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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ana_v
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The upper echelons of society of the Greek and Roman Empire is where homosexuality thrived, not so much with the lower classes, this by itself proves it is a choice. It was a lifestyle choice of the aristocrats as well.

I don’t think we take offense if we hear someone is living the “Bachelor Lifestyle”.
Engaging in sex with the same sex is not homosexuality.
This is very interesting. My question then, is why hasn’t the same thing become true of the term “homosexual lifestyle?” Why hasn’t the gay community tried to re-claim that term?
Because the phrase"homosexual lifestyle" involves using the word “lifestyle” in a horribly incorrect fashion.
…coming in at the tail end of this thread, but wanted to jump in at the issue of the word “gay”.

I, too, don’t like using that word to refer to homosexual people.

First of all, it was originally used as a slam against homosexual people…name-calling, if you will. Not nice. And also, I’m against slang in general.

Second, the word had a more useful role as an adjective to mean happy, light-hearted, cheerful, etc. I used to read poems and prose using gay in that way. “…but the child who is born on the Sabbath day is blithe and bright and bonny and gay.”

Third, my grandmother’s nickname was “Gay”, which was pretty common back then for people named Gabrielle. “Gay” had a very grandmotherly and cheerful connotation for me for a long time, then the “gay” community appropriated it. Of course, I give them points for taking a disparaging term and totally demolishing the harrassing intent, but it seems like stealing. Hardly anyone today would use “gay” in everyday conversation to mean happy, etc.
The word gay has had darker meanings to it for over half a millennium.
 
I believe she means that “homosexuality” can simply refer to one’s orientation, not presupposing any same-sex physicality. It was an odd phrasing though, I’ll admit. Joie can correct me if I’m wrong in my interpretation.
 
The upper echelons of society of the Greek and Roman Empire is where homosexuality thrived, not so much with the lower classes, this by itself proves it is a choice. It was a lifestyle choice of the aristocrats as well.

I don’t think we take offense if we hear someone is living the “Bachelor Lifestyle”.
I believe she means that “homosexuality” can simply refer to one’s orientation, not presupposing any same-sex physicality. It was an odd phrasing though, I’ll admit. Joie can correct me if I’m wrong in my interpretation.
Actually, I think she meant that, in Greek and Rome, the sheer proportion of aristocrats engaging in same-sex sexual activity was so large at times (50%+) that it is implausible all these people were doing it because they were attracted to people of the same sex.

I think there is some truth and some falsity to that claim. I am convinced that genuine homosexual attraction can be learned – that a person can gradually start thinking about people of the same sex in a sexual/romantic way, and that this leads to a genuine attraction. (After all, beautiful people of either sex are naturally attractive – God made them that way).

However, I think that the experience many modern people have of homosexual attraction is qualitatively distinct from that sort of thing. I never “started” to think of men sexually. From the first onset of puberty, the disposition to think of men sexually was there, as if it had been under the surface all the time. I may not have been “born that way” – but my experience was essentially that I had absolutely no choice in the matter. To suggest I had some choice in the matter is just completely laughable.

I doubt that learned homosexual attractions usually compare with unlearned homosexual attractions in terms of their intensity or the sense of longing attached to them. But I dunno. 🤷

To summarize, homosexual behavior (and eventual attraction) can be a choice. But for many of us, it is certainly not a choice.
 
First off, yes, “homosexual lifestyle” has become offensive in and of itself (though perhaps inherently was not the correct word), precisely because the majority of people who use the phrase mean something vastly different than your definition, much like the majority of people use “retarded” differently than its clinical definition, which is why it has been removed from clinical manuals.
Here you go again, majority of people use the phrase … mean something vastly different than my supposed definition. As you always point out, gays and lesbians comprise 4% of the population, so how can they therefore be the majority in use of the phrase to mean something.

Further, you can stop bringing in non-use of the majority of the word “retarded” – I am not defending use of the word, I do not use it, never had. It is not on the same category in my view of the phrase we are discussing.

To tell you the truth, I am not even actually invested in the use of “homosexual lifestyle” – it is not like I come up to homosexuals or to anyone and / or start talking about such. That would be utterly bizarre! It does not come up or figure in my normal conversations with friends or family. I don’t do public writing and speaking. The closest I get to public writing or writing for reading by others is at CAF. And basing on the relative low volume of postings I have since joining the forum five years ago, you can glean how much writing I have done in the forum compared to your postings, for example, in one year.

As for public speaking, the extent I get to something like it is when I conduct Virtus classes at my parish — usually around 30 participants, my biggest class size ever at 50, with priests and religious in attendance on occasion. The sessions are on best practices to prevent child sex abuse in the school and in the community. What homosexuals do or the lives they lead does not get in as topic for discussion at all.

It just surprised me when you brought up in this thread that Sr. Jane Dominic had the complaint coming, among other things, with her supposed use of inflammatory remarks and comments against homosexuals such as the “homosexual lifestyle.” That it could even be in the category of “f----t” in offensiveness!
Considering I just converted last year and moved to DC even later than that, I have not exactly had the time to start a Courage-style group, if that’s what you’re asking. If you’re talking about the active LGBT community, I have belonged to several (very large) LGBT groups in New England and Texas for years before my religious conversion. Most of my best friends are LGBT, and I am virtually the only one in my group that opposes same-sex “marriage,” and my friends all know and are supportive of my position on the issue, with one notable atheist [non-LGBT] exception. I have met, at the very minimum, hundreds of gay and lesbian people, as well as quite a few transgendered people (although that’s a completely separate issue), and I know people in the club scene and people in the support community who are not into clubbing. I also have had enough experience in both scenes [somewhat unfortunately] to know the general proportions. In fact, at the request of my straight female friends, I have also been clubbing with them in their straight clubs, and I am well aware of the straight club/party scene as well and its proportions. You will find that the straight and gay club/party scenes are almost identical outside the artistic choices (music, decorations, cleaner bathrooms in gay clubs), the genders of the partners dancing, and the likelihood of sex (which is almost entirely due to the non-risk of pregnancy and the extremely low STD transmission rate among lesbians/extremely high libido of men).
If you have any more questions about my background in the community, feel free to PM me. I am not shy about talking about it to people who absolutely know that I oppose same-sex behavior as grave matter and sinful.
Well, for sure, you can’t be accused of shyness. Your have much to say and lots of advice across threads in the forum. I like reading the part where and when you witness for our faith.

Perhaps it is your style and sweeping generalizations that are off putting, to some of us, at least. It is hard to follow your reasoning and read the motivation behind your position on issues which at times do not clearly fold into the framework of someone who says she is as a Catholic against SS"M", and sincerely believing that homosexual acts are wrong.

If you are thinking to be an agent of change with your circle of LGBT friends, let me wish you much luck and will remember to offer prayers, that you may acquire the necessary skills and find a clear message that is cohesive and also effective, consistent with Catholic teaching. The Lord knows that in the culture in which we live, the young and old alike are in a state of great confusion. It is like we are in a Tower of Babel age, with our failure to communicate. Different meanings are being attached to and associated with common words! Just look at what we are arguing about. There are many and various competing interests, all aimed at how to achieve happiness and meaning in life, by having temporal and material needs met, but little thought by many of obtaining riches in heaven in life after.

[Con’t]
,
 
[Con’t]

I don’t know why you think this. For sure, the arguments those who support SS’M’ use are glittered with “love” and “support,” but they mean it honestly. They aren’t meaning to be malicious and deceptive; they aren’t trying to be Satan, even if they’re unwittingly doing his work for him. Again, my entire friend group from college supports SS’M’ wholeheartedly, and they all know I oppose it, and only one of them is rude to me about my opposition. Even my out gay and lesbian friends are completely fine with it, because they know I’m not doing it out of condescension or hatred or false stereotypes.
And I honestly don’t know how one straddles the fence in your particular situation and social circles. It must be difficult, having best friends who are all lesbians, that you are the only one against SS"M" and thinks that same sex activities are wrong. Even if you are being Catholic in belief and practice, it is why you are always defensive of things like gay and lesbian pride festivals and homosexual interests. See, I might have used lifestyle there instead of interests, knowing that you know how I am defining the phrase based on our several post exchanges in this thread. But I am not here to provoke or offend.

I close this post now, my hand extended in friendship to you.
,
 
How do you reclaim the term “lifestyle” to mean every single gay person? In the same vein, how do you even call “going to work, paying rent, going out to dinner once and awhile, making sure the two of you can pay off loans and car payments too” a lifestyle in any aspect? It was a lot easier with an adjective that literally meant something completely different originally (e.g. “happy” became “f****t” became “homosexual”). With lifestyle, no matter how you splice it, people are still going to think of a lifestyle. They’re not going to think of two people living together, talking about pop culture in their kitchen over dinner.

I mean, I’m sure the gay community would love to take back that word too, but it seems significantly harder to do. They have, however, started to take back the word “d**e” as you will hear lesbians use it quite a bit. I used to use it all the time too until I really upset one of my bisexual friends who hated the word. Maybe one day they will take “lifestyle” back and it will become usable in evangelization 🤷. But for now, it is still extremely offensive.
Thanks. All I can say is that it honestly doesn’t make sense to me why it would be considered offensive. I wouldn’t be offended if someone said Catholic “lifestyle.” The term certainly doesn’t cover every aspect of being Catholic, to be sure, but it tends to evoke that there’s at least a belief in God, a sacramental life, perhaps a rosary dangling from the mirror and such, even if someone means it as a pejorative… I’m not trying to be argumentative or drag this out. It just passes over my head, and the controversy is a bit mystifying to me. I won’t raise it anymore.
 
Engaging in sex with the same sex is not homosexuality.

Because the phrase"homosexual lifestyle" involves using the word “lifestyle” in a horribly incorrect fashion.

The word gay has had darker meanings to it for over half a millennium.
Joie…I notice you often make erroneous proclamations. I think many people don’t correct you because you do it so frequently. Perhaps you are just trying to start lively discussions on the forums?

To reply to your recent statements:

-engaging in sexual activity with the same sex is homosexual behavior and displays homosexuality
-the term “homosexual lifestyle” can simply mean people living lives where they participate in specifically homosexual activities as part of their lives.
-millennium is a thousand years, not one-hundred years, as you seem to think
 
Joie…I notice you often make erroneous proclamations. I think many people don’t correct you because you do it so frequently. Perhaps you are just trying to start lively discussions on the forums?

To reply to your recent statements:

-engaging in sexual activity with the same sex is homosexual behavior and displays homosexuality
-the term “homosexual lifestyle” can simply mean people living lives where they participate in specifically homosexual activities as part of their lives.
-millennium is a thousand years, not one-hundred years, as you seem to think
Homosexuality refers to how one is attracted not how one acts
homosexual |ˌhōməˈsek sh oōəl|
adjective
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
• involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex : homosexual desire.
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
Style indicates one’s life revolves around it, given that the vast majority of gay people do not focus their lives around gay sex it is incorrect to apply it to sexually active gay people just as it would be absurd to lump a woman who has a glass of red wine with dinner every night with a man who gets completely smashed every weekend.
lifestyle |ˈlīfˌstīl|
noun
the way in which a person or group lives : the benefits of a healthy lifestyle.
• [as adj. ] denoting advertising or products designed to appeal to a consumer by association with a desirable lifestyle.
I understand that a millennium is a thousand years, the OED has darker meanings going back to 1405 (Wanton, lewd, lascivious) which is more than half a millennium ago which by 1597 had become " Originally of persons and later also more widely: dedicated to social pleasures; dissolute, promiscuous; frivolous, hedonistic. Also (esp. in to go gay ): uninhibited; wild, crazy; flamboyant" which then turned into gay to mean gay people in a bad way during the early 20th century which was then reclaimed by gay people in the latter half of the 20th century.
 
salon.com/2014/04/08/controversial_nun_had_a_long_history_of_anti_gay_remarks/?source=newsletter

This “nun” has said:
  • “homosexuals cannot live normal, productive lives”
Yeah um no. I know a few homosexuals who are doing way better off in their finances and living conditions than many straight people including me. Anyone here ever been to a gay community? Ever seen the clean streets, no crime, high property values, and the high paying jobs they create for themselves?
  • “partaking in masturbation will lessen your masculinity”
HAHAHAHA what the…?! Yeah sister, me masturbating to images of women who I desire somehow makes me homosexual? :rolleyes:

You people are not seriously defending this mentally unbalanced woman are you?
 
This “nun” has said:
  • “homosexuals cannot live normal, productive lives”
Yeah um no. I know a few homosexuals who are doing way better off in their finances and living conditions than many straight people including me. Anyone here ever been to a gay community? Ever seen the clean streets, no crime, high property values, and the high paying jobs they create for themselves?
Of course I agree about gays being able to live productive lives. But there is no solid information that the Dominican sister ever said this. It was alleged in a petition that clearly skewed what the speaker was saying. The Salon author was on shaky legal ground ascribing that view to her without clearly saying that she “allegedly” said this.
 
That article is merely an attempt to silence the Christian worldview. It does not illuminate anything, though it does speak of religious teachings derisively, and it does treat certain people’s experience of their own sexual abuse dismissively and disrespectfully.
Of course I agree about gays being able to live productive lives. But there is no solid information that the Dominican sister ever said this. It was alleged in a petition that clearly skewed what the speaker was saying. The Salon author was on shaky legal ground ascribing that view to her without clearly saying that she “allegedly” said this.
If the nun’s words were distorted or if anything said in this were a lie, she would have come out and said so. Yet the fact that the nun has been silent and has not spoken against these accusations proves that she did in fact say these things.
 
If the nun’s words were distorted or if anything said in this were a lie, she would have come out and said so. Yet the fact that the nun has been silent and has not spoken against these accusations proves that she did in fact say these things.
It does no such thing.
 
It does no such thing.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “It does no such thing”

But that assembly had many people. They wrote that petition together, if that petition had anything in it that was wrong or distorted either the nun or someone else would have spoken up. Even the few officials who are defending this nun are not claiming anything of hers was distorted. Face it, this nun’s views are one part kernel of truth and 9 parts pig droppings.
 
  1. Catholics complain about being distorted and having lies told about them or having untrue stereotypes cloud what the church truly teaches
  2. Along comes a nun who does all of the above
  3. Catholics then immediately defend her
?!?!?!?!?!
 
If the nun’s words were distorted or if anything said in this were a lie, she would have come out and said so. Yet the fact that the nun has been silent and has not spoken against these accusations proves that she did in fact say these things.
I don’t know for certain what she did or did not say. Your statement makes me think though, because sometimes Jesus was silent before his accusers. I’m so quick to defend myself, but sometimes it doesn’t accomplish anything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top