoulSolace]

In related news; Brendan Eich, the recently appointed CEO of the software firm Mozilla Corp. has resigned from his position in response to the backlash from gay rights groups of his Pro-traditional marriage stance.



Seems to be rampant these days.

Praying for Sister Jane.

 

[TCEL]

I’m a bit curious now with all the controversy surrounding the issue of monogamy. Are homosexual couples monogamy stats on a par with the rest of society’s? (By monogamy, I mean total-life sexual partners, married or not.)

 

[zz912]

Actually, one of the complaints in the petition was that she made the claim that gay people were significantly less likely to be monogamous than straight people. Again, the petition was protesting her supposed usage of inflammatory comments, like this one would be.

The truth can be inflammatory, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t proclaim it. Monogamy in the homosexual community is very small. That’s not saying there isn’t monogamy, but the majority of relationships aren’t monogamous.

 

[GraceSofia]

Reading over the statement from Sr. Jane’s college, I can’t help but feel that she was thrown under the bus.

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.

If she is referring to Sister’s comments, I think that is very unfair. The greater harm was not caused by what Sister said, but by people who decided to make a petition and turn a molehill into a mountain.

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.

What does that even mean? Is she hinting that there were outside pressure groups (such as PFLAG) involved, or that Sister got caught in some in-fighting at the school or diocese?

 

[JimG]

At least I got to watch the entire series of videos on the Newman Connection website on the subject. Under the heading of “Rich Gift of Love,” there were eight talks by sister on the subject of Masculinity and Femininity. I watched all of these and they are quite good.

There might indeed be a segment of the popular culture which would object even to the idea of masculinity and femininity and to any gender roles at all, supposing them to be mere social constructs; but there are some good insights in this series, which I suspect are sorely needed, particularly in the current culture. I hope nobody will bully the site into removing them. She also has some other series which I haven’t had time to watch.