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

[JordanJD]

This young student obviously has not been taught the Church’s teaching on marriage if he says something like that. He thinks marriage is about the emotional “feelings”

Alright fine, if marriage and love have nothing to do with each other, then let’s be consistent in that our relationship with God has nothing to do with love also

Agree?

 

[buffalo]

The people who were actually there and listened to her talk

Funny how the only people defending this “nun” are the ones who were not there…

I am looking for a transcript. Do you have one?

 

[JordanJD]

I am looking for a transcript. Do you have one?

Nobody has a transcript. Yet we are supposed to believe the complaints lodged by the people at the talk are all false and we are supposed to also believe that all in attendance were liars

 

[Mark121359]

Nobody has a transcript. Yet we are supposed to believe the complaints lodged by the people at the talk are all false and we are supposed to also believe that all in attendance were liars

Can you produce any transcript or any evidence whatsoever that anything she says in her lectures goes against Church teachings? If not, then the plaintiffs are either misinformed on Church teachings, or, they are informed and disagree with, and choose not to follow these teachings. Which, by the way, isn’t at all uncommon today. There are more Catholics who don’t follow Church teachings on issues such as so-called SSM, contraception, divorce, etc…than those who do!

Peace, Mark

 

[Dawnia]

The people who were actually there and listened to her talk

Funny how the only people defending this “nun” are the ones who were not there…

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:

That kinda looks like support to me.

 

[zz912]

Alright fine, if marriage and love have nothing to do with each other, then let’s be consistent in that our relationship with God has nothing to do with love also

Agree?

SMH.

Look at the context of how he was expressing it. It was in regards to the priest responding that parents have to work hard, and stay together, even when it gets hard. And his response is that marriage is all about “love”, implicitly that if “love” goes away, why should parents stay together?

There come times in marriage where feelings wax and wane. But you don’t give up on your vows, your family, your commitment, just because your “feelings” have faded. You work hard to sacrifice for your family, to TRULY love them, not an emotional reaction, but in sacrificial giving of yourself to them. THAT is love.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I don’t know the contents of either presentation (North Carolina or South Kingstown). I do know that both speakers were experienced, well-respected representatives in good standing with the Church and widely acknowledged to possess in depth knowledge and understanding of Church teaching. Why they both should completely go so rogue is beyond me. I can say after witnessing the Mark Zmuda/Eastside Catholic School debacle right in my back yard, it was painfully clear that the supporters of Zmuda did not care a rat’s posterior about any sort of serious or committed witness to the teachings of the Catholic Church. In fact, they very actively opposed it.

Let’s try another angle here: since it doesn’t look like changing Church teaching is actually on the horizon after all, this tactic is perhaps a modified, more practical approach. Obscure the message in order to discredit proponents of Church teaching as intolerant and/or misinformed - representing offensive, “outside of the Church mainstream” views - shut 'em down one by one, grass roots style. A page from McCarthy - one, two three: “COMMUNIST”!!! If unchecked, this could have disastrous consequences for the Church.

 

[Corki]

Nobody has a transcript. Yet we are supposed to believe the complaints lodged by the people at the talk are all false and we are supposed to also believe that all in attendance were liars

I wouldn’t say “liars” but if forced to choose between supporting a sister whose lectures, according to the Bishop and recordings, have always been in line with Church teaching and a bunch of teens who have proven through some of their statements in the petition to be very confused, if not outright dissident, about Church teaching, I will go with the former.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=SMGS127;11867452]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.

Gay relationships are frequently unstable. It’s high time that got understood with emotional detachment.

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.

Time to get over feeling offended over terms of art.

 

[SMGS127]

Gay relationships are frequently unstable. It’s high time that got understood with emotional detachment.

Completely false. Absolutely, completely false. Polyamory is highly looked down upon in the LGBT community; in fact, my poly friends lamented to me all the time in college that they couldn’t find any partner, because no one (gay or straight) would accept that they wouldn’t be monogamous. They also felt ostracized by the community. Gay relationships tend to be stable and strictly monogamous; polyamory is rare, and instability happens at a roughly equal rate to straight couples. Lesbians tend to be slightly more stable and monogamous than straights, and gay men tend to be slightly less stable and monogamous than straights. They balance out together .

Time to get over feeling offended over terms of art.

Do you think we should use the terms “f****t,” “d**e,” or “sodomite” when evangelizing? Would you call those “terms of art?” When a phrase is overwhelmingly used in an offensive manner, it doesn’t really matter what someone’s intentions are in using the word.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You gotta be kidding me!!! She was speaking the Catholic TRUTH, even if many Catholics do not want to believe her!, God Bless, Memaw

:clapping:

 

[JordanJD]

Can you produce any transcript or any evidence whatsoever that anything she says in her lectures goes against Church teachings?

As I mentioned before, those who were actually there heard her say oral sex is something only homosexuals can do, masturbating makes you gay, gay people can never be happy, etc.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=SMGS127;11897904]Completely false. Absolutely, completely false.

The facts say otherwise.

Polyamory is highly looked down upon in the LGBT community; in fact, my poly friends lamented to me all the time in college that they couldn’t find any partner, because no one (gay or straight) would accept that they wouldn’t be monogamous.

Anecdotal evidence.

They also felt ostracized by the community.

Irrelevant for justifying monogamous relationships.

Gay relationships tend to be stable and strictly monogamous;

polyamory is rare, and instability happens at a roughly equal rate to straight couples. Lesbians tend to be slightly more stable and monogamous than straights,

Polyamory should not be used a crutch when addressing these issues. Gay relationships are not stable, many do not last long and many individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior have numerous partners.

and gay men tend to be slightly less stable and monogamous than straights.

That can be misleading; some gay men surveyed have had hundreds, even thousands of partners in their lives.

They balance out together .

They do not and the uncertainty () in this is noted.

Do you think we should use the terms “f****t,” “d**e,” or “sodomite” when evangelizing? Would you call those “terms of art?”

No, and that was not mentioned or even hinted at in the post I was responding to. :tsktsk:

It is the responsibility of CAF posters to clarify what they are talking about. This isn’t a collegiate/amateur blog and the standards are higher.

But what is happening is here is inclusion of extreme positions in order to divert attention from the the facts.

I will not stand for this kind of behavior on here.

When a phrase is overwhelmingly used in an offensive manner, it doesn’t really matter what someone’s intentions are in using the word.

As far as sin goes, intention is absolutely a huge factor.

 

[SuperLuigi]

As I mentioned before, those who were actually there heard her say oral sex is something only homosexuals can do, masturbating makes you gay, gay people can never be happy, etc.

That doesn’t look like a transcript.

 

[JordanJD]

That doesn’t look like a transcript.

Then please link us the transcript

 

[SMGS127]

The facts say otherwise.

Anecdotal evidence.

Irrelevant for justifying monogamous relationships.

But completely relevant in explaining that gay partners expect strict monogamy from their partners. Which is the topic at hand.

Polyamory should not be used a crutch when addressing these issues. Gay relationships are not stable, many do not last long and many individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior have numerous partners.

Sorry this just isn’t true. Gay people are slightly more promiscuous, yes, for a multitude of relative reasons, including no risk of pregnancy, almost no risk of STD transfer among lesbians, high libidos in both partners among gay men… But their relationships are just as stable.

That can be misleading; some gay men surveyed have had hundreds, even thousands of partners in their lives.

I’m sure you can find one or two that will say that. It’s interesting that you quote a study (assuming you’re quoting the only study to ever find that) that interviewed exclusively gay men who went to club scenes. I might mention that, in the L Word, they use Shane for shock value in terms of promiscuity, and she’s only listed at a few hundred. And that’s the shock value of the show, meaning she’s supposed to be well higher than normal lesbians. Most of the women on The Chart (L Word reference) are listed at only a couple partners. The show is aimed at lesbians and sticks to truths among lesbians or it wouldn’t have gone on for six seasons.

They do not and the uncertainty () in this is noted.

The wasn’t at uncertainty, it was at the baselessness of your accusations against the community. You have no supporting evidence, yet you feel free to make baseless claims.

No, and that was not mentioned or even hinted at in the post I was responding to. :tsktsk:

It is the responsibility of CAF posters to clarify what they are talking about. This isn’t a collegiate/amateur blog and the standards are higher.

But what is happening is here is inclusion of extreme positions in order to divert attention from the the facts.

I will not stand for this kind of behavior on here.

You said that we should be able to use the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” no matter what, because we have good intentions. So I asked you about three words that are equally or less negative in the LGBT community than “homosexual lifestyle” and asked if you would say the same about them. I don’t quite understand why you only apply the “art of terms” philosophy to the most offensive phrase of the bunch, abstaining from applying it to less offensive terms (that are still highly offensive).

As far as sin goes, intention is absolutely a huge factor.

Sure. You don’t sin if you use the phrase with good intentions, and you don’t sin if you don’t use it at all. You make it so gay kids and their friends never consider the Church by using it, and you give them a welcoming response if you don’t use it. Gee, I wonder which option is better.

There is absolutely zero necessity in using the phrase, period. “Actively gay” not only evangelizes better but it also gets across your point better. We should not be using offensive, pejorative terms and phrases as Catholics.

 

[JordanJD]

Gay relationships are not stable, many do not last long and many individuals who choose to engage in homosexual behavior have numerous partners

Straight relationships are not stable, many do not last long and many individuals who choose to engage in heterosexual behavior have numerous partners

Oh hey look, I can play this kid’s game too

 

[Dawnia]

Straight relationships are not stable, many do not last long and many individuals who choose to engage in heterosexual behavior have numerous partners

Oh hey look, I can play this kid’s game too

 

[JordanJD]

Ah, that was some mighty fine evidence you presented there that straight people never divorce, never cheat, and only have one partner their entire lives. I tip my monocle to you, good sir or madam, for your outstanding scientific presentation that you have presented to us all

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

There’s been*** another ***debacle at another Catholic school over a talk by a priest, who has been, predictably now, thrown under the bus. Is there a thread on it somewhere?

Fr. Z: The Magisterium of Sophomores: another High School explosion

Prout principal will not resign after controversial assembly

When the principal and chaplain both say they were shocked during the Q&A it does seem as if something was wrong.

Alright fine, if marriage and love have nothing to do with each other, then let’s be consistent in that our relationship with God has nothing to do with love also

Agree?

Our relationship with spouses and our relationship with God is fundamentally different.

Gay relationships are frequently unstable. It’s high time that got understood with emotional detachment.



Time to get over feeling offended over terms of art.

Heterosexual relationships are also frequently unstable.

But completely relevant in explaining that gay partners expect strict monogamy from their partners. Which is the topic at hand.

Sorry this just isn’t true. Gay people are slightly more promiscuous, yes, for a multitude of relative reasons, including no risk of pregnancy, almost no risk of STD transfer among lesbians, high libidos in both partners among gay men… But their relationships are just as stable.

I’m sure you can find one or two that will say that. It’s interesting that you quote a study (assuming you’re quoting the only study to ever find that) that interviewed exclusively gay men who went to club scenes. I might mention that, in the L Word, they use Shane for shock value in terms of promiscuity, and she’s only listed at a few hundred. And that’s the shock value of the show, meaning she’s supposed to be well higher than normal lesbians. Most of the women on The Chart (L Word reference) are listed at only a couple partners. The show is aimed at lesbians and sticks to truths among lesbians or it wouldn’t have gone on for six seasons.

The wasn’t at uncertainty, it was at the baselessness of your accusations against the community. You have no supporting evidence, yet you feel free to make baseless claims.

You said that we should be able to use the phrase “homosexual lifestyle” no matter what, because we have good intentions. So I asked you about three words that are equally or less negative in the LGBT community than “homosexual lifestyle” and asked if you would say the same about them. I don’t quite understand why you only apply the “art of terms” philosophy to the most offensive phrase of the bunch, abstaining from applying it to less offensive terms (that are still highly offensive).

Sure. You don’t sin if you use the phrase with good intentions, and you don’t sin if you don’t use it at all. You make it so gay kids and their friends never consider the Church by using it, and you give them a welcoming response if you don’t use it. Gee, I wonder which option is better.

There is absolutely zero necessity in using the phrase, period. “Actively gay” not only evangelizes better but it also gets across your point better. We should not be using offensive, pejorative terms and phrases as Catholics.

Shane also repeatedly got brutally slammed for her inability to have a long term relationship.

There wasn’t anything inaccurate in that post, indeed given that when surveyed women report a median of over four the average woman must have engaged in sex with more than one partner given that median is the midpoint and women are far more likely to underestimate than overestimate the number of partners.