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

[GraceSofia]

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

“The only people?” That is a lie. Students and parents who were there have supported her. In the beginning of this thread, there was a CAF member who was there and posted about what happened.

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.

“Only?” “Never?” No proof she said those things. You are giving your opinion about what you think she said.

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

“All?” Not “all in attendance” complained. It was a vocal minority, who then stirred up people who were NOT there. From the petition, again, started by students who WERE in attendance:

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

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

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

VII. We understand that Sister Jane Dominic did not say that masturbating will make you homesexual or that the absence of a parent will either. …**

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

 

[JordanJD]

“The only people?” That is a lie. Students and parents who were there have supported her. In the beginning of this thread, there was a CAF member who was there and posted about what happened.
“Only?” “Never?” No proof she said those things. You are giving your opinion about what you think she said.
“All?” Not “all in attendance” complained. It was a vocal minority, who then stirred up people who were NOT there. From the petition, again, started by students who WERE in attendance:

Interesting how no can explain why students would lie about what this nun said when you probably have dozens of talks about homosexuality every year given by nuns…

Interesting how the ones defending the nun’s talk refuse to post online the video footage of the whole lecture…

hmmm…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Interesting how no can explain why students would lie about what this nun said when you probably have dozens of talks about homosexuality every year given by nuns…

Interesting how the ones defending the nun’s talk refuse to post online the video footage of the whole lecture…

hmmm…

Interesting how people slander other people on the basis of evidence that other eyewitnesses have denied…

 

[Dawnia]

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

Have you ever heard that saying about assuming? Well, let me say, you really nailed it. Good show.

 

[Dawnia]

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.

Nice assuming. But, since we’re on the subject, you should probably check your facts.

That 4 is per LIFETIME for women (6 for men), The median for homosexuals is 2 per YEAR.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Heterosexual relationships are also frequently unstable.

Not compared to gay ones, even with all of the divorce rates. Also gay relationships are not good for parenting.

Also, why do gay “marriage” activists always need to attack straight relationships to make their cause look better?

If gay relationships are allegedly so great and good, why can’t they stand on their own merits?

I can play this game too.

It’s not a game; it’s about facts.

Notice how those who defend so-called gay “marriage” and gay relationships in general have to resort to emotions and anecdotal evidence in order to advance their selfish agenda.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Nice assuming. But, since we’re on the subject, you should probably check your facts.

That 4 is per LIFETIME for women (6 for men), The median for homosexuals is 2 per YEAR.

:clapping:

 

[Rin]

Also, why do gay “marriage” activists always need to attack straight relationships to make their cause look better?

Probably because the loudest opponents of gay unions consistently attack gay relationships, and on top of that with flawed (interpretation of) data?

Yes, there are highly promiscuous gay individuals. But that does not mean “gay relationships are highly unstable”, it simply means some gays are promiscuous and not interested in a long-term relationship. Just like many, many straight people. Gay people who do commit to relationships, however (and they are in the majority, and vastly so), tend to have even longer term relationships than monogamous heterosexuals do, actually. I saw a study which confirms this once, but I’m afraid it’s neither in English nor in my bookmarks list.

Note that I’m not making any moral implications here - I’m just saying that false accusations based on badly interpreted statistics won’t make many converts. It’s actually even worse than offensive language; it makes people see us as detached from reality.

 

[JimG]

I’m just guessing, but what I think may be working itself out in these protests is simply anger at the expression of traditional Christian sexual morality. The fact is that for the past fifty years, the culture has been embarked on a consistent and insistent rejection of such standards.

Contraception, fornication, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, divorce, homosexual acts, are all serious moral failings, and they all have adverse effects on those who practice them and on the wider society. They can affect how we mature and perceive ourselves as sexual beings and as human beings, distorting our development in a variety of ways. They hurt individuals and families.

But people who have come of age in the past half century have grown up in a society in which such things are taken as normal. When a speaker talks about the pathology that inevitably flows from sexual sin, people who are living in situations which have been affected by sexual sin, take it as a personal attack. But it is not a personal attack. It is an attempt to return to recognition of reality and to healing.

Sister’s talks specialize in the subjects of theology of the body, and of the topics of masculinity and femininity. I suspect that many of her hearers may never have heard these topics presented in a manner consistent with Christian moral teaching. Maybe that is what leads to the outrage.

 

[Path_Finder]

Respectfully to all, it’s hard to look at so-called “neutral” websites such as that of the CDC that follow obviously, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and just conclude that gays tend to be just like straights and often follow having monogamous relationships.

health.westchestergov.com/gay-a-bisexual-men/stds

cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

And to be fair, other groups seem to be at risk as well.

 

[JordanJD]

Also, why do gay “marriage” activists always need to attack straight relationships to make their cause look better?

If gay relationships are allegedly so great and good, why can’t they stand on their own merits?

Notice how those who defend so-called gay “marriage” and gay relationships in general have to resort to emotions and anecdotal evidence in order to advance their selfish agenda.

*Also, why do straight “marriage” activists always need to attack gay relationships to make their cause look better?

If straight relationships are allegedly so great and good, why can’t they stand on their own merits?

Notice how those who attack so-called gay “marriage” and gay relationships in general have to resort to emotions and anecdotal evidence in order to advance their selfish agenda.*

Hmm, what is that they say about glass houses?..

 

[JordanJD]

OK, now this is funny:

Originally the nun was accused of saying gays cannot be happy

Her defenders here say she never said that and that it’s not true

And yet in the last 2 pages we now have those same defenders of the nun saying… that gays cannot be happy

 

[Hopey]

*Also, why do straight “marriage” activists always need to attack gay relationships to make their cause look better?

If straight relationships are allegedly so great and good, why can’t they stand on their own merits?

Notice how those who attack so-called gay “marriage” and gay relationships in general have to resort to emotions and anecdotal evidence in order to advance their selfish agenda.*

Hmm, what is that they say about glass houses?..

Why would the studies that she or anyone else uses leave out homosexuals and those in relationships? Why would you exclude them from studies/research? We do not do that for divorced people, why exclude one group that wants to be considered just like everyone else? If they want to be considered, their relationship, like everyone else, then they get to be examined the same. Welcome to the world of research, where no one should be excluded, no matter their sexual orientation.

I do believe parents were upset over what was said regarding divorce and remarriage also- or something like that.

Agree/disagree with the research, not the messenger.

 

[JordanJD]

Why would the studies that she or anyone else uses leave out homosexuals and those in relationships? Why would you exclude them from studies/research? We do not do that for divorced people, why exclude one group that wants to be considered just like everyone else? If they want to be considered, their relationship, like everyone else, then they get to be examined the same. Welcome to the world of research, where no one should be excluded, no matter their sexual orientation.

I do believe parents were upset over what was said regarding divorce and remarriage also- or something like that.

Agree/disagree with the research, not the messenger.

I understand what you are saying, but this is a case where the “messenger” was also the originator of the speech itself, therefore she cannot simply, to use another analogy, read off the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and claim her hands are washed clean

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Nice assuming. But, since we’re on the subject, you should probably check your facts.

That 4 is per LIFETIME for women (6 for men), The median for homosexuals is 2 per YEAR.

Actually I’m fully aware that 4 is the lifetime median for women.

One per six months isn’t exactly shagging everything that moves, also note that the average has been going down for a number of years which may have to do with fewer societal barriers to establish a permanent relationship.

I’m just guessing, but what I think may be working itself out in these protests is simply anger at the expression of traditional Christian sexual morality. The fact is that for the past fifty years, the culture has been embarked on a consistent and insistent rejection of such standards.

Contraception, fornication, promiscuity, pornography, adultery, divorce, homosexual acts, are all serious moral failings, and they all have adverse effects on those who practice them and on the wider society. They can affect how we mature and perceive ourselves as sexual beings and as human beings, distorting our development in a variety of ways. They hurt individuals and families.

But people who have come of age in the past half century have grown up in a society in which such things are taken as normal. When a speaker talks about the pathology that inevitably flows from sexual sin, people who are living in situations which have been affected by sexual sin, take it as a personal attack. But it is not a personal attack. It is an attempt to return to recognition of reality and to healing.

Sister’s talks specialize in the subjects of theology of the body, and of the topics of masculinity and femininity. I suspect that many of her hearers may never have heard these topics presented in a manner consistent with Christian moral teaching. Maybe that is what leads to the outrage.

I like how the protestors constantly get slammed for being heterodox yet there hasn’t been much to indicate that the protestors are objecting to actual Catholic theology.

 

[Hopey]

I understand what you are saying, but this is a case where the “messenger” was also the originator of the speech itself, therefore she cannot simply, to use another analogy, read off the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” and claim her hands are washed clean

Please provide the study she quoted that has so upset you that feel you should compare it to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” so I might look and see what has offended you so.

BTW, did I say the researchers examine and dissect in excruciating detail everyone?
Did I say that other groups were offended because it revealed to them, their shortcomings and the sorry stats of divorce/remarriage on family and children?

 

[Hopey]

Out of this whole thing, the one thing that was honest was the opposing group who, in their petition, said they didn’t care to hear about it anymore - they wanted to focus on something else (my summary as they have pulled their petition off line).
They took Pope Francis’ quote out of context, but still they said they wanted to focus on something else - love, poverty, etc.

 

[JimG]

Actually I’m fully aware that 4 is the lifetime median for women.

One per six months isn’t exactly shagging everything that moves, also note that the average has been going down for a number of years which may have to do with fewer societal barriers to establish a permanent relationship.

I like how the protestors constantly get slammed for being heterodox yet there hasn’t been much to indicate that the protestors are objecting to actual Catholic theology.

I doubt that this is theological disagreement, though it may be. I think rather that when a speaker says that things like divorce, masturbation, fornication, have bad effects, hearers may think, “hey, my mom is divorced, and she’s a good person!” People tend to take things personally. This is one reason why I suppose that priests often hesitate to give homilies about popular sins, since we all tend to take the homily as if it were directed personally to us. But it isn’t.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

Respectfully to all, it’s hard to look at so-called “neutral” websites such as that of the CDC that follow obviously, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and just conclude that gays tend to be just like straights and often follow having monogamous relationships.

health.westchestergov.com/gay-a-bisexual-men/stds

cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

And to be fair, other groups seem to be at risk as well.

Just wanted to write a quick addendum to this. Your first link is a good resource for sexually active gay and bisexual men. Your second link speaks to a much larger category of “men who have sex with men” (MSM). This clinical category was developed in order to capture folks who engage in a particular behavior and NOT SIMPLY folks who identify as any particular sexual orientation. There are plenty of celibate gay folks, but no celibate MSMs. There are folks who identify as “straight” or heterosexual, but who also, because of the activities in which they engage, fall into the MSM category (men on the “down-low” for instance, or men who have sex with other men for money or favors). Gay and MSM are not co-terminus, though there is, of course, generous overlap between the categories.

So when we speak of gay or straight, we’re not actually talking about sexual activity, we’re talking about the drift of a person’s affections and the way a person has come to understand the shape and direction of that drift. When we speak of MSM, we’re not talking about the drift of anyone’s affections, nor is there any assumption made that those affections are understood in any particular way, but what we are talking about with MSM is sexual activity.

I mention all this because your intro paragraph suggested that you believe gay folks and MSM folks are the same folks. They’re not. There’s overlap, but when someone says, “the MSM population” they do not mean, “all gay men.”

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I like how the protestors constantly get slammed for being heterodox yet there hasn’t been much to indicate that the protestors are objecting to actual Catholic theology.

This is a very interesting point, and it goes to something I’ve been thinking about for some time: that homosexuality is more and more being understood as a form of heresy, and the religious rhetoric surrounding it reflects that understanding. It’s not a new understanding. The old slur “bugger” comes from an Anglicization of the Old French “Bougre” which, while originally was simply the word for “Bulgarian” came to be used for Bogomil heretics. The idea behind its application to same-sex attracted folks is the old notion that such folks are “naturally” in the wrong, “naturally” other, and “naturally” traitors–to nature, to country, to God. Anyone who speaks of them in ways that depart from a normative set of tropes (even when those tropes do not address themselves to theology, moral or otherwise) is in danger of giving off a slight but noticeable odor of heresy, acutely detectable by folks who are more invested )for whatever reason) in hewing to the normative tropes.

I think this is because the larger issue at hand relates to the tension between what we believe and how we speak about what we believe: sometimes, as in discourse regarding homosexuality, these two things are conflated, which lends a heretical air to rhetoric that does not conform to a particular standard of “how we speak about what we believe.” And I think the reason why homosexuality is so fraught in this regard is related to those old notions of the homosexual as “natural” traitor and heretic.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!