Rally at archdiocese backs ousted Eastside Catholic High School vice principal Mark Zmuda

[Brendan]

A fight against other issues such as abortion where we actually have a chance of influencing events.
.

The advantage of being in an organization of over 1 billion people is that the organization can do multiple things at the same time.

It does not become and either\or in regards to attempts to convert the culture.

 

[manualman]

…
Ironically it’s not because the Catholic church has taught them it, but because it’s been quoted by various LGBT movements with nothing short of glee in full form along with one particular quote from the now Pope Emeritus, the one describing practicing homosexuals as intrinsically disordered and morally evil. The LGBT movement hardly needs to lift a finger beyond sharing that here, many of my students are outraged and disgusted by it. A couple have gay relatives, while others have seen the discrimination homosexuals suffer at the hands of the rest of the community at times. They see a minority within todays secular society campaigning for what seems to be equal standing within the law, only to be under what incessant attack by a variety of native and foreign faith organizations

I’m not jumping on you, but you undermine your own point here. You’re so confident that you correctly understand catholic teaching, but you get it plainly wrong in black and white above.

Catholicism does NOT consider the PERSON “intrinsically disordered and morally evil.” We consider the action of same sex sexual contact to be the latter and the inclination to be the former. This is not anything unusual for humans! The temptations to steal or commit hetero adultery are also intrinsically disordered. The very reason humans need a Savior is that Original Sin has left us with scores of instrinsically disordered desires and appetites.

You have an excellent point that society at large for many decades dehumanized and demeaned homosexual people in ways that other flawed and imperfect people (i.e. all of us) are not generally disparaged for their imperfections. Nobody likes gossips either, but few are dragged to their death behind a pickup tuck for it either. But you’re guilty of making shallow associations between general society and the teaching of the church in previous eras. There really never has been a “golden age” where society at large is largely in harmony with the actual teachings of the church. Don’t be fooled into throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.

I suspect the above won’t actually convince you of the veracity of church teaching on human sexuality. But maybe this will be a seed for the future. Watch and see what happens. As society casts off all its former sexual taboos and mores against homosexuality and the situation flips from gays being persecuted and disparaged by society to Christians getting that treatment, see if the outcomes flip. See if the gay community sees drastic drops in its sky high rates of suicide, depression, drug abuse, promiscuity, domestic violence and other self-destructive outcomes. If social disapproval caused those outcomes, then the new social approval should eliminate them, no? (Unless of course, there really IS something instrinsically disordered about homosexual desires, that is.) Similarly, the intense societal disapproval of “homophobes” (defined here as anybody who sees a moral problem with sodomy) should begin to cause those self-destructive characteristics in THAT society, no? Watch and see. Examine your assumptions if the outcomes don’t match expectations.

 

[McCall1981]

Considering most in my community view the will of God as being totally neutral on this topic they now view the will of God as desiring love of himself and acceptance of everyone around them regardless to lifestyle for the most part. (There’s an almost Red-Letter Christian feel on the matter, along with various re-interpretations of situations such as Sodom or the Roman centurion who sought Jesus’s aid).

If his holiness continues to declare people to be pedophiles (and he must know surely that this will make world news and portray the Church as some sort of ancient monster) there won’t be any faithful left! When our infallible leader comes out and says things like this it is calling grave doubt (within the youth especially) other aspects of the faith, his position especially. I’m not questioning the messages authenticity, I can merely see the method and language chosen to disseminate it has done more harm than good.

By all means lets not condone it, I’m not suggesting we start celebrating gay weddings within our parishes. I’m suggesting shutting up and not giving the media/LGBT movements more ammo until, we can actually formulate a statement that does not compromise our beliefs or use terms such as “Pederast”, “Evil” or “Disordered” which non-catholics love to chastise us for using.

I guess my point is that we need to stop looking at it in worldly terms of “success”. I mean, think of Jesus, can you honestly imagine Him thinking “people aren’t going to like it if I say this, so I’ll be quiet about it or maybe change my mind”. Of course not.

Jesus preached the Gospel and people where so very upset by it that within three years they murdered Him. The world has always rejected the Gospel, rejected Christ. It will always reject the Gospel and Christ. Our job as Christians is not to be marketing executives and spruce up our product to increase sales.

Obviously there are things we need to take into consideration in how we present the Gospel, we can’t be hostile or offend people, we have to always show love, compassion and charity to the best of our abilities. And sure, we shouldn’t be running around screaming in people’s faces against gay “marriage”. But what matters is what God has asked us to do, not what people think of us.

Think of it this way. Every culture and time period has some aspects of the Gospel that are easy for it to accept, and some that are hard. For some ancient cultures, like the Romans and the Germans, the idea of a “weak” God that could be crucified in humiliation was repugnant. For many cultures, the idea that the poor were the equals of the rich was repugnant. For the ancient Jews, the idea that the Messiah was not a military/politcal figure was repugnant.

We today are no different. Some aspects of the Gospel are deemed socially “acceptable” by our culture, like helping the poor, etc. Some are deemed “unacceptable”, like being against gay “marriage”. Cultures have always, and will always, pick and choose with the Gospel, because that is the nature of the world. We shouldn’t be surprised that this happens, it is in the very nature of Christianity to be counter-cultural.

 

[Viewer]

I think that could help cost them the Prime Minister spot, although Cameron does a great job answering Prime Minister’s questions…

I don’t know myself, it was certainly not what I was expecting . Eitherway, while it may have alienated older bastions of support (Relgious institutions) it’s greatly increased his popularity amongst other members of society, least of all the gay community.

A more active approach would be just get together with some Muslims and protest and see what they’ll do then.

The secularists in the UK and in Northern/Western Europe come to screeching halt when it comes to Islam with rare exception.

Umm…I don’t know. I don’t recall it that well but does anyone recall that statement on womens rights the Holy See made in coalition with Islamic countries led by Saudi Arabia?

That upset a good number of people, and Islam is getting increasingly criticized itself. I don’t think allowing ourselves to be associated closley with their faith (and some of it’s more extreme aspects) would be that good an idea either. It’s a pickle alright

Most, if not all, Catholic schools have a morality clause in the contract. The contract becomes terminated when the clause is violated.

Those clauses require that the singers not engage in public acts contrary to Catholic teaching.

So by engaging in a public act of entering into a marital contract with another man, that act triggered a personal termination of the contract.

Ah…I think I may have signed something like that when I was employed, although I do know the more recent intake hasn’t. Interesting, lets just see if the courts uphold its legitimacy.

More coming in a few minutes…

 

[GraceSofia]

Catholicism does NOT consider the PERSON “intrinsically disordered and morally evil.” We consider the action of same sex sexual contact to be the latter and the inclination to be the former. This is not anything unusual for humans! The temptations to steal or commit hetero adultery are also intrinsically disordered. The very reason humans need a Savior is that Original Sin has left us with scores of instrinsically disordered desires and appetites.

Ironically it’s not because the Catholic church has taught them it, but because it’s been quoted by various LGBT movements with nothing short of glee in full form along with one particular quote from the now Pope Emeritus, the one describing practicing homosexuals as intrinsically disordered and morally evil.

This strikes me as the basic problem right here. Do they even have the quote correct? WHICH quote of Pope Emeritus Benedict do you keep refering to? Because I think you’ve got it wrong, and need to go over it with your students.

Are they possibly misquoting something from the letter to the bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons?

At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).

In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

I did think this, until I started getting 13 year olds quoting the Pope Emeritus word for word at me. It’s rather difficult for me to call their source biased when they’re technically telling the truth and directly quoting a statement.

What exactly is this famous quote?

Are people disgusted? Yes, thankfully this doesn’t seem to be as well known as Homosexuals being “morally evil”.

Again, people with homosexual temptations are not morally evil. The sexuality activity is. There is a difference and surely students can grasp this.

The Church doesn’t need to accept gay marriage, but it does need to stop ranting about it. When the average gay moans about his plight nobody cares, when Christ’s Vicar comes out and proclaims them to be pederasts and demonic it makes the headlines and makes readers think ill of the church.

Can you provide a link to where a pope said people with SSA are pederasts and demonic?

 

[stewstew03]

Ah, I see, thank you So he may have a viable support case then. It will be interesting to watch this develop.

You may have misread my post – he does not have a viable case under federal law. I don’t live in Washington, so I don’t know what claims he might have under their statutes.

 

[Viewer]

I’m not jumping on you, but you undermine your own point here. You’re so confident that you correctly understand catholic teaching, but you get it plainly wrong in black and white above.

It’s not my understandings that matter here, I’m only parroting what the wider community around me continues to say. I know “the deal” so to speak, and it’s not me questioning Church teaching.

Catholicism does NOT consider the PERSON “intrinsically disordered and morally evil.” We consider the action of same sex sexual contact to be the latter and the inclination to be the former. This is not anything unusual for humans! The temptations to steal or commit hetero adultery are also intrinsically disordered. The very reason humans need a Savior is that Original Sin has left us with scores of instrinsically disordered desires and appetites.

Honestly Manualman, do you think I haven’t tried to get this into the kids heads already? :imsorry:. I can say this or something akin to it as many times as I want, I can get on a soapbox during assembly and berate the pupils for their failure to answer questions in a manner in line with church teaching but do you know what?

They don’t care. They think I am wrong for saying it, as the Church that instructs me to is wrong for claiming that Homosexuality is a manifestation of these sinful inclinations.

I can keep saying it until I’m blue in the face, all it has done so far is scare people away from the Church.

You have an excellent point that society at large for many decades dehumanized and demeaned homosexual people in ways that other flawed and imperfect people (i.e. all of us) are not generally disparaged for their imperfections. Nobody likes gossips either, but few are dragged to their death behind a pickup tuck for it either. But you’re guilty of making shallow associations between general society and the teaching of the church in previous eras.

We might want to sweep it under the carpet but society as you know rarely does. Unless we aknowledge it more it’s just going to keep being used as “proof” we are wrong when it comes to morality.

There really never has been a “golden age” where society at large is largely in harmony with the actual teachings of the church. Don’t be fooled into throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater.

Huh…Whaaa? I don’t ever believe there was. Clearly there have been times in history where even the Papacy wasn’t in line with Church teachings.

I suspect the above won’t actually convince you of the veracity of church teaching on human sexuality. But maybe this will be a seed for the future. Watch and see what happens. As society casts off all its former sexual taboos and mores against homosexuality and the situation flips from gays being persecuted and disparaged by society to Christians getting that treatment, see if the outcomes flip.

I don’t disagree with church teachigs on sexuality for one and I agree with you. Unless we back off our attacks in this battle that as far as the law is concerned we have already lost this will come and bite us in the *** very soon.

See if the gay community sees drastic drops in its sky high rates of suicide, depression, drug abuse, promiscuity, domestic violence and other self-destructive outcomes.

It…actually has dropped, or at least the suicide rate has apparently by 20%. Couldn’t comment on the others.

If social disapproval caused those outcomes, then the new social approval should eliminate them, no? (Unless of course, there really IS something instrinsically disordered about homosexual desires, that is.) Similarly, the intense societal disapproval of “homophobes” (defined here as anybody who sees a moral problem with sodomy) should begin to cause those self-destructive characteristics in THAT society, no? Watch and see. Examine your assumptions if the outcomes don’t match expectations.

I intend to watch with interest, and by the course of action the Church continues to take likely with great sadness in the future too. I believe the church itself agrees that when fighting a war it is best to turn the other cheek if you have no hope of victory. On this topic we do not.

 

[Viewer]

This strikes me as the basic problem right here. Do they even have the quote correct? WHICH quote of Pope Emeritus Benedict do you keep refering to? Because I think you’ve got it wrong, and need to go over it with your students.

Are they possibly misquoting something from the letter to the bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons?

It’s not just this one quote but here’s a typical news article on the matter independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/pope-restates-ban-on-gay-priests-and-says-homosexuality-is-disordered-517522.html

It’s Benedicts instruction and I believe Francis has been quoted by someone else earlier on in this thread.

Again, people with homosexual temptations are not morally evil. The sexuality activity is. There is a difference and surely students can grasp this.

No…They’ve universally taken it as Benedict calling homosexuals morally evil. I don’t think there really is any other way to take it from that statement alone, with accompanying material perhaps otherwise but…

Edit: I’m still looking for that quote, I’ll have to ask someone else where it is if I can’t find it. The Bishops haven’t been shy of calling things satanic however cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/bishop-s-exorcism-quotes-pope-gay-marriage-satan-father-lies.

Would claiming homosexuals as moved by the father of lies (Franics) count? Not actually the one I’m looking for but still pretty offensive.

 

[manualman]

:Can you provide a link to where a pope said people with SSA are pederasts and demonic?

I doubt it. Sounds to me like somebody is twisting the interpretation of some John Jay data in regards to the sexual abuse crisis. It’s a bit of an elephant in the room that nearly 90% of the priest abuse crisis victims were NOT pre-pubescent children of the sort where the world “pedophilia” actually applies (such predators generally prefer victims too young to display significant sexually distinguishing features). Rather they were pubescent boys old enough to plainly be BOYS, not androgenous victims.

This lead to some serious and genuine worries about the difficulty a gay man has in determining if his desire to be a priest arises from a genuine vocation or from perceiving priesthood to be an opportunity to avoid dealing with the conflict between his desires and his faith. It appears that an awful lot of the predator priests were in precisely that position. Contrary to some knee jerk analysts, it says nothing about the likelihood of gay men being sexual predators. Rather it appears to say that a SSA makes it rather harder to discern a genuine priestly vocation from a false one. And nothing makes for a bad priest worse than a false vocation. And discernment’s a hard enough process anyways. Sadly, that Vatican discussion comes off to the reactionaries in binary forms: 1. The Vatican bans gays from the priesthood because they hate them; or 2. Infiltrating gay priests are the cause of the sexual abuse crisis. The world, however, is far more complicated than either of these gross oversimplifications. Solutions are rarely as simple as we (or talk radio hosts) would like them to be.

 

[Viewer]

I doubt it. Sounds to me like somebody is twisting the interpretation of some John Jay data in regards to the sexual abuse crisis. It’s a bit of an elephant in the room that nearly 90% of the priest abuse crisis victims were NOT pre-pubescent children of the sort where the world “pedophilia” actually applies .

Edit: Ack, mixing up my posts here, that was for somewhere else

If they’re not of the age of consent its pedophilia. Most if not all of them were not.

Also, I really doubt this link between homosexuals and pedophilia. Any pedophiles who get caught in secular society are far more often than not hetrosexual. I don’t condone homosexuality, but I don’t think they’re more likely to want to have sex with children.

^Again, another assumption that drives people away from the church. Just saying.

 

[manualman]

Honestly Manualman, do you think I haven’t tried to get this into the kids heads already? :imsorry:. I can say this or something akin to it as many times as I want, I can get on a soapbox during assembly and berate the pupils for their failure to answer questions in a manner in line with church teaching but do you know what?

Well, I don’t know you in real life, so I can only interpret what you write here. And you didn’t say that kids were misunderstanding Benedict to mean that gay people were “intrinsically disordered and morally evil” you said that he DID say that.

If you are as unclear with your students as you are in this forum, it’s no wonder they are so confused.

The very heart of the gospel is the admission of our sinfulness and our desperate need for a Savior. If your kids understand that their OWN disordered inclinations spring from Original Sin, then why on earth would they take umbrage on hearing that other people have disordered inclinations that differ from their own?

I suspect that they are NOT hearing things this way. My suggestion is to teach them that their own first obligation is to repent of their own sins arising from their own disordered inclinations. The church is obligated to teach all, but each of us must first confront our own sinfulness. Where people at large have gone wrong so often in the past is to avoid dealing with our OWN sin by demonizing those who struggle with sins that we ourselves aren’t much interested in. If we make theirs WORSE, we feel better about ourselves and don’t feel much need to repent. From that perspective, nothing has changed. We went from a society that denigrated homosexuals in order to feel good about ourselves, to one that denigrates “homophobes” in order to do the same. Lost in the whole kerfuffle has been OUR sins. The ones that will destroy us if we don’t repent of them.

 

[Havard]

I guess my point is that we need to stop looking at it in worldly terms of “success”. I mean, think of Jesus, can you honestly imagine Him thinking “people aren’t going to like it if I say this, so I’ll be quiet about it or maybe change my mind”. Of course not.

Jesus preached the Gospel and people where so very upset by it that within three years they murdered Him. The world has always rejected the Gospel, rejected Christ. It will always reject the Gospel and Christ. Our job as Christians is not to be marketing executives and spruce up our product to increase sales.

Obviously there are things we need to take into consideration in how we present the Gospel, we can’t be hostile or offend people, we have to always show love, compassion and charity to the best of our abilities. And sure, we shouldn’t be running around screaming in people’s faces against gay “marriage”. But what matters is what God has asked us to do, not what people think of us.

Think of it this way. Every culture and time period has some aspects of the Gospel that are easy for it to accept, and some that are hard. For some ancient cultures, like the Romans and the Germans, the idea of a “weak” God that could be crucified in humiliation was repugnant. For many cultures, the idea that the poor were the equals of the rich was repugnant. For the ancient Jews, the idea that the Messiah was not a military/politcal figure was repugnant.

We today are no different. Some aspects of the Gospel are deemed socially “acceptable” by our culture, like helping the poor, etc. Some are deemed “unacceptable”, like being against gay “marriage”. Cultures have always, and will always, pick and choose with the Gospel, because that is the nature of the world. We shouldn’t be surprised that this happens, it is in the very nature of Christianity to be counter-cultural.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta so wisely said, “God has not called me to be successful; He has called me to be faithful.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Getting back on track to the article.

From eastisde’s own website.

eastsidecatholic.org/

Eastside Catholic has 935 students. 74 faculty.

80 “people” were at the “protest”

Even if all 80 were students. (they were not) they would have been less than 10 percent of the entire student body.

62 percent Catholic. 38 “other”

So it is entirely possible that it is the “other” that were at the protest.

And from the mission statement page on their website.

Guide students by using the teachings of the Catholic Church and loving example of Jesus Christ.
Cultivate true leaders who positively influence others through their example.

Provide students a safe environment with high personal, moral, and social standards.
Expect accountability and ethical behavior.

As you can see the VP violated the mission of the School.

Seems like an open and shut decision.

And it looks as if the “youth” are not as against this as the media would have one believe. But you can bet that it will get plenty of play and spin from the secular and God hating press.

 

[JimG]

Getting back on track to the article.

From eastisde’s own website.

eastsidecatholic.org/

Eastside Catholic has 935 students. 74 faculty.

80 “people” were at the “protest”

Even if all 80 were students. (they were not) they would have been less than 10 percent of the entire student body.

62 percent Catholic. 38 “other”

So it is entirely possible that it is the “other” that were at the protest.

And from the mission statement page on their website.

As you can see the VP violated the mission of the School.

Seems like an open and shut decision.

And it looks as if the “youth” are not as against this as the media would have one believe. But you can bet that it will get plenty of play and spin from the secular and God hating press.

An excellent point. Sometimes a ‘protest’ is less than meets the eye.

 

[manualman]

If they’re not of the age of consent its pedophilia. Most if not all of them were not.

behavenet.com/pedophilia

Yours is a terribly casual definition that loses much precision. Above is a link to a better one. There are enormous psychological differences between someone sexually aroused by a 10 year old and someone aroused by a 16 year old. Both are morally wrong, of course, but the pathology is different.

Those who abuse the pre-pubescent kids are much more likely to self-identify as heterosexual and not have adult homosexual contact (not terribly surprising, since heteros are 94-96% of the population). But those who abuse pubescent minors generally commit abuse according to the same gender preference they have in their adult partners. In other words, a predator priest who abused a 7 year old boy probably would just as well abused a 7 year old girl had the opportunity arose. But predator priests who abused 13 year old boys (the largest victim group, IIRC), didn’t choose boys by accident. They have a distinct preference for male-male sex.

As I said above, the fact that around 90% of the priest abuse victims were pubescent boys had to be analyzed further for meaning. I think the church did a very good job of NOT jumping the gun to the homophobic conclusion that ‘gays are abusers.’ Instead, they looked deeper and found that SSA interfered with the priestly discernment process such that many who did not have a vocation falsely concluded that they did because it provided them with a socially acceptable reason never to marry or date without whispers in a culture that, quite honesty, DID hate gay people. As I said above, the problem isn’t with church teaching, it’s with the fallenness of people. We prefer scapegoating others to repenting ourselves. Always have.

Your students are rejecting the old common culture of hating gay PEOPLE and mistakenly assuming that that culture is equated with catholic teaching. What I’ve been trying to tell you is that catholic teaching has never rejected the gay person, only the behavior. The inclination within the person IS disordered, but so are 50,000 other inclinations we all have.
But as I said, everybody likes a scapegoat. Once it was the gays, now it’s the homophobes. Scapegoats both. Reasons to avoid looking in the mirror.

 

[irishpatrick]

Gay Eastside Catholic drama coach announces engagement

king5.com/news/local/Chair-of-Eastside-Catholic-board-resigns-238996821.html

…In the call to the radio show, Merrow defiantly said she planned to go to school Tuesday wearing her engagement ring, the one she got from her girlfriend.

“Either I’ll be fired or the students will say, ‘right on,’” said Merrow in her North Bend home Monday night.

 

[Viewer]

Actually manualman, the law of the land would disagree with you. Anyone under the age of consent is not eligible for sex, and those who pursue it with them are pedophiles by rule of law.

I think the only reason there weren’t more 13 year old girls getting molested was simply the lack of them within institutions these priests were part of (they were gender divided after all, and the girls would have been overseen by nuns). Outside of institutions it would be more acceptable for a male of any calling to spend more time with another male than another female.

But anyway…That article about the coach is interesting. Someone mentioned the school claims to be an equal opportunities employer.

If this is correct this will present a problem for the institution if either her or the former VP choose to pursue it. Two teachers in a row being forced out on sex grounds, even if they win the case rightly or wrongly this is going to look bad for the Church.

Edit: Golly, it seems they’re doing a bad job of handling this already king5.com/home/Eastside-Catholic-resumes-school-protesting-students-will-be-disciplined-238813151.html . I understand the intent behind it, school discipline and all but this is a good example of what I mean when I say the Church is often portrayed as tyrannical. This is going to attract more outside attention still.

may we leave behind any obstacles that divide or disintegrate while we seek the pure, the new – the faith-filled EC community

Gay staff are obstacles to a Catholic agenda/New world order? Yeah, this is going to go down very well.

Is it really that hard to write a statement these days?

 

[Havard]

Actually manualman, the law of the land would disagree with you. Anyone under the age of consent is not eligible for sex, and those who pursue it with them are pedophiles by rule of law.

I think the only reason there weren’t more 13 year old girls getting molested was simply the lack of them within institutions these priests were part of (they were gender divided after all, and the girls would have been overseen by nuns). Outside of institutions it would be more acceptable for a male of any calling to spend more time with another male than another female.

But anyway…That article about the coach is interesting. Someone mentioned the school claims to be an equal opportunities employer.

If this is correct this will present a problem for the institution if either her or the former VP choose to pursue it. Two teachers in a row being forced out on sex grounds, even if they win the case rightly or wrongly this is going to look bad for the Church.

Edit: Golly, it seems they’re doing a bad job of handling this already king5.com/home/Eastside-Catholic-resumes-school-protesting-students-will-be-disciplined-238813151.html . I understand the intent behind it, school discipline and all but this is a good example of what I mean when I say the Church is often portrayed as tyrannical. This is going to attract more outside attention still.

Gay staff are obstacles to a Catholic agenda/New world order? Yeah, this is going to go down very well.

Is it really that hard to write a statement these days?

Legal definitions exist to support the legal system, not the medical community or scientific research. Manualman’s parsing of ephebophilia from pedophilia is not in vain.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Ironically it’s not because the Catholic church has taught them it, but because it’s been quoted by various LGBT movements with nothing short of glee in full form along with one particular quote from the now Pope Emeritus,** the one describing practicing homosexuals as intrinsically disordered and morally evil.** The LGBT movement hardly needs to lift a finger beyond sharing that here, many of my students are outraged and disgusted by it. A couple have gay relatives, while others have seen the discrimination homosexuals suffer at the hands of the rest of the community at times. They see a minority within todays secular society campaigning for what seems to be equal standing within the law, only to be under what incessant attack by a variety of native and foreign faith organizations

I have read much of what you have wrote on this thread and I have not seen anyone yet respond to this so called quote you keep going on about. If you are letting these students get away with using these specific words “**homosexuals as intrinsically disordered and morally evil” **then you are doing a disservice to them and unbiased education you seem to espouse. If you believe this is what Our former Pope Benedict said then you also need an education.
You keep going over this point and it is wrong.
Please show me a quote of BVI saying this in this context.

Shameful

 

[Viewer]

it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Can nobody use google?

Anyway…This is the nicest “version” of it I can find (the positions of “disordered” and “evil” seem to vary between them), so I naturally assumed this is the one you might be the most likely to accept.

Though in this translation he is only describing them as disordered rather than evil, this is still deemed very offensive. It upsets people, it makes them angry.

You can imagine the ones that hear the other version/translation are even madder.

I have read much of what you have wrote on this thread and I have not seen anyone yet respond to this so called quote you keep going on about. If you are letting these students get away with using these specific words “**homosexuals as intrinsically disordered and morally evil” **then you are doing a disservice to them and unbiased education you seem to espouse.

If you can do a better job than me come on over the UK and have a crack at it. I’d wager I’m probably more qualified and experienced in the matter but Id love to hear any suggestions.
Judging from your tone however I think you’d have even less of a chance, and by no means is the education I provide unbiased. I am paid to teach Catholicism and the Catholic world view which is probably anything but unbiased.

Trust me, if I was paid to teach what I actually think or from an unbiased position I wouldn’t be facing half as many problems with their education.

If you believe this is what Our former Pope Benedict said then you also need an education.

He did, and does a PhD in Theology and a BSc in Microbiology not count for much these days?

Shameful

This is why the secular world does not like Catholics And this is coming from one.