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

[Ana_v]

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.

Jim,

Would you be willing to send a brief message of support to Sister Jane Dominic and mention that you found and watched her Masculinity and Femininity videos and believe that they contain valuable insight?

It is up to you of course but if you or anyone else has an interest in sending her an encouraging message, the best way would be to send her a letter in which she is the designated recipient on the envelope and it is addressed to the College.

God Bless!

 

[Veridical16]

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.)

Even if the statistics were in favor of a sign of “monogamy” it would be irrelevant, for even two fornicators cohabiting, staying “loyal” to each other, are still objectively in a state of sin, and going against what is in conformity to the Moral Order laid down by God.

I believe Catholics need to avoid falling into the traps that what is good, needs to be validated by appearances of order, rather than pointing to the foundation of that which conforms to the Moral order: what is illicit and/or against the Natural Law by what all men know in their hearts.
That one can observe the consequences of sin, as the Sister argued in her points, is a byproduct but secondary, in defense of the Truth and the good.

For instance, Catholics amongst themselves need not seek validation of the apparent consequences of the contraceptive mentality, to justify Church teaching , but proclaim the truth because of the act themselves are already as they are, against what is good.

Forming Catholics consciences still needs to be based on the solid foundation that the Natural law applies to all men, not just those within the Catholic Church, who choose to follow the Moral Order.

Facts and statistics can be manipulated, through perception and money from those who lobby for certain acts in the name of “freedom.” People who love sin and put themselves at enmity with God, have incentive to knock down these secondary arguments through various means, and they aren’t beholden to do so following the ten commandments.

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.**

Monogamy outside of Marriage is still not a sign of an Ordered Life and if there was graceless, man based effort to produce such an appearance , it still would not validate the acts as good.

This is the mentality that justifies sin,* “if it’s not hurting anyone, it’s no longer a sin”* because Catholics start thinking sin, has to be a sin, in the eyes of men, when the first basis for sin is that it offends God.

It’s this kind of thinking by going with the terms of the world in pointing to the truth, that leads some Christians (some Protestants and Cafeteria Catholics) to try to argue that Jesus never mentioned, this or that as a sin, explicitly therefore it is not a sin in man’s eyes, and then they do it. Some taken in by Modernism, even take the false interpretations of the sin of Sodom for instance, presenting it as having nothing to do with disordered lusts.

When reason through the eyes of Faith knows that that view is unreasonable, because if fornicators are subject to following the 6th and 9th commandments, then it is only logical that those who lust outside of marriage includes the many other, disordered passions that plague men.

So it’s unreasonable to say because certain sins are not explicitly said by Jesus, makes them not sins when one considers the whole of the Ten Commandments and that Jesus did not lessen his expectations, responsibilities on how we keep them, but raised them.

Therefore, to say the consequences of this or that act, shows why it is wrong, is insufficient.
.
Conversely, It is not reasonable to say the appearance of “no negative consequences” or a sign of “natural happiness” from breaking a commandment of God, makes it no longer necessary to follow that commandment.

 

[Mark121359]

Poll after poll after poll show that “devout” Catholics, those who attend religious services about once a week, support same- sex marriage 53 - 40 percent. If these numbers are correct, and I have found no reason to discredit them, Pew, Quinnipiac University, Gallup all say basically the same thing, then how in the world can we be surprised when students, parents and school officials become outraged at this good Sister, when she dares to speak out against this extremely divisive issue, that homosexuality has now become? The bigger and more important question in my view, is how did we arrive at this divisiveness as Catholics on this issue in such a relatively short span in the first place? Especially since our Church has always held such crystal clear teachings on this subject? The CCC clearly states;*** tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved***…Read that last line again. Under ***no ***circumstances can they be approved! And yet, the majority of Catholics who attend Mass regularly, do approve. And they don’t even bat an eye about it! And this is why so many of the students and their parents didn’t bat an eye when they attacked this Sister’s good name.

As you head out for Church tomorrow morning, take a moment to think about that 53 - 40 percent statistic. Think about the fact that better than half of those who are seated with you at Mass…those who go up with you to receive the Most Blessed Sacrament, believe in and support, wholeheartedly, something that our Church teaches is “intrinsically disordered.” And that to me, is the biggest concern of all. We need to stand tall with and support those such as Sister Jane Dominic, who have such courage to speak out when so many…even fellow Catholics, are aligned against them! As for me? My prayers are with this good Sister. ***Bravo Sister Jane Dominic! May God Richly Bless You! ***

Peace, Mark

 

[SMGS127]

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.

This is completely blatantly false. Monogamy is rampant in the LGBT community. Polyamorous relationships are not only rare, but they also tend to be vilified by those in the LGBT community. There is a reason people scoff and groan, hypocritically or not, when people bring up the idea that SS’M’ will somehow lead to legal polygamy.

As to others asking why it matters, I am well aware that Hell doesn’t differentiate between someone with 3 mortal sins and someone with 30. But in the same light, if someone talked about “people who masturbate” being 2,000x more likely to murder people, that’s still slander, though potentially unintentional slander out of ignorance. Criticizing said person for their comments on the likelihood of “masturbators” to murder does not mean you are disagreeing with their base comments on the sinfulness of masturbation. Likewise, someone insinuating that a gay person was unable or unlikely to be monogamous merely by virtue of their sexual orientation should be criticized for doing so, as it is a false statement and hurts evangelization.

Straight kids know gay kids personally, and they know how they act in relationships; that’s an undeniable fact. If you go around telling straight kids that their friends are all incapable of monogamy and all sorts of other [blatantly false] comments, they will not only completely disregard everything you say, but, worse, they will also connect the lack of truthfulness in your comments as also being a litmus test on the legitimacy of your religion. All of our #1 concerns should be evangelization and catechetics. It is completely fair to provide a loud voice of dissent when someone says something contrary to this mission that has nothing to do with doctrine and is untrue. And those who do provide this voice of dissent should not be automatically assumed or accused of being heterodox, as their stated dissent is not heterodox in any way whatsoever.

 

[JimG]

Jim,

Would you be willing to send a brief message of support to Sister Jane Dominic and mention that you found and watched her Masculinity and Femininity videos and believe that they contain valuable insight?

It is up to you of course but if you or anyone else has an interest in sending her an encouraging message, the best way would be to send her a letter in which she is the designated recipient on the envelope and it is addressed to the College.

God Bless!

Well yes, and I think it would also be good to thank the Newman Connection for carrying this series of video presentations. Newman Connection is intended for college age persons, so I think that is the primary audience they would like to reach.

Catholic theology of the body and the conclusions about man and woman that flow from it, are in some respects almost intuitive. They may be morally intuitive, but the average person has not thought them through. As I watched these presentations, it was sometimes my thought that, “well sure, everybody knows that.” But what everybody might once have known, has been systematically obscured by much of modern culture.

I can picture myself as a teenager bringing a certain type of magazine into the house. My mother would have told me to get rid of it. “But mom,” I might have said. “What’s wrong with it? Do you have sociological studies demonstrating this is a bad magazine for me? Do you have evidence that this would be bad for my psychosexual devleopment? What citations do you have?”

Well, I would never have said that. And if I had, she would have said something like. “I’m your mother, and I know. Now just get rid of it; throw it in the trash where it belongs.” The point is not that sociological studies are useless, but that often common moral sense is useful.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

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

Thanks for providing the link, GraceSofia. The 10 objections listed by Emma Winters who originated the on line petition against Sr Jane Dominic appear as iterations of beliefs defending homosexuals and the homosexual lifestyle, in reaction to what Sr Jane Dominic may or may not have said.

I do not agree that “homosexual lifestyle” is a pejorative as the writer and some here claim. The phrase does not necessarily denote or connote promiscuous gay sex. Gays and their sympathizers need to stop being perpetually offended or slighted. Yes, there are homosexuals who have been or are in long term monogamous same sex relations; however, claims that gay couples are mostly monogamous are not convincing, given studies by gay researchers (e.g., McWhirter and Mattison, Lanz and Lowen) and accounts of known and vocal gay activists (Andrew Sullivan, Dan Savage, etc). It seems that monogamous and committed are words do not mean the same thing in their homosexual partnerships or unions.

Rather, living the “homosexual lifestyle” means dating, open to, or already in a same sex relationship, believing such relationship to be equivalent to heterosexual unions, in favor therefore of gay “marriage” and parenting / adoption of kids, etc.

Even within really monogamous homosexual relationships, none of the above is consistent with Catholic teaching on living a life in the state of grace.

Any speaker that pronounces and delivers this Catholic message would be a target for criticism and derision by those who live and believe otherwise. Truth has to sting.

The reaction of those who took offense and signed onto the on line petition of Emma Winters is understandable, even expected, in a public school. But in a Catholic school, the talk by a Catholic educator?

The Catholic Church had / has noble objectives in engaging in the hospital and child adoption business, and the CC is in the education business as well, not just to be able to pay for administrative and payroll costs. She is the Body of Christ interested beyond material needs, which means, importantly, the spiritual welfare of her members.

Parents be they single parents or married couples send their daughter or son to a Catholic high school so that their daughter or son can get a Catholic education. If parents wish to accommodate or partner with this culture’s glorification of active (homo)sexuality, they are free to go elsewhere.

If Catholic educators are prevented from pronouncing Catholic teachings, the schools will be shut down. Whose loss would that be from the perspective of the common good?

Indeed, living the faith in this age of ours is counter cultural. As St. Paul was. As Jesus Christ Himself was.

As for the sad story being played out at Charlotte Catholic High School, it is deplorable that Sister Jane Dominic is being neutralized, as a poster has lamented, that social media is today’s lynch mob instrument.
,

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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. **

But that’s true, SMGS127. At least it’s true for gay men.

Homosexual activists *admit *that it’s true too. I have no idea why we can’t say this, if it’s true. I am just really, really puzzled here.

This is completely blatantly false. Monogamy is rampant in the LGBT community. Polyamorous relationships are not only rare, but they also tend to be vilified by those in the LGBT community. There is a reason people scoff and groan, hypocritically or not, when people bring up the idea that SS’M’ will somehow lead to legal polygamy.

You’re right that polygamy is totally not on the radar, or desired by gay people. However, gay men are commonly in open (monogamish) relationships, where “one-night stands” are acceptable. Or do you think that Dan Savage and his readers are *that *exceptional?

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I certainly appreciate your perspective. But I guess I just disagree about the facts.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I do not agree that “homosexual lifestyle” is a pejorative as the writer and some here claim.

I think we should stop using it, out of politeness. What is the argument FOR using it?

The phrase “the homosexual lifestyle” implies that there is ONE homosexual lifestyle. But some homosexuals are chaste, and some are monogamous, and some are married to people of the opposite sex. There is no one homosexual lifestyle, and it’s bizarre to claim that there is.

If we want to attack promiscuity among gays, then let’s call it promiscuity – what it is. Don’t needlessly offend people.

 

[TCEL]

Even if the statistics were in favor of a sign of “monogamy” it would be irrelevant, for even two fornicators cohabiting, staying “loyal” to each other, are still objectively in a state of sin, and going against what is in conformity to the Moral Order laid down by God.

I believe Catholics need to avoid falling into the traps that what is good, needs to be validated by appearances of order, rather than pointing to the foundation of that which conforms to the Moral order: what is illicit and/or against the Natural Law by what all men know in their hearts.
That one can observe the consequences of sin, as the Sister argued in her points, is a byproduct but secondary, in defense of the Truth and the good.

For instance, Catholics amongst themselves need not seek validation of the apparent consequences of the contraceptive mentality, to justify Church teaching , but proclaim the truth because of the act themselves are already as they are, against what is good.

Forming Catholics consciences still needs to be based on the solid foundation that the Natural law applies to all men, not just those within the Catholic Church, who choose to follow the Moral Order.

Facts and statistics can be manipulated, through perception and money from those who lobby for certain acts in the name of “freedom.” People who love sin and put themselves at enmity with God, have incentive to knock down these secondary arguments through various means, and they aren’t beholden to do so following the ten commandments.

Monogamy outside of Marriage is still not a sign of an Ordered Life and if there was graceless, man based effort to produce such an appearance , it still would not validate the acts as good.

This is the mentality that justifies sin,* “if it’s not hurting anyone, it’s no longer a sin”* because Catholics start thinking sin, has to be a sin, in the eyes of men, when the first basis for sin is that it offends God.

It’s this kind of thinking by going with the terms of the world in pointing to the truth, that leads some Christians (some Protestants and Cafeteria Catholics) to try to argue that Jesus never mentioned, this or that as a sin, explicitly therefore it is not a sin in man’s eyes, and then they do it. Some taken in by Modernism, even take the false interpretations of the sin of Sodom for instance, presenting it as having nothing to do with disordered lusts.

When reason through the eyes of Faith knows that that view is unreasonable, because if fornicators are subject to following the 6th and 9th commandments, then it is only logical that those who lust outside of marriage includes the many other, disordered passions that plague men.

So it’s unreasonable to say because certain sins are not explicitly said by Jesus, makes them not sins when one considers the whole of the Ten Commandments and that Jesus did not lessen his expectations, responsibilities on how we keep them, but raised them.

Therefore, to say the consequences of this or that act, shows why it is wrong, is insufficient.
.
Conversely, It is not reasonable to say the appearance of “no negative consequences” or a sign of “natural happiness” from breaking a commandment of God, makes it no longer necessary to follow that commandment.

Thank you for putting so much thought into what you are saying! I certainly agree with the gist. My question is simply an inquiry, and because stats do not change the truth of the moral order, I think we have nothing to fear from asking those questions. (I also am not suggesting that stats reflect the capability of an individual to act monogamous.) However, I do think it’s important to reflect on the consequences of our actions, though you are correct that in the end, sin is sin.

Still, sometimes I think that when we ourselves fall, we are in a special position to try and help others see the harms of our mistakes, and the potential for healing through Christ. I think Christians who have SSA and attempt to follow Him (I’m so confused on what terminology to use because I hear so many differing things, so I’m using what I’m comfortable with) are sharing Christ’s Cross in a special way considering the current climate, and I believe their lips are next to His ears. They are in a special place to lead others to healing. We have nothing to fear from truth, though it does take courage.

 

[Veridical16]

But that’s true, SMGS127. At least it’s true for gay men.

Homosexual activists admit that it’s true too. I have no idea why we can’t say this, if it’s true. ** I am just really, really puzzled here.

It’s true for both, because they are left wide open to more temptations when rejecting the graces from God. It is a reality when it comes to anyone actively pursuing grave sins, unrepentantly.

It’s amazing how out of touch, some Catholics are when they want to appease whomever the sinner is in question, rather than tell the truth with prudent Charity. It’s worse to patronize whoever it is – whether fornicating teens, polygamous straights, or this specific sin – it is more uncharitable.

It’s almost as if Catholics don’t know themselves how simple it is to understand Mortal Sin, and breaking the commandments.

Anyone with eyes should be able to recognize the zeitgeist of certain subcultures, there is a reason why the word “MONOGAMISH” is a slang word as you mentioned that one public figure Savage.

advocate.com/sports/2014/02/02/watch-dan-savage-praises-butterfinger-monogamish-super-bowl-ad

sundial.csun.edu/2013/10/not-monogamous-but-monogamish/

And again, IF someone living in a sin, is ostensibly, Monogamous. SO WHAT.
Unless you can see the inner effects of sin on the individual’s soul, appearances mean nothing.

It has nothing to do with the fact that MORALITY is practical reason, and that SIN exists. If one does not live one’s life in concordance with the Moral order, it leads to rupture.

Why Catholics would get defensive over this issue to spare the feelings of whomever they know or are acquainted with has nothing to do with defense of truth, but defense of sentimental nothingness, confusing that with the idea that one is being “Charitable”
It illustrates how badly formed these Catholic High School patrons are, and how the Church has a lot of work to do for the culture.

You’re right that polygamy is totally not on the radar, or desired by gay people. However, gay men are commonly in open (monogamish) relationships, where “one-night stands” are acceptable. Or do you think that Dan Savage and his readers are *that *exceptional?

I’m not trying to be difficult, and I certainly appreciate your perspective. But I guess I just disagree about the facts.

Not all, but younger people familiar with the night life, knows many are given into license to certain passions.

And aside from this particular type of Sin, Catholics who aren’t living a moral life, can conclude how more so then is it destructive to persist in certain disordered passions.

When one consents to anything goes, one knows how certain boundaries become blurred and morality becomes relative to the individual’s determination rather than the Law that is outside of themselves. This is true of promiscuous heterosexuals, adulterers when one allows one self to pursue sins, and NOT repent of it, the inhibitions are down, and one does not have the Graces of God within to fight temptations that are normally overcome when one has a GOOD FORMED conscience, just striving to follow morality written in their hearts, he or SHE can control their passions, but when one violates the good, they are more susceptible to start justifying ideas like “MONOGAMISH” and write books on ETHICAL promiscuity as well as the concepts of OPEN MARRIAGES because they’re not hurting anyone if both partners agree.

How any Catholic can suddenly try to reason that the mere suggestion of statistics or general patterns of behavior , is offensive, is not being reasonable. The Ten Commandments lead usto embrace an ordered life, and what true goodness is over false ideas of goodness and “niceness” of well behaved citizens.

IF Catholics go back to basics of understanding that SIN darkens the INTELLECT and weakens the will , they won’t get caught up in these false debates of minding the sensibilities or this or that SIN for this particular group of people amongst each other.

If one consents to the idea that happiness comes from being with an individual person, to try to substitute the person they are with as their purpose in Life as opposed to finding God first then everything else, eventually wandering eyes and all matters of sin are rationalized away when in a state of grave sin, that person isn’t enough.

How can one who is in a state of sinfulness, conform himself to an ordered life…and avoid the temptations to continue to push the boundaries? It is that much harder until they respond to graces from God in listening to their consciences.

 

[Veridical16]

I think we should stop using it, out of politeness. What is the argument FOR using it?

The phrase “the homosexual lifestyle” implies that there is ONE homosexual lifestyle. But some homosexuals are chaste, and some are monogamous, and some are married to people of the opposite sex.

If we want to attack promiscuity among gays, then let’s call it promiscuity – what it is. Don’t needlessly offend people.

Eventually the truth will offend someone who doesn’t want to hear the truth, so whether or not one wants to use certain words , is up to the comfortability of and judgment of the person trying his best to do what he believes to be prudent and charitable.

Eventually a Catholic will realize, he is going to Offend someone with the Truth, so he should forget about walking on egg shells with what “words” he uses. The Catechism uses the word “disordered” in respect to this sin, So to watch oneself from needlessly offending people – will never end, if we get caught up in qualifying our words .
Politeness should be understood through , Christ and how he called those to repent (The Women at the well who was cohabitating, Mary Magadalene) not modern day ideas of “word use” from the Tyranny of Political correctness.

Christ offended the Pharisees, and offended those in his own hometown when he said he was the Messiah. We shouldn’t be afraid of saying the Truth as long as it is rooted in love, then we will have to mind less what words we use. Homosexual Lifestyle if not meant to offend, is enough. And the world shouldn’t demand that Christ apologize for himself. He is Truth.

This is our Lot, as Christians, we will have a reaction even if we choose and parse our words to perfection, as the Gospels illustrate, even when we say the right things, as Christ said nothing to be accused of an offense, he was still accused of being offensive!

Nevertheless, I agree with you that one shouldn’t group those who have are particular orientation into categories of activity, but homosexuals who are chaste (particularly those Catholics or those who aren’t Catholic who just want to not give into their predilections or choose not to be active) would not be partaking in that “lifestyle” so they needn’t be offended in the first place.

There is no one homosexual lifestyle, and it’s bizarre to claim that there is.

If two teenagers who are fornicators, are devoted to each other, just because they don’t commit greater sins of promiscuity, does not mean that there sin of fornication is any less than repeat fornicators who are not faithful to each other.
because there are multiple life styles (that if anyone is familiar with it, goes into many activities) , amongst homosexuals, does not mean that monogamous homosexuals, are not part of the active lifestyle of SIN, and are nevertheless no different than the devoted teenage fornicators. The only difference is not letting one’s sin define themselves as a person’s whole. Proud Fornicator, Proud Adulterer, etc.

So a homosexual who is chaste, should not count himself as any different than the Single person who does not fornicate, or someone who is avoiding the sin of masturbation, adultery. Than the single virile Catholic male who has to avoid clubs and loose women. Than a person who is given into materialistic greed and avoids occupations where bribery is rampant. They have the same dignity as those who are tempted to any grave sins in their perseverence.
I think this idea that a person with a tendency to whichever passion is, defined by a particular activity , is the real issue at hand. And it does a disservice to discourse because there are many states of mortal sin, that are involved with lust (even if it is just illicit sins).

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I think we should stop using it, out of politeness. What is the argument FOR using it?

The phrase “the homosexual lifestyle” implies that there is ONE homosexual lifestyle. But some homosexuals are chaste, and some are monogamous, and some are married to people of the opposite sex. There is no one homosexual lifestyle, and it’s bizarre to claim that there is.

If we want to attack promiscuity among gays, then let’s call it promiscuity – what it is. Don’t needlessly offend people.

I appreciate and like much of what you post, PS, but we part ways there. I am not trying to be impolite or decidedly offensive with using the phrase for discussion, my explanation in my previous post what is being conveyed, which I re-state here: living the “homosexual lifestyle” means dating, open to, or already in a same sex relationship, believing such relationship to be equivalent to heterosexual unions, in favor therefore of gay “marriage” and parenting / adoption of kids, etc.

A chaste homosexual is not categorized as living the lifestyle, and one living it does not automatically mean promiscuous. In fact, I will use and have no problem using the word “promiscuous” to describe the proclivity of some gays.

Conservative people, theologians and religious people use the phrase not out of a want to offend. I doubt that Sr Jane Dominic wished to offend homosexuals in her talk to the CCHS students if she In fact used the phrase, which says in less words the italicized part above. However, homosexuals have no qualms in unfairly throwing words like bigoted and homophobic to many undeserving individuals and on undeserving situations.
,

 

[SMGS127]

But that’s true, SMGS127. At least it’s true for gay men.

Homosexual activists *admit *that it’s true too. I have no idea why we can’t say this, if it’s true. I am just really, really puzzled here.

You’re right that polygamy is totally not on the radar, or desired by gay people. However, gay men are commonly in open (monogamish) relationships, where “one-night stands” are acceptable. Or do you think that Dan Savage and his readers are *that *exceptional?

I’m not exactly interested in what the hardcore anti-marriage or anti-monogamy activists (who do not represent anywhere near any large number of the LGBT population) have to say about the issue; they seek to make their numbers seem larger to fit their own agenda. And yes, this includes Dan Savage. I have known many, many, MANY homosexual men, not even one of whom would accept their partner having a one night stand on the side. Some gay men were into the party life and didn’t date, and others who did date did not accept any form of straying whatsoever. And the idea that lesbians, who develop stupidly intense and insane connections with each other in like five minutes [only slightly exaggerating, and I say this as a lesbian who used to be very active], would ever accept the idea of one partner straying, is crazy. Have you ever heard of the U-Haul joke? There is no truth to the claim that gay people are less monogamous than straight people.

I appreciate and like much of what you post, PS, but we part ways there. I am not trying to be impolite or decidedly offensive with using the phrase for discussion, my explanation in my previous post what is being conveyed, which I re-state here: living the “homosexual lifestyle” means dating, open to, or already in a same sex relationship, believing such relationship to be equivalent to heterosexual unions, in favor therefore of gay “marriage” and parenting / adoption of kids, etc.

A chaste homosexual is not categorized as living the lifestyle, and one living it does not automatically mean promiscuous. In fact, I will use and have no problem using the word “promiscuous” to describe the proclivity of some gays.

Conservative people, theologians and religious people use the phrase not out of a want to offend. I doubt that Sr Jane Dominic wished to offend homosexuals in her talk to the CCHS students if she In fact used the phrase, which says in less words the italicized part above. However, homosexuals have no qualms in unfairly throwing words like bigoted and homophobic to many undeserving individuals and on undeserving situations.
,

I appreciate that you don’t mean anything negative by it outside of its general immorality; don’t get me wrong. But when you tell a gay person they’re living a “homosexual lifestyle,” you are insulting them. And when you tell a straight person their friend is living a “homosexual lifestyle,” you are insulting their friend. The word is rife with so many untrue assumptions about gay people that it has turned intensely derisive, and it is mainly used in vernacular now as a way to describe gay people as alcoholic drug abusers with thousands of sexual partners.

If I want to use the word “retard” to mean “one with a mental defect,” technically I am also being grammatically correct. But if I go up to a kid and tell him he’s a retard, do you not understand why it’s completely irrelevant whether the word I’m using is grammatically correct? Do you not understand why it’s completely irrelevant what my intentions are? I’m going to upset that kid and draw the protective wrath of his/her family and friends.

Why should we sacrifice the entire evangelization movement towards LGBT people and their friends, who make up the vast majority of youth, because people stubbornly feel they must be allowed to use a singular phrase, especially when “actively gay” or “actively gay person” are completely acceptable alternatives that offend no one? I’ve never understood the obsession with using offensive words or phrases just because people “don’t mean to be offensive.”

 

[Veridical16]

My question is simply an inquiry, and because stats do not change the truth of the moral order, I think we have nothing to fear from asking those questions. (I also am not suggesting that stats reflect the capability of an individual to act monogamous.) ** However, I do think it’s important to reflect on the consequences of our actions**, though you are correct that in the end, sin is sin.

Oh I wasn’t looking to come off as objecting so much, but I was just hoping to give my two cents because I think we might pigeonhole ourselves at times certain times amongst even fellow Catholics, someone might counter with an opposing “study” or anecdotal observation to refute the statistics. And sometimes there are those who live sinful lives – whether a greedy person, or a thief, and it Seems they don’t have material consequences, and they even give the appearance of a “charmed life” which they still have to answer for in the next life.
For the most part as a sinner, and as someone who witnesses others, the consequences do occur and do lead to sadness and emptiness in those who try to substitute their yearning for the highest good with God, with lesser goods, or perceived goods in this Life, and suffer from the effects of bad habits and sinful decisions.

Still, sometimes I think that when we ourselves fall, we are in a special position to try and help others **see the harms of our mistakes, and the potential for healing through Christ. I think Christians who have SSA and attempt to follow Him (I’m so confused on what terminology to use because I hear so many differing things, **so I’m using what I’m comfortable with) are sharing Christ’s Cross ****in a special way considering the current climate, and I believe their lips are next to His ears. They are in a special place to lead others to healing. We have nothing to fear from truth, though it does take courage.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

I appreciate that you don’t mean anything negative by it outside of its general immorality; don’t get me wrong. But when you tell a gay person they’re living a “homosexual lifestyle,” you are insulting them. And when you tell a straight person their friend is living a “homosexual lifestyle,” you are insulting their friend. The word is rife with so many untrue assumptions about gay people that it has turned intensely derisive, and it is mainly used in vernacular now as a way to describe gay people as alcoholic drug abusers with thousands of sexual partners.

If I want to use the word “retard” to mean “one with a mental defect,” technically I am also being grammatically correct. But if I go up to a kid and tell him he’s a retard, do you not understand why it’s completely irrelevant whether the word I’m using is grammatically correct? Do you not understand why it’s completely irrelevant what my intentions are? I’m going to upset that kid and draw the protective wrath of his/her family and friends.

Why should we sacrifice the entire evangelization movement towards LGBT people and their friends, who make up the vast majority of youth, because people stubbornly feel they must be allowed to use a singular phrase, especially when “actively gay” or “actively gay person” are completely acceptable alternatives that offend no one? I’ve never understood the obsession with using offensive words or phrases just because people “don’t mean to be offensive.”

Really, the analogy that you make would be me coming up to a mentally challenged person and tell him he’s a retard?

We are having a discussion in a forum where you seem to think you can enforce use of LGBT assigned nomenclature. Perhaps you should pick wider and authentic Catholic readings, e.g., this and this. The first is written by a moral theologian respected in EWTN circles, the second by a noted physician who has treated homosexuals – both are sincere and caring of homosexuals and their welfare – both use the term “homosexual lifestyle” with which you associate on behalf of LGBTs insult where there should be none. Don’t you think gays and lesbians overdo the finding-offense-in-neutral-and-objective-terms business? Please stop justifying and perpetuating this excessive editorializing by LGBTs.

The good Sr Jane Dominic I am sure was not singling anyone, or insulting anyone person or persons during the talk in question, especially chaste homosexuals with the term “homosexual lifestyle.”

You claim to be an orthodox Catholic wanting only to be effective with evangelization. It seems you are too close to the trees that you miss looking at the forest as a whole.

Why do I say this? You believe that to win gays over, the rest of the world will have to use politically correct words, watered down concepts, that lead actually to insistence by LGBTs of the opposite of truth.

Gay, not same sex attracted

Actively gay, not living the homosexual lifestyle

Natural instead of unnatural

Okay with God, not sinful

It does not end, does it?

In fact, there is no let up, as shown with this tactic by LGBTs to force their definition of terms, to promote an agenda you are in effect helping but deny supporting. And you know, as a Catholic, even if this malevolent movement succeeds in every state in this great country of ours in legalizing gay “marriage,” the truth is that marriage between two men or two women will never be okay with God.

Stop and think, SMG.
,

 

[SkepticalAsEver]

Something like this as displayed by members of a church I used to be a part of would usually disconcert me, but I take pleasure in knowing the world is not stagnant. In a hundred years, the church and it’s inhabitants will adapt to a new world that isn’t bound by the tradition of the old. The world keeps spinning, and objection to the inevitable is bourgeois. Infact, the majority of the world finds all of you who find this fine sick. So, there you have it.

 

[GraceSofia]

It does not end, does it?

In fact, there is no let up, as shown with this tactic by LGBTs to force their definition of terms…

That’s vandalism.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I’m not exactly interested in what the hardcore anti-marriage or anti-monogamy activists (who do not represent anywhere near any large number of the LGBT population) have to say about the issue; they seek to make their numbers seem larger to fit their own agenda. And yes, this includes Dan Savage. I have known many, many, MANY homosexual men, not even one of whom would accept their partner having a one night stand on the side. Some gay men were into the party life and didn’t date, and others who did date did not accept any form of straying whatsoever. And the idea that lesbians, who develop stupidly intense and insane connections with each other in like five minutes [only slightly exaggerating, and I say this as a lesbian who used to be very active], would ever accept the idea of one partner straying, is crazy. Have you ever heard of the U-Haul joke? There is no truth to the claim that gay people are less monogamous than straight people.

I’m talking about all the statistics I’ve seen, SMGS. If you’ve got unbiased statistics that say gay people aren’t on average more promiscuous than straight people, I’d love to see them.

Moreover, my sense of things is that most gay men aren’t proud about being promiscuous; they’re quite ashamed. So how would their other gay friends even know that they are promiscuous? This is a case where statistics are more reliable than personal observations, in my opinion.

I appreciate that you don’t mean anything negative by it outside of its general immorality; don’t get me wrong. But when you tell a gay person they’re living a “homosexual lifestyle,” you are insulting them. And when you tell a straight person their friend is living a “homosexual lifestyle,” you are insulting their friend. The word is rife with so many untrue assumptions about gay people that it has turned intensely derisive, and it is mainly used in vernacular now as a way to describe gay people as alcoholic drug abusers with thousands of sexual partners.

Absolutely. As I said above, the phrase “the gay lifestyle” clearly implies that there is ONLY ONE. And that is blatantly untrue.

Why should we sacrifice the entire evangelization movement towards LGBT people and their friends, who make up the vast majority of youth, because people stubbornly feel they must be allowed to use a singular phrase, especially when “actively gay” or “actively gay person” are completely acceptable alternatives that offend no one? I’ve never understood the obsession with using offensive words or phrases just because people “don’t mean to be offensive.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Even if the statistics were in favor of a sign of “monogamy” it would be irrelevant, for even two fornicators cohabiting, staying “loyal” to each other, are still objectively in a state of sin, and going against what is in conformity to the Moral Order laid down by God.

I believe Catholics need to avoid falling into the traps that what is good, needs to be validated by appearances of order, rather than pointing to the foundation of that which conforms to the Moral order: what is illicit and/or against the Natural Law by what all men know in their hearts.
That one can observe the consequences of sin, as the Sister argued in her points, is a byproduct but secondary, in defense of the Truth and the good.

For instance, Catholics amongst themselves need not seek validation of the apparent consequences of the contraceptive mentality, to justify Church teaching , but proclaim the truth because of the act themselves are already as they are, against what is good.

…

Monogamy outside of Marriage is still not a sign of an Ordered Life and if there was graceless, man based effort to produce such an appearance , it still would not validate the acts as good.

This is the mentality that justifies sin,* “if it’s not hurting anyone, it’s no longer a sin”* because Catholics start thinking sin, has to be a sin, in the eyes of men, when the first basis for sin is that it offends God.

It’s this kind of thinking by going with the terms of the world in pointing to the truth, that leads some Christians (some Protestants and Cafeteria Catholics) to try to argue that Jesus never mentioned, this or that as a sin, explicitly therefore it is not a sin in man’s eyes, and then they do it. Some taken in by Modernism, even take the false interpretations of the sin of Sodom for instance, presenting it as having nothing to do with disordered lusts.

When reason through the eyes of Faith knows that that view is unreasonable, because if fornicators are subject to following the 6th and 9th commandments, then it is only logical that those who lust outside of marriage includes the many other, disordered passions that plague men.

So it’s unreasonable to say because certain sins are not explicitly said by Jesus, makes them not sins when one considers the whole of the Ten Commandments and that Jesus did not lessen his expectations, responsibilities on how we keep them, but raised them.

Therefore, to say the consequences of this or that act, shows why it is wrong, is insufficient.
.
Conversely, It is not reasonable to say the appearance of “no negative consequences” or a sign of “natural happiness” from breaking a commandment of God, makes it no longer necessary to follow that commandment.

Surely some immoral actions might *appear *not to tend toward bad consequences. But in reality, they do tend toward bad consequences, and not just in the afterlife. Indeed, the law that God has written on our hearts is illuminated by our observations of the consequences of actions in the natural world – so far as I know, the Church has always taught this, and Aquinas certainly taught it.

If someone cannot recognize the ordinary consequences of, say, contraception, as bad, then there are a few alternatives: (1) human beings are intentionally skewing the consequences. For example, in Ireland, girls who get pregnant out of wedlock are pretty much set for life, financially, because of government policies. (2) the person’s conscience is clouded, perhaps by the influence of the spirit of the age, perhaps by the influence of their own disordered passions, (3) the person has not had the bad consequences pointed out to them in a loving way that will help them come to see the light.

What we find, in cases like 2, is that a person needs to be converted to Christ. And then God can heal them – *we *certainly can’t.

But I can assure you that simply telling a teenager that homosexual activity is wrong because God said so, without converting them to Christ, can only lead to two sorts of attitudes in this cultural environment: (a) disbelief, and (b) Pharisaism. At least, this will be true of teenagers whose lives have not already been deeply converted to the living God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

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.

This is an interesting point. My own sense is that a person’s heart needs to be converted first – until that happens we’re just throwing around words. However, I would hope that a Catholic school could be a place where such things could be spoken, since the school would have first made a concerted effort to bring the students toward a deep conversion to Christ.

Sadly, I know of no Catholic high school that cares all that much about conversion, though.