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

[InSearchofGrace]

Are you serious?

No, I am not nor have ever been employed by GLAAD, nor contracted with them, nor have ever subscribed to anything published by them.

Would you have a problem if people started using the word “pope” to mean “someone who leads a pedophile ring”?

You betcha. I asked you if you are connected to GLAAD because you have a level of proficiency with language(s) and defended GLAAD’s media reference guide, the words to avoid so the feelings of gays and lesbians are not hurt. I think LGBTs, their vocal leaders and supporters have gone overboard with their shrill demands. Everything boils down to feelings, with relegation of prudence and the social common good to insignificance.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not anti-gay or anti-gay rights. But I will not sign on to normalization and promotion of homosexual behavior, which is being plugged openly in messages in television shows and movies. (I am also against gratuitous sex scenes and themes pervasive in entertainment media.) The reason we see so many gay themed plots and characters now in entertainment programs, with individual celebrities and non-celebrities coming out as if their homosexual life is a defining quality, a matter to be proud of, is because of GLAAD’s work. Read the organization’s stated objectives on its site.

GLAAD founder Vito Russo, a gay activist, film historian and writer is like many tragic homosexuals with talents and gifts. He reached a level of success notwithstanding the discrimination against gays, actual and perceived, at work, died at 44 because of AIDS.

As to your example of anti-Catholic slur, I just toss it to where it belongs. Cheap shot. How about you, if you hear it, would you stop and think, hmm, let me see … there is good basis for it, because of a percentage of some pedophiles and enough pederasts in the clergy?
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Lets be frank. You won’t be very successful in evangelizing in the gay community if you insist on using terms and allegations we find offensive whether you agree with that assessment or not. From our perspective, many representatives of the Church including laymen and clergy alike use language and sociological/psychological claims, some of which were expressed by this nun in her presentations, which we find to be uncharitable, offensive, and untrue, You can’t expect anyone to willingly participate in a “meaningful discussion” when you try to start it that way. Maybe thats not what you intended, but thats the reality. You don’t have to change the message, but the Catholic Church really needs to work on the delivery.

Allegedly. If or when you come across a record of what she said, not a 10 pt list of reactions by the original petitioner, which she has taken down, let’s have a meaningful discussion.
,

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Allegedly. If or when you come across a record of what she said, let’s have a meaningful discussion,

There have been numerous articles outlining what she has said in recorded sessions.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

There have been numerous articles outlining what she has said in recorded sessions.

You have not read the articles closely. There is no transcript or record yet that has surfaced, of what she said exactly in her hour long talk at Charlotte Catholic High School. There are many records, audio video recordings of her previous talks.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You have not read the articles closely. There is no transcript or record yet that has surfaced, of what she said exactly in her hour long talk at Charlotte Catholic High School. There are many records, audio video recordings of her previous talks.

I have read them. The recorded sessions are from the same series she delivered at the High School and are consistent with what the students have alleged. The claims and language in those recordings are outrageously offensive and bizarre also.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I have read them. The recorded sessions are from the same series she delivered at the High School and are consistent with what the students have alleged. The claims and language in those recordings are outrageously offensive and bizarre also.

Okay, please provide a link to a recorded session you have listened to and tell me what in the lecture is “outrageously offensive” and “bizarre.”
,

 

[retire_early]

I never said it had the modern meaning five hundred years ago.

 

[retire_early]

Wikipedia is descriptive not prescriptive.

What’s your point?

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You betcha.

GLAAD is the LGBT equivalent of the ADL or the CL.

I asked you if you are connected to GLAAD because you have a level of proficiency with language(s) and defended GLAAD’s media reference guide, the words to avoid so the feelings of gays and lesbians are not hurt. I think LGBTs, their vocal leaders and supporters have gone overboard with their shrill demands. Everything boils down to feelings, with relegation of prudence and the social common good to insignificance.

People have decided I’m LGBT because apparently if I spurn everyone of the opposite sex including attractive ones and I’m “nonconformist” with regards to behavior it must mean I’m a “deviant homosexual”, thus heterosexuals apparently gets to call me “f*****” and supposedly I should read the Bible because it will cure me of my “homosexuality” despite the fact I read it cover to cover in Middle School (I<3DRB). Having been forced into the shoes of LGBT people I know what it is like to be in their shoes and the way we (they+plus those of us people assume are such) get treated is such utter nonsense. See what happened to World Vision.

Here’s the thing the whole concept of gay marriage is really only conceivable because heterosexuals have profoundly warped and debased marriage. When heterosexuals treat marriage as if it is about love, that children are no longer considered essential to it, then when society treats it as a rite of passage to adulthood and bedazzles it with benefits essential to modern life, it should come as no surprise that gay people would fight for the right to get married. The issue is not that gay marriage would desacralize marriage, the issue is the heterosexuals have already defiled it and have used the LGBT community as their scapegoat.

Don’t get me wrong; I am not anti-gay or anti-gay rights. But I will not sign on to normalization and promotion of homosexual behavior, which is being plugged openly in messages in television shows and movies. (I am also against gratuitous sex scenes and themes pervasive in entertainment media.) The reason we see so many gay themed plots and characters now in entertainment programs, with individual celebrities and non-celebrities coming out as if their homosexual life is a defining quality, a matter to be proud of, is because of GLAAD’s work. Read the organization’s stated objectives on its site.

I don’t really watch TV or movies as they tend towards the intellectually vapid.

GLAAD founder Vito Russo, a gay activist, film historian and writer is like many tragic homosexuals with talents and gifts. He reached a level of success notwithstanding the discrimination against gays, actual and perceived, at work, died at 44 because of AIDS.

Okay.

As to your example of anti-Catholic slur, I just toss it to where it belongs. Cheap shot. How about you, if you hear it, would you stop and think, hmm, let me see … there is good basis for it, because of a percentage of some pedophiles and enough pederasts in the clergy?
,

I’d feel insulted, especially if it was common for people to call Catholics idol worshipers. If I had to deal with that kind of stuff on a daily basis it’d wear me out.

Yes, you did.

Then quote that post.

What’s your point?

It describes how people use it, even if they are using it horribly, horribly wrong.

 

[GraceSofia]

I had a chuckle when I read Dr. Peter’s column today.

Much ado about, literally, who-knows-what

From where I sit, I cannot tell whether: (a) some nun with a doctorate in theology gave a lunatic address on sex to an audience of shocked children; (b) some nun with a doctorate in theology gave a reasonable address on Church teaching about sex to an audience that was not informed about what the address would be, which audience then went ballistic over the misleading advertising for the talk; or (c) some nun with a doctorate in theology gave a reasonable address on Church taching about sex to an audience who hates her message and hates her for giving it. I simply can’t tell which of these scenarios (or variations thereon) describe what happened at CCHS.

But everyone else sure talks like they know.

She also said that people turn gay because their parents didn’t love them enough, that single parents are not capable of being good parents, that divorced people can’t be good parents and probably more that I am also forgetting.

Of course, the Church teaches none of that, and none of it is remotely true.

We do not know that she said that. I rather doubt that she did.

I have read them. The recorded sessions are from the same series she delivered at the High School and are consistent with what the students have alleged. The claims and language in those recordings are outrageously offensive and bizarre also.

You have read what exactly? Her talks are here: The Rich Gift Of Love. There is nothing outrageously offensive or bizarre in them. (Unless you happen to be an activist who doesn’t accept the truth to be spoken that males and females are actually different).

 

[Hopey]

People have decided I’m LGBT because apparently if I spurn everyone of the opposite sex including attractive ones and I’m “nonconformist” with regards to behavior it must mean I’m a “deviant homosexual”, thus heterosexuals apparently gets to call me “f*****” and supposedly I should read the Bible because it will cure me of my “homosexuality” despite the fact I read it cover to cover in Middle School (I<3DRB). Having been forced into the shoes of LGBT people I know what it is like to be in their shoes and the way we (they+plus those of us people assume are such) get treated is such utter nonsense. See what happened to World Vision.

A piece of advice, never let anyone force you into a “shoe” that doesn’t fit. There could be many reasons why you spurn a person of the opposite sex that has nothing to do with ssa. Finding someone to help you get to the bottom of it, resolve those issues, are going to help you.
A Catholic who has any sensibility is not going to call you names including the f word. A Catholic should not say the Bible is going to cure homosexual inclinations unless, by that, they mean accepting the inclination as a cross and not acting on them as God has asked, his laws.

Here’s the thing the whole concept of gay marriage is really only conceivable because heterosexuals have profoundly warped and debased marriage. When heterosexuals treat marriage as if it is about love, that children are no longer considered essential to it, then when society treats it as a rite of passage to adulthood and bedazzles it with benefits essential to modern life, it should come as no surprise that gay people would fight for the right to get married. The issue is not that gay marriage would desacralize marriage, the issue is the heterosexuals have already defiled it and have used the LGBT community as their scapegoat.

To a degree you are right but it is really a turning away from Christ in general. You do not, or should not, stop identifying right from wrong just because someone else has defiled something first. That is giving in to despair.
I would agree that the LGBT is not fully to blame because you still have those Christians who are saying nothing or agreeing with them as to not go against how they feel about marriage.
At the end of the day, even if they have debased marriage (heterosexuals), the truth remains that marriage is still and can only be between a man and a woman. The current climate we are in makes it easier to justify redefining marriage. It doesn’t excuse anyone from speaking out against it and opposing it as we should.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

A piece of advice, never let anyone force you into a “shoe” that doesn’t fit. There could be many reasons why you spurn a person of the opposite sex that has nothing to do with ssa. Finding someone to help you get to the bottom of it, resolve those issues, are going to help you.
A Catholic who has any sensibility is not going to call you names including the f word. A Catholic should not say the Bible is going to cure homosexual inclinations unless, by that, they mean accepting the inclination as a cross and not acting on them as God has asked, his laws.

In Catholic theology celibacy is superior to marriage, and so I strive to live a vocation of celibacy. Should I seek help to resolve myself of that “issue”?

To a degree you are right but it is really a turning away from Christ in general. You do not, or should not, stop identifying right from wrong just because someone else has defiled something first. That is giving in to despair.
I would agree that the LGBT is not fully to blame because you still have those Christians who are saying nothing or agreeing with them as to not go against how they feel about marriage.
At the end of the day, even if they have debased marriage (heterosexuals), the truth remains that marriage is still and can only be between a man and a woman. The current climate we are in makes it easier to justify redefining marriage. It doesn’t excuse anyone from speaking out against it and opposing it as we should.

Not only is the LGBT community not fully to blame, the vast majority of the damage suffered by the institution of marriage is by heterosexuals and even if gay marriage is passed across the board in the US it will still mostly be the fault of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have changed marriage to the point where it is entirely logical to extend it to gay people and it would be illogical to deny them it.

 

[Hopey]

In Catholic theology celibacy is superior to marriage, and so I strive to live a vocation of celibacy. Should I seek help to resolve myself of that “issue”?

Chastity should be your goal, no matter your “issue” as you seek out your vocation. It may involve celibacy it may not. Chastity is what is required no matter what. Your tone seems to be indicative of someone who harbors a lot of hatred.

Not only is the LGBT community not fully to blame, the vast majority of the damage suffered by the institution of marriage is by heterosexuals and even if gay marriage is passed across the board in the US it will still mostly be the fault of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have changed marriage to the point where it is entirely logical to extend it to gay people and it would be illogical to deny them it.

Some, not all, though.

 

[Rin]

Sorry, I am not persuaded. Jesus used words that were offensive as well : “hypocrites”
“blind guides” “serpents” and “brood of vipers” to the Pharisees who thought I am sure were unnecessarily offensive.

He did indeed. But then the Pharisees were considered good, highly moral, educated Jews - they were “in good standing”.

When He spoke to those who sinned sexually, He used no such words. Yes, He did tell them to “sin no more”, but only after telling them “neither will I condemn thee”.

I am however sure there were plenty of Pharisees in that crowd, ready to throw stones. Those were the ones He did not shy away from offending. They also criticized Him for (my paraphrase) “being soft on sinners” - much like many people who call themselves Catholic or Christian still do to this day.

I would be careful to use Christ’s wrath against the Pharisees to justify anything but criticism of religious attitudes that resemble Phariseeism. It generally doesn’t work very well in other cases.

 

[Hopey]

Heterosexuals have changed marriage to the point where it is entirely logical to extend it to gay people and it would be illogical to deny them it.

The reason it is not illogical to deny it is because of what the truth is; marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman.

 

[Mark121359]

Not only is the LGBT community not fully to blame, the vast majority of the damage suffered by the institution of marriage is by heterosexuals and even if gay marriage is passed across the board in the US it will still mostly be the fault of heterosexuals. Heterosexuals have changed marriage to the point where it is entirely logical to extend it to gay people and it would be illogical to deny them it.

Huh? So in other words, two wrongs do make a right?..uh–huh…

Peace, Mark

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Chastity should be your goal, no matter your “issue” as you seek out your vocation. It may involve celibacy it may not. Chastity is what is required no matter what. Your tone seems to be indicative of someone who harbors a lot of hatred.

Some, not all, though.

What does chastity have to do with this? According to the Church it is better for a woman to be a celibate virgin than for her to marry and engage in sex only to produce children. That’s interesting that you say my tone seems to be indicative of someone who harbors a lot of hatred" considering there is no tone transmitted over the internet in writing.

The reason it is not illogical to deny it is because of what the truth is; marriage is and can only be between a man and a woman.

Why can it only be between a man and a woman, why can’t it between two people of the same sex who love each other? (I already know the answer, I want to know if you know.)

Huh? So in other words, two wrongs do make a right?..uh–huh…

Peace, Mark

I talked about what is logical, not what is morally right, much like how given the premises that are used to justify abortion can logically be used to extend abortion past nine months…

 

[Hopey]

What does chastity have to do with this?

Chasity has everything to do with it, no matter the vocation, single, married, religious, virgin, etc.
In summary, it is using your sexuality in the proper way for your state of life.

That’s interesting that you say my tone seems to be indicative of someone who harbors a lot of hatred" considering there is no tone transmitted over the internet in writing.

You can, even via internet, come across in a certain way.

Why can it only be between a man and a woman, why can’t it between two people of the same sex who love each other? (I already know the answer, I want to know if you know.)

No, thanks. (speaking with someone like this is indicative of the tone I mentioned above)

I talked about what is logical, not what is morally right, much like how given the premises that are used to justify abortion can logically be used to extend abortion past nine months…

It isn’t logical to go against the natural law (not the same as laws of nature, btw). So, it isn’t logical on any grounds to redefine something because someone else has been messing up.

If you want to read more about the difference between chastity and celibacy:
Modern Catholic Dictionary:

CHASTITY. The virtue that moderates the desire for sexual pleasure according to the principles of faith and right reason. In married people, chastity moderates the desire in conformity with their state of life; in unmarried people who wish to marry, the desire is moderated by abstention until (or unless) they get married; in those who resolve not to marry, the desire is sacrificed entirely.

Chastity and purity, modesty and decency are comparable in that they have the basic meaning of freedom from whatever is lewd or salacious. Yet they also differ. Chastity implies an opposition to the immoral in the sense of lustful or licentious. It suggests refraining from all acts or thoughts that are not in accordance with the Church’s teaching about the use of one’s reproductive powers. It particularly stresses restraint and an avoidance of anything that might defile or make unclean the soul because the body has not been controlled in the exercise of its most imperious passion. (Etym. Latin castus, morally pure, unstained.)

CELIBACY. The state of being unmarried and, in Church usage, of one who has never been married. Catholicism distinguishes between lay and ecclesiastical celibacy, and in both cases a person freely chooses for religious reasons to remain celibate.

 

[GraceSofia]

According to the Church it is better for a woman to be a celibate virgin than for her to marry and engage in sex only to produce children.

Can you give a reference for that? A quick search gave me this from The Catechism:

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. **We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. **. . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.

 

[TCEL]

I talked about what is logical, not what is morally right, much like how given the premises that are used to justify abortion can logically be used to extend abortion past nine months…

I understand what you are saying. Since that is the case, it’s important to clarify that some of the premises our culture has chosen are faulty to begin with. Christians would do well to reflect on this if they wish to understand where the other side is coming from; it actually did a lot to help me understand Church teaching.