Should active homosexuals be allowed to volunteer or work at Catholic Schools?

[miguel]

sweetchuck:

I understand the argument, and I am impressed with your reasoning capabilities as a 16-year-old. I disagree however.

Please understand I’m not a 16 year old. I was putting myself in the shoes of one for the sake of discussion. I’m one of those older, more experienced drivers.

sweetchuck:

I don’t think anyone can make the argument that chaste homosexuals are any more likely to molest children than chaste married couples because there simply is NO data either way. The reverse of that is that I cannot definitively argue that they are equally or less likely than chaste married couples …because there simply is NO data.

To claim one is a chaste homosexual is the same as claiming one is a good driving 16 year old. If I’m a policy maker, concerned with reducing my risk, I can’t go by the claims of individuals. I have no way to verify what they tell me. The best I can do is look at the risk of their group. And there is plenty of data for the homosexual group relative to other groups. And since the homosexual condition is defined as a disorder by Church teaching, all homosexuals belong to the group, chaste or not.

sweetchuck:

But, being a person with a degree in Psychology and knowing what I know about the human condition, a great number of people live with mental disorders. And very few are untreatable. So, successful treatments are available. Study after study has shown that with a wide range of mental disorders, no treatment is bad, drug therapy is better, behavioral therapy is better than that, and a combination of drug therapy and behavioral therapy is the most successful form of treatment. But, in many, many cases, behavioral therapy is sufficient to cure many disorders.

Now, you’ll find no study on chaste homosexuals, and there’ll be no homosexual pill, such things are taboo in today’s culture, BUT Courage and other support groups would more than adequately serve as behavioral therapy. When taken in combination with a strict regimen of regular confession (also a form of behavioral counseling) and the Eucharist, through whom any may be healed if God wills, you have a blueprint for success.

No doubt real cures are possible. But again, who can policy makers trust to make that assessment about individuals? For political reasons, the American Psychiatric Association removed the homosexual condition from its official list of mental health disorders. The tragedy here is that people who really want to be cured have a tough time finding treatment for a disorder that isn’t recognised as such. And even therapists who ignore the dictates of their profession and try to offer treatment do not report 100% success. So here again, we’re back to risk management.

sweetchuck:

Now, I understand everyone’s fear, and people should actively fear the thought of leaving their children around practicing homosexuals, not because they’re more likely to be a pedophile, but because they are living in a state of mortal sin. But anyone living in a state of mortal sin is a danger to children.

The risks are different for different groups.

sweetchuck:

But I’m telling you, homosexuals can be cured, no matter what practicing homosexuals and liberal apologists will say. Maybe this could be an uncomfortable situation for parents, but we need to be a people who gives hope to those struggling with such a weighty temptation. Telling them, “you’re cured but we don’t trust you,” just doesn’t cut it.

I just wish some professionals would have the chutzpa to do a real study on recovering homosexuals. That would surely make my argument much more reasonable, because my premise hinges on faith that Christ heals the afflicted human condition. And science, which Christ created, would surely confirm that.

Your arguement is not unreasonable. If we had a reliable way to ascertain that a person is cured of this condition, then that person is no longer in the risk group. Until then we have to do the best we can to manage the risk and protect the kids.

 

[Fiat]

katherine2:

You express an opinion I have found in too many irresponsible men.

As much as you would like to justify this immoral behavior, it is not natural. Nature unites a man and women for life. It is not natural for a man to leave his wife and children and take up with another women, even if the state allows divorce and remarriage.

I’m more than a little scandalized that my ‘conservative’ catholic friends are so weak or dissenting on this issue. I guess its all about whose ox is being gored.

Katherine2:

Perhaps you need to correct St. Paul then, as well.

My response gives no indication at all that I think adultery is justifiable. And, so that there is no misunderstanding, let me clearly state that Adultery IS NOT justifiable. You’ll have to explain your logic here for me because I’m having a difficult time understanding why you think my statement about male-female sex being natural and homosexual sex being unnatural somehow mitigates adultery.

Secondly, why do you label me as a ‘conservative’ Catholic. I’ve never described myself that way, and you certainly don’t know me or my positions on any number of subjects. I’ve always considered myself to be quite progressive. Perhaps that’s why I like you.

Finally, I’m still curious as to why you think the category of “sins that cry to heaven” is not Catholic teaching, in spite of clear references in the catechism to these sins.

Fiat

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Lisa, in all honesty, I’m more than a little suprised and aghast at your liberalism here.

BAHAHAHAHA! Well Katherine2 you’ve called me a lot of incorrect things but a LIBERAL??? Oh my I can hardly type I am laughing so hard. Katherine2 I am a conservative. You know one of those right wingers.

katherine2:

it is NOT natural for a woman to abandon the child in her womb and it is not natural for a man to abandon his wife and children when the children are outside the womb.

HELLLLOOOOOO Katherie2…WHEN did this discussion turn into something regarding abortion? I’ve noticed that you throw in a few red herrings when you cannot address the actual issue. Good try but didn’t work. Frankly I think it is totally unnatural for a woman to abort her child. But I have not seen mention of this anywhere in the thread so where in heck did that come from?

As to natural for men to abandon their children, you stated that it is NATURAL for a man and woman to be married for their natural lives.Nothing about children. I suggested that it’s not NATURE that creates the stability if not the pressure to marry and remain married, but rather religion, society, tradition. There are many societies, particularly those without a strong religious base that rather disdain marriage. Take a look at some of the Scandinavian countries for example. Something like 80% of children are born to an unmarried woman. Same thing here for some communities, for example the African American community has a 70% rate of births to unmarried mothers. So again I don’t think that it’s NATURAL to stay married but it’s a good thing many of us do.

katherine2:

However, I have to say I am scandalized by your “Peter Damian” view of gay people and your “St. Alphonse” view of men who run out on their families. it sthe inconsistency that is the cause of the scandal.

I dunno Katherine2, I suspect you don’t scandalize that easily. And one more time I did not say men run out on their families, I said it is not necessarily nature that keeps people MARRIED for their natural lives. Hope you can sort this out this time.

Lisa N (NOT a liberal and do not play one on the internet)

 

[roymckenzie]

plaguemidman88:

very good point. Turning away a homosexual is the same thing as turning a person away someone who practices sex out of wedlock. Because if you actually look up the chruches standpoint the argument against homosexuality is that they are using sex or their sexuality for something other then creating life. So if you turn away homosexuals you have to turn away every teenager whos ever had sex, and adult whos ever had sex without being married so you cant do a double standard on this.

A couple of problems here. First if you know they are a gay couple they are public with the sin and until they stop becoming a couple they are living in mortal sin. If a teenaged boy were to honk around with some girl, that would be a sin, once confessed he is no longer in a state of sin. If a guy gets a divorce from his wife then marries his secretary he is in mortal sin as long as he is with the second wife or the first wife is still alive. The only way it will no longer be a sin is if he were to confess and stop living as though he were married to the second woman.

  Do you see the difference the boy who honks around is not living a public sin even though it is a sin that hurts everyone by diminishing the Church.  The man who is in a homosexual union or the man who is remarried while his first wife still lives are committing a public sin.  The public sin is the greater sin in that it diminishes the people of God by being an advertisement for disordered behavior.  Neither the homosexual couple or the adulterous couple should be allowed to influence our children. 

  Don’t people see there are enough negative influences on our children without authority figures (adults within the church) demonstrating unordered behavior.  We need to protect our children as much as possible from all sin.

 

[Pious_Redeemer]

Should active (practicing) homosexuals be allowed to volunteer or work at Catholic Schools ?

Of course they can! How can their sexual orientation have anything to do with their work? They know they are working in a Catholic school! So I’m
pretty sure they won’t show their sexual nature to the students.

 

[Pious_Redeemer]

Should active (practicing) homosexuals be allowed to volunteer or work at Catholic Schools ?

Of course they can! How can their sexual orientation have anything to do with their work? They know they are working in a Catholic school! So I’m
pretty sure they won’t show their sexual nature to the students.

 

[roymckenzie]

Lisa N:

Katherine2 the CHURCH may decree that man and woman are to remain together for life but there is nothing inherently natural about it is there? If it were ‘natural’ (in our nature) to bond for life without the fetters of Church teachings or legalities, would we even NEED such things? It may well be more natural for human pair bonds to be transitory and thus the structures of society are needed to help keep them together. Look at how many people will risk all to get out of a marriage, to have an affair, to have a series of sexual partners. I think that is sadly more ‘natural’ then two people committed for life.

Yes you can point to the Church’s teaching but I don’t think nature is really the ruling party here.

Lisa N

Lisa my beautiful friend, the point is the natural law is God’s law. That is what separates us from the animals; animals can not violate their nature. The natural laws that God wrote on our hearts, charity, love, respect, honor, courage, etc… are things we can reject. All men have love written on their heart, it is man’s natural state to love. I am sure you have met people devoid of love this would be an example of man living in an unnatural state. Man is called to have only one wife and man is not called to engage in the marital act with another man those acts are both man living outside man’s natural state. Man’s natural state is the state God intended man to live in from the beginning.

 

[roymckenzie]

Pious Redeemer:

Of course they can! How can their sexual orientation have anything to do with their work? They know they are working in a Catholic school! So I’m
pretty sure they won’t show their sexual nature to the students.

That is easy as practicing homosexuals they are in a public state of mortal sin. Anyone in a public state of mortal sin should not be influencing our children. When you are in a state of mortal sin you have separated yourself from God. When you are in a public state of mortal sin you have publicly separated your self from God. When you have publicly separated yourself from God you are a walking billboard for the enemy.

 

[Pious_Redeemer]

“Hate the sin, love the Sinner, remember?”

 

[Lisa_N]

roymckenzie:

Lisa my beautiful friend, the point is the natural law is God’s law. That is what separates us from the animals; animals can not violate their nature. The natural laws that God wrote on our hearts, charity, love, respect, honor, courage, etc… are things we can reject. All men have love written on their heart, it is man’s natural state to love. I am sure you have met people devoid of love this would be an example of man living in an unnatural state. Man is called to have only one wife and man is not called to engage in the marital act with another man those acts are both man living outside man’s natural state. Man’s natural state is the state God intended man to live in from the beginning.

Roymkenzie, quite honestly I think both you and Katherine2 have misinterpreted what I have said. I think you are right that God has written these things on our hearts BUT without God, would we be the same? I think we are all “naturally” sinful but with God’s help we can overcome our sinful nature. Do you honestly think that most people would live in a permanent one man/one woman monogamous state without God? Without religion? Without societal pressure and tradition? I really do not and I think there is strong evidence to back me up.

If you look at societies that have rejected God, you will find that they do NOT marry and live in a monogamous state for their natural lives. I pointed out several societies where this is very clearly true. Go to Scandinavia and the GOVERNMENT has taken over the role of ‘father’ with most mothers having children out of wedlock. Our own African American community is sadly in the same state. God has been rejected and people depend on the largesse of the government to support their children. Katherine2’s tossing in the red herring of abortion is yet another place where the rejection of God has created a bizarre and horrendous result.

I do think we agree but maybe I’m a bit more skeptical than you. I think we are naturally rather selfish, self aborbed creatures who need God to be truly human. Without Him we are as you said, nothing more than animals, and frankly that’s an insult to animals that generally do not kill their young.

Lisa N

 

[roymckenzie]

“Hate the sin, love the Sinner, remember?”

With respect, this is crazy, how is that pertinent to our conversation.
James 3:12:

• Can a fig tree, my brothers, produce olives, or a grapevine figs? Neither can salt water yield fresh*.

I can drop out of context lines from the bible all day but how does that bring us closer to the truth?

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Well Katherine2 you’ve called me a lot of incorrect things but a LIBERAL??? Oh my I can hardly type I am laughing so hard. Katherine2 I am a conservative. You know one of those right wingers.

If it wasn’t a serious issue, I would laugh too. Even more amazing, it appears in comparision to you, I’m the “right winger” on the issue of faithfulness to the Church’s teaching on adultery.

.WHEN did this discussion turn into something regarding abortion?

Havn’t you noticed from your fellow posters? Abortion is to be brought into every topic.

{quote]I suggested that it’s not NATURE that creates the stability if not the pressure to marry and remain married, but rather religion, society, tradition.
I’m aware of your opinion. However, the Catholic Church teaches marriage is based on Natural Law. You are free to think differently.

 

[roymckenzie]

Lisa N:

Roymkenzie, quite honestly I think both you and Katherine2 have misinterpreted what I have said. I think you are right that God has written these things on our hearts BUT without God, would we be the same? I think we are all “naturally” sinful but with God’s help we can overcome our sinful nature. Do you honestly think that most people would live in a permanent one man/one woman monogamous state without God? Without religion? Without societal pressure and tradition? I really do not and I think there is strong evidence to back me up.

If you look at societies that have rejected God, you will find that they do NOT marry and live in a monogamous state for their natural lives. I pointed out several societies where this is very clearly true. Go to Scandinavia and the GOVERNMENT has taken over the role of ‘father’ with most mothers having children out of wedlock. Our own African American community is sadly in the same state. God has been rejected and people depend on the largesse of the government to support their children. Katherine2’s tossing in the red herring of abortion is yet another place where the rejection of God has created a bizarre and horrendous result.

I do think we agree but maybe I’m a bit more skeptical than you. I think we are naturally rather selfish, self aborbed creatures who need God to be truly human. Without Him we are as you said, nothing more than animals, and frankly that’s an insult to animals that generally do not kill their young.

Lisa N

Lisa N, my dear sweet sister in Christ, I feel you are truly a woman of God. My fear is you have fallen into one of the oldest heresy the one that says man is naturally evil. A simple proof that man is not naturally evil would go something like this. Jesus became 100% man, Jesus was 100% God, no part of God is evil therefore man is not evil. Jesus = Man, Jesus = God, God = Good, man = good. What you can not say that man = God, but we can say that Jesus was fully man and Jesus was in no way evil.

 

[Lisa_N]

roymckenzie:

Lisa N, my dear sweet sister in Christ, I feel you are truly a woman of God. My fear is you have fallen into one of the oldest heresy the one that says man is naturally evil. A simple proof that man is not naturally evil would go something like this. Jesus became 100% man, Jesus was 100% God, no part of God is evil therefore man is not evil. Jesus = Man, Jesus = God, God = Good, man = good. What you can not say that man = God, but we can say that Jesus was fully man and Jesus was in no way evil.

Roymckenzie, I don’t see man as evil but as fallen and subject to temptation. I’d like to be strong. I’d like to be perfect. But I know in my own life I’ve been subject to and succumbed to temptations. I think most people are subject to temptations and selfish actions. Without God people are even MORE subject to temptations and selfishness because I think they do not even recognize the consequences of their actions.

God helps us to recognize the fallacy of these temptations and that falling into this behavior will result in misery. I would love to think that people are naturally altruistic, generous, kind spirited and pure of thought. Those who know God, who listen to God, are IMO far more likely to exhibit these traits.

At any rate I think we are hijacking the thread so let’s get back to the subject.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

If it wasn’t a serious issue, I would laugh too. Even more amazing, it appears in comparision to you, I’m the “right winger” on the issue of faithfulness to the Church’s teaching on adultery. .

Katherine2, your mischaracterization of my thoughts and beliefs is getting extremely tiresome. I have said repeatedly that regardless of the sin (heterosexual, homosexual, asexual) if the person is demonstrating sinful behavior they should be prohibited from working with the children. That is the issue. I have not suggested ignoring the teachings on adultery but you apparently enjoy reading between the lines.

katherine2:

Havn’t you noticed from your fellow posters? Abortion is to be brought into every topic. .

Sarcasm is unnecessary. The reality was you were again twisting something I said about a completely different subject to suggest that I support abortion. Since that is so completely untrue, I cannot fathom your objective other than to try to AGAIN mischaracterize something I’ve said.

{quote]
I suggested that it’s not NATURE that creates the stability if not the pressure to marry and remain married, but rather religion, society, tradition.I’m aware of your opinion. However, the Catholic Church teaches marriage is based on Natural Law. You are free to think differently .

Katherine2 please read the words. I said NATURE is not to be credited with the initiation and support of lifelong marriage and monogamy. NATURE is not the same as Natural Law.

Lisa N

 

[Kevin_Walker]

katherine2:

No, but a lot male heterosexuals.

Is there a male heterosexual nationwide organization equivalent to N.A.M.B.L.A. which wants to lower the age of consent for girls?

The answer is no!

Pedephilia falls under the aegis of HOMOSEXUALITY.

 

[fix]

roymckenzie:

A couple of problems here. First if you know they are a gay couple they are public with the sin and until they stop becoming a couple they are living in mortal sin. If a teenaged boy were to honk around with some girl, that would be a sin, once confessed he is no longer in a state of sin. If a guy gets a divorce from his wife then marries his secretary he is in mortal sin as long as he is with the second wife or the first wife is still alive. The only way it will no longer be a sin is if he were to confess and stop living as though he were married to the second woman.

Do you see the difference the boy who honks around is not living a public sin even though it is a sin that hurts everyone by diminishing the Church. The man who is in a homosexual union or the man who is remarried while his first wife still lives are committing a public sin. The public sin is the greater sin in that it diminishes the people of God by being an advertisement for disordered behavior. Neither the homosexual couple or the adulterous couple should be allowed to influence our children.

Don’t people see there are enough negative influences on our children without authority figures (adults within the church) demonstrating unordered behavior. We need to protect our children as much as possible from all sin.

Thank you for summing up the thread nicely. This is what the Church tells us. It seems some want to obfuscate the situation. Public sin is the issue. There is no right expose children to it. Defending children from it is good and right. Claiming it is discriminatory, or not loving the sinner, is to not comprehend the magnitude and nature of the issues we are all apeaking of.

 

[fix]

roymckenzie:

A couple of problems here. First if you know they are a gay couple they are public with the sin and until they stop becoming a couple they are living in mortal sin. If a teenaged boy were to honk around with some girl, that would be a sin, once confessed he is no longer in a state of sin. If a guy gets a divorce from his wife then marries his secretary he is in mortal sin as long as he is with the second wife or the first wife is still alive. The only way it will no longer be a sin is if he were to confess and stop living as though he were married to the second woman.

Do you see the difference the boy who honks around is not living a public sin even though it is a sin that hurts everyone by diminishing the Church. The man who is in a homosexual union or the man who is remarried while his first wife still lives are committing a public sin. The public sin is the greater sin in that it diminishes the people of God by being an advertisement for disordered behavior. Neither the homosexual couple or the adulterous couple should be allowed to influence our children.

Don’t people see there are enough negative influences on our children without authority figures (adults within the church) demonstrating unordered behavior. We need to protect our children as much as possible from all sin.

Thank you for summing up the thread nicely. This is what the Church tells us. It seems some want to obfuscate the situation. Public sin is the issue. There is no right expose children to it. Defending children from it is good and right. Claiming it is discriminatory, or not loving the sinner, is to not comprehend the magnitude and nature of the issues we are all speaking of.

 

[Island_Oak]

sweetchuck:

Look, we, as Catholics, have to recognize the intrinsic dignity of homosexual people. To not employ a homosexual who has vowed to live a chaste life would be extremely unforgiving and discouraging. If they’re practicing homosexuals, they’re not in the right spiritual state to have influence over children. But it would do children good to be around a homosexual person who has given his or her life to Christ through chastity. If these people are shunned, no one will know they exist, and God forbid if your own children are confronted with this temptation, they will have no role model to show them how to live chaste lives. We cannot be people of hatred. We must be forgiving. Chaste homosexuals should not be pushed aside. Practicing homosexuals will lead others into sin. Chaste homosexuals fight a winning battle against it.

Well put. I think many of us, if we are honest, still struggle with a lingering bias, fear, whatever you call it, when it comes to dealing with and accepting homosexuals ourselves–much less when interacting with our children. I can’t imagine the burden they face in following the Church’s teaching and its requirement of life-long chastity. Anyone who sincerely attempts to conform to that standard out of obedience to and love for the Church because of their sexual orientation has my respect.

 

[Brad]

Fiat:

It is also a “sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.” Katherine2 suggests that this isn’t a Catholic teaching. Why she says this, I’m not sure. After all, the catechism uses this phrase. Does Katherine2 think this is not Catholic teaching because this is the way the sin was classified in the Old Testament? Based on that logic, does this mean that the 10 commandments are also not Catholic teaching?

Fiat

Not quite sure. I’m afraid the influence of the secular culture and it’s persuasive appeal has at least a partial impact.