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

[Lost_Wanderer]

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. Yet, that she said that by partaking in masturbation will lessen your masculinity and that through the absence of a parent in the home will also make a greater risk for homosexuality.

Can I ask what the good Sister defines as ‘masculinity’? See, I’m friends with plenty of porn addicts and other followers of so-called Bro Culture. Their definition of it tends to be more along the lines of Conan the Barbarian:

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

I have to be honest. Even my darkest of desires go along these lines and nothing along the lines of what you’d see in a typical pride parade. (And frankly, the very idea of ‘gay pride’ even makes me chuckle and snort sometimes.)

Am I to understand that the Sister does not imply ‘reduced masculinity’ is synonymous with being gay?

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Because the “It Gets Better” project, albeit started by him, is not run by him. Anyone who has a Youtube account (or any other social media service) can upload an “It Gets Better” video with whatever message they want to send, as long as it is anti-suicide, of course. I do not support Dan Savage, but I do support the project as it is community-based, not Dan Savage-based.

So when a community-based It Gets Better counsellor on the help line or thru an in person meeting is able to thwart a teen’s suicide plan, do you really think he or she skips Dan Savage’s talks and columns? The program is connected to him, no matter how and regardless that you split it.

It’s not just my circle of LGB friends. It’s also on the basis of the many, many people I’ve met throughout gay festivals, gay support groups, on dates [before I was Catholic], etc. It’s further buffered by the experiences of my poly friends, who endlessly complained to me that they couldn’t find anyone who would date them for any length of time, because everyone was so “uptight” about monogamy in the LGBT community.
…
Well, this answer is going to be rather long-winded. Contrary to public ideas of the gay community, it is not one, solid community. It is really two communities (gay men and lesbians, with bisexuals flocking wherever they feel most comfortable, usually with their own gender). The reason for this is because, unlike straight people, there really is no pressing reason for genders to mix. And with the low degree of shared interests between the gay male community and the lesbian community, you don’t really see a lot of intermixing outside of support groups, festivals, or other big Pride events.

So, this may seem like it’s irrelevant to Dan Savage, but it’s not. Lesbians tend to only really care about lesbian speakers in the community, not gay male speakers, and I’d imagine (though I have literally no idea) that gay men don’t care at all about lesbian speakers. I don’t mean to say we are rude to them or anything, we just don’t exactly have much interest, as we don’t get gay men. Lesbians are naturally going to care more about Naya Rivera, Ellen Page, and Ellen DeGeneres than any gay male idol, even one like Neil Patrick Harris. Anyways, my point is, if I went onto a lesbian website and talked about Dan Savage being an idiot, people would be like “Who cares? I don’t pay attention to him anyway.” And I’m not exactly expected on a gay male site anymore than a gay man would be on a lesbian site, so any comments I made on a gay male site would seem like proselytizing, and thus would be countereffective.

What I am saying is that it is possible gay men enjoy reading Savage’s articles (although I find the majority of his readership/attendees are actually straight women, especially if you watch his Youtube videos…). I wouldn’t know how gay men enjoy spending their time, as a lesbian. However, his comments about “monogamish” relationships in the gay community are completely unsubstantiated. For the first part, that has not, would not, and will not ever be a thing in the lesbian community. And from my experience with the roommates of my gay male friends (of which I’ve known quite a substantial number), while they have a relatively high amount of sex with their boyfriends, there isn’t any form of outside arrangement. Either way, it doesn’t make any sense to associate Savage with the majority of a community that is made up of more lesbians than gay men in the first place, let alone taking into account the fact that he is a sexual activist that has reason to make things look more sexually “free” and “open” in the community than they are.

I suppose I could try to convince gay people to be more vocal in their opposition to him, as opposed to certain, under-the-radar opposition (like my university’s LGBT group’s blacklisting of him for anti-Catholic remarks), but the main problem is the same problem I find in trying to convince Catholics to oppose radical fundamentalists’ hate speech. People are so convinced that this is a zero sum war that they refuse to publicly decry any person deemed to be a potential ally, no matter how egregious their conduct. And this for sure happens on both sides of the marriage debate. Gay people are more content quietly ignoring him than giving the “opposition” a talking point that there’s huge discordance in the community.

Yep, that was long winded. The short of it is you perhaps can speak for lesbians, but not for homosexual males, and not for bisexuals. It would not be surprising that lesbians as a group are likely to be more monogamous, but you can’t credibly claim that a really vast number of gays (male), or bisexuals, are into monogamy, which you assert in your postings, although there are some who are. In fact, according to studies of long term gay male relationships, many are open or evolve to an open relationship, meaning the partners in said relationships are commonly non-monogamous.

Your posts are but wishful thinking, driven to project a sanitized image of the whole LGB sexual practices with your pronouncements. You get caught up with it, forgetting, it seems, that even those in monogamous same sex relations are still in disordered relationships. Fidelity or monogamy does not make these relationships ordered.

Incidentally, when you say this

I find the majority of his (Dan Savage’s) readership/attendees are actually straight women, especially if you watch his Youtube videos

How can you say just by watching his Youtube videos that those who attend his talks are actually straight women? You must have supernatural powers to canvass a crowd and can tell that the women attendees are actually straight instead of lesbians or bisexuals.

This kind of generalization or remark by you is why it is hard to take what you say as reality.
,

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

How can you say just by watching his Youtube videos that those who attend his talks are actually straight women? You must have supernatural powers to canvass a crowd and can tell that the women attendees are actually straight instead of lesbians or bisexuals.

Actually, the fact that they were straight wouldn’t surprise even a straight guy like me. Do you have any idea how many heterosexual ladies I’ve met who are into gay fanfiction? (Note, I’m specifically citing gay, guy on guy smut here.)

I’ve lost count. Even if you were right to say one shouldn’t assume, you shouldn’t be closed to the possibility that your correspondent is right. I for one could vouch for it.

 

[Rin]

Your posts are but wishful thinking, driven to project a sanitized image of the whole LGB sexual practices with your pronouncements. You get caught up with it, forgetting, it seems, that even those in monogamous same sex relations are still in disordered relationships. Fidelity or monogamy does not make these relationships ordered.

Actually, I find that she generally emphasises the fact that fidelity or monogamy does not make these relationships ordered. You’re making unfounded assumptions, here.

However, many Catholics on this forum seem to make the opposite, fallacious conclusion; that the disorderly nature of a relationship causes infidelity and polygamy. It doesn’t. I have seen several studies that indicate that the amount of cheating among gay men in a long-term relationship is similar to the amount of cheating in straight long-term relationships. Men are, in general, lousy at the monogamy thing; I recently also saw a study indicating that back in the days of the “traditional family” (not sure if it was 19th or 20th century), up to 30% (if I remember correctly - the number might be even higher) of children had no genetic connection to their “father”.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, the high amount of partners in gay men is usually because there is no sense of obligation to remain chaste before finding a long-term partner. Hence, until finding such a relationship, they are more promiscuous. Once they settle, there is no reason to believe they sleep around more than straight men. I think people play down the rate at which straight men cheat on their wives - it is, and has always been, rampant.

 

[Hopey]

Actually, I find that she generally emphasises the fact that fidelity or monogamy does not make these relationships ordered. You’re making unfounded assumptions, here.

However, many Catholics on this forum seem to make the opposite, fallacious conclusion; that the disorderly nature of a relationship causes infidelity and polygamy. It doesn’t. I have seen several studies that indicate that the amount of cheating among gay men in a long-term relationship is similar to the amount of cheating in straight long-term relationships. Men are, in general, lousy at the monogamy thing; I recently also saw a study indicating that back in the days of the “traditional family” (not sure if it was 19th or 20th century), up to 30% (if I remember correctly - the number might be even higher) of children had no genetic connection to their “father”.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, the high amount of partners in gay men is usually because there is no sense of obligation to remain chaste before finding a long-term partner. Hence, until finding such a relationship, they are more promiscuous. Once they settle, there is no reason to believe they sleep around more than straight men. I think people play down the rate at which straight men cheat on their wives - it is, and has always been, rampant.

Except, when doing these studies and research, going to Sweden I believe, and allowing gay men who were in a ssm respond, they revealed a majority had no intention of staying monogamous even when they married.
I feel sure that is what Sr was using, that research. It was done in a country that had ssm for a long time in order to get a bigger sample/more accurate.
Entering into a marriage with no intent to remain faithful would be different than those who cheat on their spouse because even with those, they do seek help indicating they didn’t intend to do this. That doesn’t mean the spouse would stay in the marriage but the fact that a majority had no intention really is telling as to what they think a marriage is - fidelity. So, I would not compare that to all marriage who suffer from infidelity/adultery.

 

[Hopey]

Here is a link including some stats.
mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/
I am still trying to find the original one but if I remember correctly, I had to pay to view it. So, even if I find it, I may not be able to access it.
If you are claiming that they want to be monogamous when married, and they define monogamous as living with their partner but allowing outside sexual relationships as long as they are not attached to them, then could both be right, because of the way they understand monogamous?

 

[Hopey]

One more link, and I would bet that Sr used some of these:
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And I would say again, it isn’t going and looking for negative things in this group or any. When we are being forced as these behaviors are normal/neutral, a good - good enough - to even redefine marriage - then in the very least it should be examined.

Likewise, when stats are used regarding divorce, the harmful effects on marriage, the hope in the Church is (or so I have been told), something to get the couple to consider to help them consider why it is worth saving your marriage instead of just walking out/divorce.

Those are why they use stats, or should be. Also, it is human tendency, especially with a religious speaker unfortunately, that some will discredit them because they are not married.

If no-fault divorce was such a good, and had no impact on the family/children (as pop psychologists wanted it to be so) then our youth should be the pillars of virtue and we are flourishing with little to no crime etc.

Similarly, considering normalizing ss activity, and making it a good, when examined, it the findings should speak for themselves. It is disturbing to me that some of these stats can not be presented in a public forum, such as school, because it might make a person with ssa “feel” bad. I don’t think they use they same caution for smokers - don’t saying anything about the health risk so as not to make them feel bad.

I do see, the reaction from this one high school - some in it, a BIG need for healing in probably most of these kids who are in broken families. I will say some things I am sensitive to because of my background - that I didn’t choose - but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said. It means I have more processing and healing to do.
Maybe that is what the parents didn’t like, the realization that their actions have consequences and their family is still in need of healing.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is disturbing to me that some of these stats can not be presented in a public forum, such as school, because it might make a person with ssa “feel” bad. I don’t think they use they same caution for smokers - don’t saying anything about the health risk so as not to make them feel bad.

I generally agree with this comment. However, you should understand that gay kids don’t compare well to smokers. Gay kids are being told that their identity as a person is bound up in being gay. So there is a great deal of sensitivity needed.

But these kids are precisely the people who need to hear accurate statistics about the risks of homosexual activity.

(Mind you, I question some of the statistics people use, and I *highly *question any portrayals of homosexuals as moral monsters.)

 

[Hopey]

I generally agree with this comment. However, you should understand that gay kids don’t compare well to smokers. ** Gay kids are being told that their identity as a person is bound up in being gay. So there is a great deal of sensitivity needed.**

But these kids are precisely the people who need to hear accurate statistics about the risks of homosexual activity.

(Mind you, I question some of the statistics people use, and I *highly *question any portrayals of homosexuals as moral monsters.)

Yes, and that is why the Catholic approach at least is to separate the attraction from the person - meaning that even in Courage, they do not encourage the use of the term Gay to define themselves.
But they should have accurate information to consider before doing these acts.

BTW, smokers, because of the addiction component of it, are effected in every aspect of their life. When breaking the addiction, it is similar to breaking up with a person - love affair-feeling similar. They identify as a smoker and it permeates all aspects of their life. Part of breaking it is to call yourself an EX (exsmoker), non-smoker.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Yes, and that is why the Catholic approach at least is to separate the attraction from the person - meaning that even in Courage, they do not encourage the use of the term Gay to define themselves.

Personally, I think that all the focus on the term “gay” is missing the point. I can call myself a redhead without redheadedness being a central aspect of my personhood and identity. Many gay kids and teenagers feel that being gay is a “given” in their lives. This feeling isn’t right or wrong, but if you tell them “you’re not gay”, they will look at you like you have three heads.

The problem isn’t the word gay. It’s that they’re told that being gay is something that makes them special, that it is a central aspect of their lives.

When gay teens or adults talk to Christians about their experience, and are immediately told that they should stop calling themselves gay, they feel attacked. And no wonder! They weren’t, after all, asking for advice. They were sharing something about themselves, something that has been the source of much shame. How would you feel if you shared something deep about yourself, and the response was criticism?

BTW, smokers, because of the addiction component of it, are effected in every aspect of their life. When breaking the addiction, it is similar to breaking up with a person - love affair-feeling similar. They identify as a smoker and it permeates all aspects of their life. Part of breaking it is to call yourself an EX (exsmoker), non-smoker.

I have had a similar experience with caffeine and with masturbation, but I can tell you that it does not even begin to compare with the centrality of shame in the life of a Christian with same-sex attraction. I mean, I guess there might be a comparison for some people, but it seems far fetched to me. The idea of being “out and proud” is a tremendously attractive thing to people with SSA, and very naturally so. Shame is an ugly thing. Shamelessness is uglier, perhaps, but shamelessness carries with it the trappings of beauty.

(Moreover, I doubt “being a smoker” is all that central in the identities of teenagers, even if it can be central for adults).

 

[Hopey]

Personally, I think that all the focus on the term “gay” is missing the point. I can call myself a redhead without redheadedness being a central aspect of my personhood and identity. Many gay kids and teenagers feel that being gay is a “given” in their lives. This feeling isn’t right or wrong, but if you tell them “you’re not gay”, they will look at you like you have three heads.

The problem isn’t the word gay. It’s that they’re told that being gay is something that makes them special, that it is a central aspect of their lives.

When gay teens or adults talk to Christians about their experience, and are immediately told that they should stop calling themselves gay, they feel attacked. And no wonder! They weren’t, after all, asking for advice. They were sharing something about themselves, something that has been the source of much shame. How would you feel if you shared something deep about yourself, and the response was criticism?

I will put the quote from the Courage network as to why they discourage the use of the term.

Revealing to someone something about yourself will make you vulnerable. Some may react in a good and healthy way, some may not. But I don’t think sharing what the Catholic Church teaches, especially about the acts, is criticism. I do believe we are in an age that any form of self correction is tied to self esteem therefore has to be rejected. If a person were to reveal they are gay and follow up with I don’t care what you think - I would respond “Oh”, nothing more.

In their wisdom, this is why they encourage them not to use the term. It isn’t meant to be a rejection of them or an attack.
The Church does seem behind in getting this out to our youth. Or maybe it was because many youth/adults didn’t want any attention - forget about it - that the other, secular ideas/lifestyles became more prominent.

Q. Why doesn’t Courage refer to its membership as “gay” or “lesbian”?

Courage sees persons with same-sex attractions first and foremost as men and women created in the image of God, with a vocation to live a chaste and holy life through an ever-deepening union with Christ.

Some people say that identifying themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” either privately or publicly simply means that they are acknowledging that their emotional, romantic, and sexual attractions are predominantly and persistently towards the same sex. They hold that these words are simple but essential descriptors for a key part of their identity and claim that the adoption of these labels are a way of “owning” their sexuality and facing the reality of “who they are.” Further, they hold that such labels do not interfere with or diminish their commitment to chastity.

While this may be true for some, there are others for whom the embracing of LGBTQ terminology is a stumbling block, for the following reasons:

• It draws them into a more secular milieu, causing them to be more tempted to pursue a sexually active homosexual relationship.

• It makes them more susceptible to embracing the politics of “gay” activism which is often at odds with the Church’s moral teachings, especially in the area of marriage.

• It influences them to disregard or gloss over the Church’s teachings on the inclination to homosexual activity being objectively disordered, because the world often propounds the idea that “all things ‘gay’ are good.”

The experience of sexuality in all its subtleties and nuances does indeed have a powerful influence on our experience of life and on how we interact with others; however, we would be mistaken to root our identity in those very subjective currents that can overwhelm us and sometimes lead us astray, apart from the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Courage also considers the example our adult membership and our pastoral outreach sets for young people whose psychosexual development is still in a very formative stage. Premature self-labelling may discourage a young person from being open to the possibility of further psychosexual development. It may also cause a young person to be more vulnerable to confusion and temptation in the three ways described earlier.

This is why Courage considers it pastorally prudent to avoid terms that may be stumbling blocks to others; accordingly, we gently encourage our membership to think beyond the labels “gay” and “lesbian,” while we strive together to grow in our essential identity as men and women formed in God’s image, created for intimate and eternal union with Christ.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Actually, I find that she generally emphasises the fact that fidelity or monogamy does not make these relationships ordered. You’re making unfounded assumptions, here.

Well, when SMG makes the disclaimer, it seems diluted with her pronouncements to the effect that “gay people generally, vastly, seek or are in monogamous relationships.” This flies in the face of the high number of gay men still being the group getting diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, more than any other group, with a good number not knowing they have the disease, according to the CDC. She may be right about lesbians being faithful in general, not about homosexual or bisexual males, besides the fact that HIV/AIDS is known to spread with the practice of penetrative anal sex which does not characterize lesbian sex.

However, many Catholics on this forum seem to make the opposite, fallacious conclusion; that the disorderly nature of a relationship causes infidelity and polygamy. It doesn’t. I have seen several studies that indicate that the amount of cheating among gay men in a long-term relationship is similar to the amount of cheating in straight long-term relationships. Men are, in general, lousy at the monogamy thing; I recently also saw a study indicating that back in the days of the “traditional family” (not sure if it was 19th or 20th century), up to 30% (if I remember correctly - the number might be even higher) of children had no genetic connection to their “father”.

Now you are making an assumption that is not well founded. Many Catholics in this forum DO realize infidelity is associated with gay partners, not that the disorder causes infidelity.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, the high amount of partners in gay men is usually because there is no sense of obligation to remain chaste before finding a long-term partner. Hence, until finding such a relationship, they are more promiscuous. Once they settle, there is no reason to believe they sleep around more than straight men. I think people play down the rate at which straight men cheat on their wives - it is, and has always been, rampant.

This is why male-female relationships are far more superior pairings than same-sex relationships, as women generally do not put up with men who tend to be promiscuous. If the men wish for peaceful homes and want to avoid ongoing battles with their wives, they do settle into the one-to-one routine that women insist on. STDs are not associated with faithful partnerships. It is said that women have a civilizing effect on men.
,

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I will put the quote from the Courage network as to why they discourage the use of the term.

Revealing to someone something about yourself will make you vulnerable. Some may react in a good and healthy way, some may not. But I don’t think sharing what the Catholic Church teaches, especially about the acts, is criticism. I do believe we are in an age that any form of self correction is tied to self esteem therefore has to be rejected. If a person were to reveal they are gay and follow up with I don’t care what you think - I would respond “Oh”, nothing more.

In their wisdom, this is why they encourage them not to use the term. It isn’t meant to be a rejection of them or an attack.
The Church does seem behind in getting this out to our youth. Or maybe it was because many youth/adults didn’t want any attention - forget about it - that the other, secular ideas/lifestyles became more prominent.

Q. Why doesn’t Courage refer to its membership as “gay” or “lesbian”?

Courage sees persons with same-sex attractions first and foremost as men and women created in the image of God, with a vocation to live a chaste and holy life through an ever-deepening union with Christ.

**Some people say that identifying themselves as “gay” or “lesbian” either privately or publicly simply means that they are acknowledging that their emotional, romantic, and sexual attractions are predominantly and persistently towards the same sex. They hold that these words are simple but essential descriptors for a key part of their identity and claim that the adoption of these labels are a way of “owning” their sexuality and facing the reality of “who they are.” Further, they hold that such labels do not interfere with or diminish their commitment to chastity.

While this may be true for some, there are others for whom the embracing of LGBTQ terminology is a stumbling block, for the following reasons:

• It draws them into a more secular milieu, causing them to be more tempted to pursue a sexually active homosexual relationship.

• It makes them more susceptible to embracing the politics of “gay” activism which is often at odds with the Church’s moral teachings, especially in the area of marriage.

• It influences them to disregard or gloss over the Church’s teachings on the inclination to homosexual activity being objectively disordered, because the world often propounds the idea that “all things ‘gay’ are good.”**

The experience of sexuality in all its subtleties and nuances does indeed have a powerful influence on our experience of life and on how we interact with others; however, we would be mistaken to root our identity in those very subjective currents that can overwhelm us and sometimes lead us astray, apart from the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

Courage also considers the example our adult membership and our pastoral outreach sets for young people whose psychosexual development is still in a very formative stage. Premature self-labelling may discourage a young person from being open to the possibility of further psychosexual development. It may also cause a young person to be more vulnerable to confusion and temptation in the three ways described earlier.

This is why Courage considers it pastorally prudent to avoid terms that may be stumbling blocks to others; accordingly, we gently encourage our membership to think beyond the labels “gay” and “lesbian,” while we strive together to grow in our essential identity as men and women formed in God’s image, created for intimate and eternal union with Christ.

This is such an excellent post. Thank you!

The wisdom is lost however to even well meaning evangelizers to youth struggling with homosexuality issues. The claim is that to start any communication with youth, it is necessary to surrender to use of LGB dictated terminology (there’s a list of words and phrases for the rest of society to use and not use in writing and speaking, actually, beginning with “gay”).
,

 

[Rin]

Well, when SMG makes the disclaimer, it seems diluted with her pronouncements to the effect that “gay people generally, vastly, seek or are in monogamous relationships.” This flies in the face of the high number of gay men still being the group getting diagnosed with HIV/AIDS, more than any other group, with a good number not knowing they have the disease, according to the CDC. She may be right about lesbians being faithful in general, not about homosexual or bisexual males, besides the fact that HIV/AIDS is known to spread with the practice of penetrative anal sex which does not characterize lesbian sex.

I’m afraid it only flies in the face of people’s lacking ability to correctly interpret statistics.

Now you are making an assumption that is not well founded. Many Catholics in this forum DO realize infidelity is associated with gay partners, not that the disorder causes infidelity.

No, you are misreading me. I never spoke of “the disorder” (disordered desire != disorder), but of “disordered relationships”, which pretty much implies a gay partner. Which again is exactly what you say many Catholics in this forum “realize”, contrary to facts.

This is why male-female relationships are far more superior pairings than same-sex relationships, as women generally do not put up with men who tend to be promiscuous. If the men wish for peaceful homes and want to avoid ongoing battles with their wives, they do settle into the one-to-one routine that women insist on. STDs are not associated with faithful partnerships. It is said that women have a civilizing effect on men.
,

Wishful thinking. Heterosexual men are notoriously prone to infidelity, and recent studies have indicated they’re even more so than previously believed. Yes, mostly any woman would (for the lack of a better word) freak out if she found out that her husband had cheated on her. But so would most gay men. And in most cases, it seems the affair is not found out; something that surprises me, but the statistics seem to imply it. I think we should realize that heterosexual marriages (even Catholic ones) aren’t as rosy as we tend to portray them; it doesn’t really help our credibility, since people in general know how fragile marriage is.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I will put the quote from the Courage network as to why they discourage the use of the term.

Revealing to someone something about yourself will make you vulnerable. Some may react in a good and healthy way, some may not. But I don’t think sharing what the Catholic Church teaches, especially about the acts, is criticism.

I agree about the acts – though I think it wouldn’t be the first thing I would talk about if someone tells me they’re gay! But the Church doesn’t have any clear teaching about labels.

“Revealing to someone something about yourself will make you vulnerable.”

Sure. But we should not exploit a person’s vulnerability. Many Catholics violate the personal boundaries of SSA individuals – especially online – because they feel like there is some huge moral crisis at stake when a homosexual calls himself “gay”.

But the only crisis is that the word “gay” makes Catholics uncomfortable.

It’s like if your child were to come home and call himself a Communist. The best parents would not bat an eyelash at such a statement, but just ask him what he meant by that. If you ask a self-defined gay man what he means by calling himself “gay”, and he says, “I just mean I’m primarily attracted to men”, it’s best to just move on and leave that topic alone. *Anything else simply **reinforces *the cultural belief that being gay is some end-all, be-all fact about oneself.

The Church does seem behind in getting this out to our youth. Or maybe it was because many youth/adults didn’t want any attention - forget about it - that the other, secular ideas/lifestyles became more prominent.

The reason the Church is behind on this is because the Church has been – wittingly or unwittingly – silencing its best evangelists. There are signs that this is now changing, praise God!

Q. Why doesn’t Courage refer to its membership as “gay” or “lesbian”?

Courage sees persons with same-sex attractions first and foremost as men and women created in the image of God, with a vocation to live a chaste and holy life through an ever-deepening union with Christ.

I didn’t post the whole Courage quote, but I would note that Courage does NOT claim that it is wrong to call oneself gay. Courage explicitly says that it is a matter of pastoral counsel. I agree with Courage that the term “gay” is probably unhelpful, for the same reason that the terms “straight” and “heterosexual” are unhelpful – see Michael Hannon’s excellent article on this in First Things. But my own theological disagreement with the term “gay” is not a good reason to criticize individual gay people for using the term, unless I am in a position of giving pastoral advice, or unless I am very close friends with the person.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

This is such an excellent post. Thank you!

The wisdom is lost however to even well meaning evangelizers to youth struggling with homosexuality issues. The claim is that to start any communication with youth, it is necessary to surrender to use of LGB dictated terminology (there’s a list of words and phrases for the rest of society to use and not use in writing and speaking, actually, beginning with “gay”).
,

I think it’s simple enough for a youth minister to say, “I myself don’t use the terms “gay” or “lesbian”, but I understand that many people do, and I respect that decision.”

Then, once they have a *relationship *with a youth, they can explain why they don’t use these terms. But without a relationship present, you’re just going to alienate people by preaching to them about why something they define as a core aspect of their personhood is a lie.

 

[SMGS127]

I think it’s simple enough for a youth minister to say, “I myself don’t use the terms “gay” or “lesbian”, but I understand that many people do, and I respect that decision.”

Then, once they have a *relationship *with a youth, they can explain why they don’t use these terms. But without a relationship present, you’re just going to alienate people by preaching to them about why something they define as a core aspect of their personhood is a lie.

I honestly don’t see any problem with a youth minister using the terms “gay” and “lesbian” anyway. They’re vernacular now. Any denial of the term is going to come off as snobbery/holier-than-thou to youth. Like “I’m too good to use those words.”

 

[Hopey]

I honestly don’t see any problem with a youth minister using the terms “gay” and “lesbian” anyway. They’re vernacular now. Any denial of the term is going to come off as snobbery/holier-than-thou to youth. Like “I’m too good to use those words.”

Even if they explain why they discourage the term, to especially not lead them to hooking up with secular groups that could lead them down the wrong path?

Where is that attitude coming from, complete disdain, if it isn’t on their terms?

 

[Hopey]

I agree about the acts – though I think it wouldn’t be the first thing I would talk about if someone tells me they’re gay! But the Church doesn’t have any clear teaching about labels.

The Bishops have spoken about this and I was under the impression they are getting the advice from Courage although one did allude to using terms the person was comfortable with (this was in reference to parents but not in general)

“Revealing to someone something about yourself will make you vulnerable.”

Sure. But we should not exploit a person’s vulnerability. Many Catholics violate the personal boundaries of SSA individuals – especially online – because they feel like there is some huge moral crisis at stake when a homosexual calls himself “gay”.

But the only crisis is that the word “gay” makes Catholics uncomfortable.

If it were seen, the none use of it to describe someone, as corrective and helping the person avoid areas that could be potentially harmful, would that change your attitude as to why some do not use it?

I didn’t post the whole Courage quote, but I would note that Courage does NOT claim that it is wrong to call oneself gay. Courage explicitly says that it is a matter of pastoral counsel. I agree with Courage that the term “gay” is probably unhelpful, for the same reason that the terms “straight” and “heterosexual” are unhelpful – see Michael Hannon’s excellent article on this in First Things. But my own theological disagreement with the term “gay” is not a good reason to criticize individual gay people for using the term, unless I am in a position of giving pastoral advice, or unless I am very close friends with the person.

I do believe that the none use of the term is in their life in general, what Courage is asking them to do, not just in a setting with a pastor, etc. because that would be odd to just not use it there ? !

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Actually, I find that she generally emphasises the fact that fidelity or monogamy does not make these relationships ordered. You’re making unfounded assumptions, here.

And she’ll get bashed for it.

However, many Catholics on this forum seem to make the opposite, fallacious conclusion; that the disorderly nature of a relationship causes infidelity and polygamy. It doesn’t. I have seen several studies that indicate that the amount of cheating among gay men in a long-term relationship is similar to the amount of cheating in straight long-term relationships. Men are, in general, lousy at the monogamy thing; I recently also saw a study indicating that back in the days of the “traditional family” (not sure if it was 19th or 20th century), up to 30% (if I remember correctly - the number might be even higher) of children had no genetic connection to their “father”.

That was a study on blood types in part of Britain and the researchers found at least 30% of the children were not legitimate on the basis on blood type alone. They weren’t even doing paternity tests. That study raised a whole bunch of ethical questions.

As has been mentioned before in this thread, the high amount of partners in gay men is usually because there is no sense of obligation to remain chaste before finding a long-term partner. Hence, until finding such a relationship, they are more promiscuous. Once they settle, there is no reason to believe they sleep around more than straight men. I think people play down the rate at which straight men cheat on their wives - it is, and has always been, rampant.

Partners are also more available to gay men than to heterosexual men when you exclude prostitutes.

Actually, the fact that they were straight wouldn’t surprise even a straight guy like me. Do you have any idea how many heterosexual ladies I’ve met who are into gay fanfiction? (Note, I’m specifically citing gay, guy on guy smut here.)

I’ve lost count. Even if you were right to say one shouldn’t assume, you shouldn’t be closed to the possibility that your correspondent is right. I for one could vouch for it.

Yaoi, need I say more?

Here is a link including some stats.
mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/
I am still trying to find the original one but if I remember correctly, I had to pay to view it. So, even if I find it, I may not be able to access it.
If you are claiming that they want to be monogamous when married, and they define monogamous as living with their partner but allowing outside sexual relationships as long as they are not attached to them, then could both be right, because of the way they understand monogamous?

That study can not be generalized to the general populace because it is not a representative sample. When you acquire a sample of convenience from gay bars and HIV/AIDS clinics it is going to skew far more promiscuous.

One more link, and I would bet that Sr used some of these:
catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

And I would say again, it isn’t going and looking for negative things in this group or any. When we are being forced as these behaviors are normal/neutral, a good - good enough - to even redefine marriage - then in the very least it should be examined.

Likewise, when stats are used regarding divorce, the harmful effects on marriage, the hope in the Church is (or so I have been told), something to get the couple to consider to help them consider why it is worth saving your marriage instead of just walking out/divorce.

Those are why they use stats, or should be. Also, it is human tendency, especially with a religious speaker unfortunately, that some will discredit them because they are not married.

If no-fault divorce was such a good, and had no impact on the family/children (as pop psychologists wanted it to be so) then our youth should be the pillars of virtue and we are flourishing with little to no crime etc.

Similarly, considering normalizing ss activity, and making it a good, when examined, it the findings should speak for themselves. It is disturbing to me that some of these stats can not be presented in a public forum, such as school, because it might make a person with ssa “feel” bad. I don’t think they use they same caution for smokers - don’t saying anything about the health risk so as not to make them feel bad.

I do see, the reaction from this one high school - some in it, a BIG need for healing in probably most of these kids who are in broken families. I will say some things I am sensitive to because of my background - that I didn’t choose - but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be said. It means I have more processing and healing to do.
Maybe that is what the parents didn’t like, the realization that their actions have consequences and their family is still in need of healing.

That link has serious issues

I generally agree with this comment. However, you should understand that gay kids don’t compare well to smokers. Gay kids are being told that their identity as a person is bound up in being gay. So there is a great deal of sensitivity needed.

But these kids are precisely the people who need to hear accurate statistics about the risks of homosexual activity.

(Mind you, I question some of the statistics people use, and I *highly *question any portrayals of homosexuals as moral monsters.)

Emphasis on accurate.