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

[Lisa_N]

miguel:

Sweetchuck, you are ignoring the disorder part of this issue. You have not made a case that those with the homosexual condition disorder, are low risk around children, especially boys. And people who repent very often fall back into sin. You are putting their feelings above the safety of children. Big mistake.

I tend to be with Miguel on this issue. When there is a question it should be decided on the basis of what protects children. Really what is the greater good here? Making someone who is struggling with sin feel better about themselves or doing everything we can to protect children? (and this applies to anyone engaged in sinful behavior even if they have repented and are trying to live in accorance with the Church’s teachings).

Now there is clearly a difference between a pedophile and a homosexual. IMO pedophiles should be locked up for life as they are almost impossible to rehabilitate. A practicing homosexual who has never had a predeliction to small children is a lesser risk around small children but again, when children are invovled, is it worth the risk?

Think about it. How many abusive priests were ‘rehabilitated’ and promised not to offend again? Yet they did and that’s why the Church is facing financial ruin. If ANYONE would be likely to be trustworthy based on their training, commitment and religious perspective it would be a Catholic priest. Yet they were sadly all too human and succumbed to the temptation.

I see this situation as the one where the school allowed a (supposedly rehabilitated) alcoholic be part of a car pool. She had the best of intentions but still relapsed with a car full of kids. What was more important? The safety of the children or making the alcoholic feel better? No contest IMO.

Lisa N

 

[AnnieD]

Lisa N:

I tend to be with Miguel on this issue. When there is a question it should be decided on the basis of what protects children. Really what is the greater good here? Making someone who is struggling with sin feel better about themselves or doing everything we can to protect children? (and this applies to anyone engaged in sinful behavior even if they have repented and are trying to live in accorance with the Church’s teachings).

Think about it. How many abusive priests were ‘rehabilitated’ and promised not to offend again? Yet they did and that’s why the Church is facing financial ruin. If ANYONE would be likely to be trustworthy based on their training, commitment and religious perspective it would be a Catholic priest. Yet they were sadly all too human and succumbed to the temptation.

I see this situation as the one where the school allowed a (supposedly rehabilitated) alcoholic be part of a car pool. She had the best of intentions but still relapsed with a car full of kids. What was more important? The safety of the children or making the alcoholic feel better? No contest IMO.

Lisa N

Terrific Post, Lisa!! You made some very good points on protecting our children. You said it far better than I could.
Thanks!


Annie

 

[miguel]

Lisa N:

I tend to be with Miguel on this issue. When there is a question it should be decided on the basis of what protects children. Really what is the greater good here? Making someone who is struggling with sin feel better about themselves or doing everything we can to protect children? (and this applies to anyone engaged in sinful behavior even if they have repented and are trying to live in accorance with the Church’s teachings).

Thanks for the moral support Lisa. My only clarification, and pardon me if I keep bringing it up, is that not everyone struggling with sin is also struggling with mental health issues. If mental health issues are a risk to children’s safety, they should not be ignored.
Lisa N:

Think about it. How many abusive priests were ‘rehabilitated’ and promised not to offend again? Yet they did and that’s why the Church is facing financial ruin. If ANYONE would be likely to be trustworthy based on their training, commitment and religious perspective it would be a Catholic priest. Yet they were sadly all too human and succumbed to the temptation.

This Wanderer editorial summarizes the statistics and asks the right questions…expecially their last one:
thewandererpress.com/b3-11-2004.htm

 

[sweetchuck]

miguel:

Sweetchuck, you are ignoring the disorder part of this issue. You have not made a case that those with the homosexual condition disorder, are low risk around children, especially boys. And people who repent very often fall back into sin. You are putting their feelings above the safety of children. Big mistake.

YOU and those arguing your point have not made the case that chaste homosexuals ARE a danger to children. You have not produced one shred of evidence to indicate that repentant homosexuals are a danger. Not one shred. I say they are not a danger because Christ is God and he is the refuge for the pure of heart. He gives strength to those who seek him. So this molester-until-proven-innocent philosophy just does not fly.

And “safety of the children” is debatable. If they believe there is no such thing as a chaste homosexual, what danger are they in if ever confronted with the temptation?

 

[miguel]

sweetchuck:

YOU and those arguing your point have not made the case that chaste homosexuals ARE a danger to children. You have not produced one shred of evidence to indicate that repentant homosexuals are a danger. Not one shred. I say they are not a danger because Christ is God and he is the refuge for the pure of heart. He gives strength to those who seek him. So this molester-until-proven-innocent philosophy just does not fly.

And “safety of the children” is debatable. If they believe there is no such thing as a chaste homosexual, what danger are they in if ever confronted with the temptation?

The statistics from the clergy sex abuse scandal have been provided as evidence. The overwhelming conlusion from that scandal is that it is predominantly a homosexual problem. And there have been thousands of kids victimized of all ages, 80% male. And you want us to believe there is no risk to children. That kind of thinking got us into this mess. And we’re not going to get out of it until people face facts. The evidence is there. Tremendous damage has been done. And more will follow if we proceed with the status quo. Before you object that the damage has been done by the unchaste, let me reiterate that we have no way to know who’s chaste and who’s not. We are not saying they are molesters until proven innocent. They are risks because they belong to a high risk group. And until more is known about this high risk group, it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

[AnnieD]

miguel:

http://thewandererpress.com/b3-11-2004.htm

Very Interesting article, miguel! I started receiving the Wanderer a couple days ago and they really tell it like it is…no sugar coating.
It’s refreshing!


Annie

 

[Kevin_Walker]

sweetchuck:

YOU and those arguing your point have not made the case that chaste homosexuals ARE a danger to children. You have not produced one shred of evidence to indicate that repentant homosexuals are a danger. Not one shred. I say they are not a danger because Christ is God and he is the refuge for the pure of heart. He gives strength to those who seek him. So this molester-until-proven-innocent philosophy just does not fly.

And “safety of the children” is debatable. If they believe there is no such thing as a chaste homosexual, what danger are they in if ever confronted with the temptation?

Please Note:

**BOSTON: Defrocked priest Paul Shanley today (Feb. 7, 2005) was found guilty on two counts each of child rape and indecent assault & battery on a child in the 1980s at his church. **
Throughout his tenure as a Roman Catholic Priest, Paul Shanley defied the teachings of the Church and argued for the acceptance of homosexuality and “pushed for Gay rights”. Father Paul Shanley had advertised himself as a “sexual expert” in the “alternative press”.
Paul Shanley could receive up to life in prison, his lawyer is appealing the decision.

Homosexuals are a danger to children whether they are so called chaste or not! Shanley never used the term pedephile on himself, but homosexual when he was preying on boys!

 

[sweetchuck]

miguel:

The statistics from the clergy sex abuse scandal have been provided as evidence. The overwhelming conlusion from that scandal is that it is predominantly a homosexual problem. And there have been thousands of kids victimized of all ages, 80% male. And you want us to believe there is no risk to children. That kind of thinking got us into this mess. And we’re not going to get out of it until people face facts. The evidence is there. Tremendous damage has been done. And more will follow if we proceed with the status quo. Before you object that the damage has been done by the unchaste, let me reiterate that we have no way to know who’s chaste and who’s not. We are not saying they are molesters until proven innocent. They are risks because they belong to a high risk group. And until more is known about this high risk group, it is better to be safe than sorry.

argh. :banghead:
Kevin Walker:

Please Note:

**BOSTON: Defrocked priest Paul Shanley today (Feb. 7, 2005) was found guilty on two counts each of child rape and indecent assault & battery on a child in the 1980s at his church. **
Throughout his tenure as a Roman Catholic Priest, Paul Shanley defied the teachings of the Church and argued for the acceptance of homosexuality and “pushed for Gay rights”. Father Paul Shanley had advertised himself as a “sexual expert” in the “alternative press”.
Paul Shanley could receive up to life in prison, his lawyer is appealing the decision.

Homosexuals are a danger to children whether they are so called chaste or not! Shanley never used the term pedephile on himself, but homosexual when he was preying on boys!

Great googly moogly. :banghead:

So what exactly are you guys arguing? Supervised confessions with priests and minors? No alone time with priests and children? No jobs interacting with children: That’s what you’re suggesting for chaste homosexuals as the comparison group. You can’t have it both ways, gentlemen. Are you guys arguing that priests should not be around children at all, even if they claim to be chaste? I mean, according to the logic of your arguments, a human is not to be trusted when his predecessors in similar circumstances have lied. That’s what you’re arguing when you argue for the social isolation of chaste, nonpracticing homosexuals. Don’t trust the individual based on what other individuals have done. I recently read a story in ESPN The Magazine in which a women’s basketball coach who was a male had sexual relationships with his teenage players. Males are statistically more likely to engage in these types of behaviors with minors, male and female. Should only women be allowed to coach women’s basketball? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? But what would it say to men if that was your passion, that was your calling, to teach female teens how to be good basketball players, to give them an opportunity to learn the game and go to college to play their hearts out and do it well? You’re good at it, you work well with the girls and they respond to you. It’s what you love. But alas, you could not coach, because one before you had sexual relations with a player, so men are no longer allowed to coach women’s basketball. You apply for the job and are rejected. “We’re sorry,” they say. “We just don’t think it’s safe to pair young female athletes with a male coach.” They might as well accuse you of being a potential child molester. Imagine the dejection, the despondency, the despair! Where is the charity for the wrongfully accused?

I shall pray very hard that both of you come out of your den of bigotry. If not, you will appear to be the grandest of all hypocrites when you try to argue against supervised confessions between priests and minors or when you try to refute others who argue that priests are a “high risk group” who should not be around children at any time. But maybe you are among the supporters of the “voices of the faithful” movement and the liberal media and 19th and 20th century xenophobic Protestants who all believe that priests as a group are a danger to children. I see a great deal of consistency in their arguments and yours.

cont’d…

 

[sweetchuck]

…cont’d

I have an alcoholic friend. While he was overcoming his addiction, his disorder, his illness, what have you, he could not be around alcohol of any kind. He could not even be around people who he knew drank it frequently. Now, he comes to the bars with us, he hangs out with people who are drinking and there is no problem. This is a person who once drank mouthwash, who once broke into a neighbor’s house to steal beer. And there is no hope for the human condition? Keep him away from alcohol forever? He is free.

I am 24. I smoked for 9 years. I tried to quit many times, incapable of overcoming my urges. My grandfather died in 2003. I vowed to quit for him since he was my best friend and that was all he ever asked me to do. I quit, but I cheated here and there. This past July, I realized I was cheating more and more and more. I realized I was on the path back to addiction. So, at mass this past July, when I took the Body and Blood of Christ into my mouth, I promised to Him, as his Flesh and Blood lay in my mouth, that I would never again smoke another cigarette as long as I shall live, no matter what, and I prayed for strength to resist this powerful temptation. Since that day, I have had no overwhelming urge to smoke a cigarette. Every now and then, I think back to how good they tasted and how much I enjoyed to smoke on bitterly cold winter nights, and it ends there, just a reflection, like smoke in the wind, it vanishes away, but Christ does not. He is my strength. I have come across unclaimed packs of cigarettes and have had ample opportunity to indulge, but that strength that God has given me has prevailed over my urges. Now, I can go to a bar with a group of smokers and not even have it occur to me that I once smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day, sometimes two packs a day.

There are countless examples of people who overcome their temptations with the strength of Christ. We are all weak, we are all sinful, but the Eucharist gives us life. It breaks the chains of our sins and chases away temptation.

Giving practicing homosexuals jobs around children…well, that would be stupidity: they would do much to lead them astray, as anyone in mortal sin is a danger to others.
Not giving chaste homosexuals jobs around children…that’s suppressing the glorious power of God himself and hiding a wonderful story of repentance and redemption.

At some point, a little trust in God is in order.

 

[miguel]

sweetchuck:

…Are you guys arguing that priests should not be around children at all, even if they claim to be chaste?..

Nope…just homosexual priests. Don’t put words in my mouth. BTW, I never said they shouldn’t be around children AT ALL. I just don’t think they should be around them unsupervised.

sweetchuck:

…I mean, according to the logic of your arguments, a human is not to be trusted when his predecessors in similar circumstances have lied. That’s what you’re arguing when you argue for the social isolation of chaste, nonpracticing homosexuals. Don’t trust the individual based on what other individuals have done. I recently read a story in ESPN The Magazine in which a women’s basketball coach who was a male had sexual relationships with his teenage players. Males are statistically more likely to engage in these types of behaviors with minors, male and female. Should only women be allowed to coach women’s basketball? No, of course not. That would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? But what would it say to men if that was your passion, that was your calling, to teach female teens how to be good basketball players, to give them an opportunity to learn the game and go to college to play their hearts out and do it well? You’re good at it, you work well with the girls and they respond to you. It’s what you love. But alas, you could not coach, because one before you had sexual relations with a player, so men are no longer allowed to coach women’s basketball. You apply for the job and are rejected. “We’re sorry,” they say. “We just don’t think it’s safe to pair young female athletes with a male coach.” They might as well accuse you of being a potential child molester. Imagine the dejection, the despondency, the despair! Where is the charity for the wrongfully accused?

Attraction to the opposite sex is not a mental disorder. It’s wise for a coach in this position not to be alone with any of the girls. It protects him. It protects them. Oh, and have a team mom hang around too. I actually coached my daughter’s basketball team. And one of the moms did exactly that for a couple years. I didn’t get all bent out of shape because she didn’t trust me. She loves her kid. And I share her protective concern. I appreciated what she was doing very much. And I told her so.

sweetchuck:

…I shall pray very hard that both of you come out of your den of bigotry.

Ad hominen isn’t helpful.

 

[miguel]

sweetchuck:

…I have an alcoholic friend. While he was overcoming his addiction, his disorder, his illness, what have you, he could not be around alcohol of any kind. He could not even be around people who he knew drank it frequently. Now, he comes to the bars with us, he hangs out with people who are drinking and there is no problem. This is a person who once drank mouthwash, who once broke into a neighbor’s house to steal beer. And there is no hope for the human condition? Keep him away from alcohol forever? He is free.

I am 24. I smoked for 9 years. I tried to quit many times, incapable of overcoming my urges. My grandfather died in 2003. I vowed to quit for him since he was my best friend and that was all he ever asked me to do. I quit, but I cheated here and there. This past July, I realized I was cheating more and more and more. I realized I was on the path back to addiction. So, at mass this past July, when I took the Body and Blood of Christ into my mouth, I promised to Him, as his Flesh and Blood lay in my mouth, that I would never again smoke another cigarette as long as I shall live, no matter what, and I prayed for strength to resist this powerful temptation. Since that day, I have had no overwhelming urge to smoke a cigarette. Every now and then, I think back to how good they tasted and how much I enjoyed to smoke on bitterly cold winter nights, and it ends there, just a reflection, like smoke in the wind, it vanishes away, but Christ does not. He is my strength. I have come across unclaimed packs of cigarettes and have had ample opportunity to indulge, but that strength that God has given me has prevailed over my urges. Now, I can go to a bar with a group of smokers and not even have it occur to me that I once smoked more than a pack of cigarettes a day, sometimes two packs a day…

Alcohol, cigarretes, the opposite sex…these are examples of ordinary temptations. I still enjoy a cigarette once in a while myself. And I know it’s bad for me. The temptations are to over-indulge, or to indulge in ways that are contrary to God’s law. And in that respect, homosexuality is similar. But there is more going on as well. And I’m tired of pointing that out.

sweetchuck:

…There are countless examples of people who overcome their temptations with the strength of Christ. We are all weak, we are all sinful, but the Eucharist gives us life. It breaks the chains of our sins and chases away temptation.

Giving practicing homosexuals jobs around children…well, that would be stupidity: they would do much to lead them astray, as anyone in mortal sin is a danger to others. Not giving chaste homosexuals jobs around children…that’s suppressing the glorious power of God himself and hiding a wonderful story of repentance and redemption.

At some point, a little trust in God is in order.

I gotta tell you. I do trust God and the power of the Eucharist. It’s original sin I worry about.

 

[sweetchuck]

miguel:

Alcohol, cigarretes, the opposite sex…these are examples of ordinary temptations.

Not to an alcoholic. That is a mental disorder.

miguel:

I gotta tell you. I do trust God and the power of the Eucharist. It’s original sin I worry about.

well, you sure aren’t living it if you think it’s so hopeless for recovered homosexuals that they can’t take jobs at schools. That’s a non-expression of trust. If a person tells you he’s chaste and his committment is to Christ, believe him.

miguel:

Nope…just homosexual priests. Don’t put words in my mouth. BTW, I never said they shouldn’t be around children AT ALL. I just don’t think they should be around them unsupervised.

I’m not putting words in your mouth. I believe that action should be taken against priests who aren’t living chaste lives, and they should be removed from their ministries, whether they are sexually active heterosexuals or homosexuals. But by the logic of your argument, priests cannot be trusted because those who have come before them have claimed to be chaste, but have not been, thus jeopardizing children. Statistically, as you have argued, they are a high-risk group. I can’t help it if the inherent hypocrisy in your argument frustrates you.

miguel:

Attraction to the opposite sex is not a mental disorder.

Of course not, but you don’t understand my girls’ basketball coach analogy. According to the logic of your argument, when individuals portray themselves as something they are not, the remainder of the group must be punished and prevented from being in that situation again. After all, adult women are statistically less likely to engage in relationships with teenage girls. It’s for the safety of the girls that men not be allowed to coach girls sports until we know more about this higher-risk group. Do you see how that parallels your argument when you said, “And until more is known about this high risk group, it is better to be safe than sorry”? Now I think the idea of not allowing good, law-abiding men to coach women’s basketball is just plain ridiculous. So too do I think that not allowing moral, chaste homosexuals to teach is equally ridiculous, but on another level, it reflects a harsh bigotry, a gross lack of understanding and compassion, and works to isolate moral people. But again, I can’t help it if the inherent hypocrisy in your argument frustrates you.

 

[sweetchuck]

miguel:

Ad hominen isn’t helpful.

I agree. Perhaps you should talk to Kevin Walker about that.
Kevin Walker:

Homosexual = Pedophile!

 

[Kevin_Walker]

sweetchuck:

I agree. Perhaps you should talk to Kevin Walker about that.

HOMOSEXUAL = PEDOPHILE

---

This is actually a tataulogy, and not an ad hominem attack.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

sweetchuck:

I agree. Perhaps you should talk to Kevin Walker about that.

HOMOSEXUAL = PEDOPHILE

---

Actually this is a tataulogy, and not an ad hominem attack.

---

 

[miguel]

sweetchuck:

Not to an alcoholic. That is a mental disorder.

It is not a mental disorder before a person becomes addicted. The homosexual condition is a disorder whether or not the person is engaging in the behavior. That’s Church teaching by the way.

sweetchuck:

…That’s a non-expression of trust. If a person tells you he’s chaste and his committment is to Christ, believe him.

Kind of like believing that all these homosexual priests who have been ordained would be celibate?

sweetchuck:

…I’m not putting words in your mouth. I believe that action should be taken against priests who aren’t living chaste lives, and they should be removed from their ministries, whether they are sexually active heterosexuals or homosexuals. But by the logic of your argument, priests cannot be trusted because those who have come before them have claimed to be chaste, but have not been, thus jeopardizing children. Statistically, as you have argued, they are a high-risk group. I can’t help it if the inherent hypocrisy in your argument frustrates you.

You most certainly are putting words in my mouth. The risk group I’ve been talking about is not all men or all priests.

sweetchuck:

…but you don’t understand my girls’ basketball coach analogy. According to the logic of your argument, when individuals portray themselves as something they are not, the remainder of the group must be punished and prevented from being in that situation again.

If the situation is male coaches being alone with girls, I thought I said that was unwise. Some youth leagues have policies against that, some don’t. I happen to agree with the ones that do. How is that being hypocritical? I pointed out simple solutions to that problem so that everyone is protected. The same would apply to male homosexuals being around boys. But you are asking for blind trust in their case, my friend. And I think that is especially unwise, given the disorder that they have, and given the sex abuse scandal we’re going through.

 

[Lisa_N]

miguel:

How is that being hypocritical? I pointed out simple solutions to that problem so that everyone is protected. The same would apply to male homosexuals being around boys. But you are asking for blind trust in their case, my friend. And I think that is especially unwise, given the disorder that they have, and given the sex abuse scandal we’re going through.

Sweetchuck I am curious if you find Miguel’s suggestion unworkable? I just think the old saying better safe than sorry makes a lot of sense here. Don’t let people even get into the position where there is even a QUESTION that some inappropriate behavior could take place.

We had an ethics professor discuss making choices when there is no obvious right answer. So consider the chaste homosexual who wants to work with children. How is the greater good served here? IOW is it more important that we demonstrate trust in the person or is it more important that we don’t have to worry about trusting him because he will never be in a position to be questioned?

So either he would find some other job or would set up procedures so he was not alone with a child. I just don’t think this is such a big deal. I am volunteering for a child abuse advocate organization. We are told we are NEVER to be alone with the assigned child. EVER. Now it’s not that we aren’t trustworthy because believe me they screen volunteers rigorously (fingerprints, background checks, multiple references). But their concern is that if a volunteer is ever alone with a child, there could be a question if a child claimed the volunteer abused him/her. I’m certainly not offended by this restriction. I consider it a protection both for the child and for me.

So Sweetchuck why would demonstrating trust in someone who claims to be chaste (a fact that is hard to confirm) be more important than protecting children, protecting the reputation of the chaste homosexual and protecting the reputation of the organization?

Lisa N

 

[Dolores49]

Fact: 1% to 3% is the actual percentage range of homosexuals in the United States population.

Myth: 10% of the U.S. population are homosexuals. This myth was started in the 1940’s by sexologist and science fraud Alfred J. Kinsey.

By using the 10% figure, sex education enthusiasts, school boards, textbook authors, psychiatry, homosexuals, feminists, pornographers, and teachers have you and I spending hours and hours debating whether to give openly gay men access to our children. Well, it’s not that simple, exactly but I’m making a point about the seriousness of the moral decline and spiritual warfare we are in the middle of right now.

There is more at anti-Kinsey researcher, Dr. Judith Reisman’s website www.judithreisman.com

In 1995, Dr. Reisman filed a bill in congress, HR 2749, to determine if Alfred Kinsey’s “Sexual Behavior in the Human Male” and/or “Sexual Behavior in the Human Female” are the result of any fraud or criminal wrongdoing [child abuse]. Kinsey arrived at the 10% figure because in the 1940’s the only subjects willing to undergo sex research were either criminal pedophiles from prison or homosexuals.

Crisis Magazine had an excellent in-depth piece on Kinsey and it is online here: www.crisismagazine.com SEARCH for Archives-May 2004-“Kinsey’s Secret” by Sue Ellen Browder.

Let us not give in - non-homosexuals comprise 97% to 99% of the U.S. population.
Homosexuals I know have tougher skin than you think. If they don’t get hired, I think they know what to do: keep searching for the right job – like everyone else does.

Unfortunately, the militant, radical left-wing homosexual activists and lobbyists have convinced many - not most, I believe - in their own ranks that the only solution is to hire an ACLU attorney!

 

[sweetchuck]

Lisa N:

Sweetchuck I am curious if you find Miguel’s suggestion unworkable? I just think the old saying better safe than sorry makes a lot of sense here. Don’t let people even get into the position where there is even a QUESTION that some inappropriate behavior could take place.

We had an ethics professor discuss making choices when there is no obvious right answer. So consider the chaste homosexual who wants to work with children. How is the greater good served here? IOW is it more important that we demonstrate trust in the person or is it more important that we don’t have to worry about trusting him because he will never be in a position to be questioned?

So either he would find some other job or would set up procedures so he was not alone with a child. I just don’t think this is such a big deal. I am volunteering for a child abuse advocate organization. We are told we are NEVER to be alone with the assigned child. EVER. Now it’s not that we aren’t trustworthy because believe me they screen volunteers rigorously (fingerprints, background checks, multiple references). But their concern is that if a volunteer is ever alone with a child, there could be a question if a child claimed the volunteer abused him/her. I’m certainly not offended by this restriction. I consider it a protection both for the child and for me.

So Sweetchuck why would demonstrating trust in someone who claims to be chaste (a fact that is hard to confirm) be more important than protecting children, protecting the reputation of the chaste homosexual and protecting the reputation of the organization?

Lisa N

As a general rule, no male or female authority figure should spend a great deal of unsupervised time with youngsters. In my schooling, I can’t remember spending this time with any of my professors. But someone who is chaste is not a danger to children. Nearly all practicing homosexuals are not sexual predators. But chaste homosexuals would pose no danger to children. So if the person claims to be chaste, and since authority figures shouldn’t spend unsupervised time with children anyway, I don’t see the problem. Now, when it comes to active homosexuals, upholding church teachings is paramount.

Maybe much of the debate is in the original question in this thread. As I look back, it says “Should active homosexuals be allowed to volunteer or work at Catholic Schools?” Now, an active homosexual can’t be chaste, so the question is confusing. I would be skeptical of someone who says they’ll be chaste in order to get a job. My argument is on behalf of those people who have previously committed their lives to chastity, not for the job, but for love of Christ and love of virtue.

 

[Kevin_Walker]

sweetchuck:

As a general rule, no male or female authority figure should spend a great deal of unsupervised time with youngsters. In my schooling, I can’t remember spending this time with any of my professors. But someone who is chaste is not a danger to children. Nearly all practicing homosexuals are not sexual predators. But chaste homosexuals would pose no danger to children. So if the person claims to be chaste, and since authority figures shouldn’t spend unsupervised time with children anyway, I don’t see the problem. Now, when it comes to active homosexuals, upholding church teachings is paramount.

Maybe much of the debate is in the original question in this thread. As I look back, it says “Should active homosexuals be allowed to volunteer or work at Catholic Schools?” Now, an active homosexual can’t be chaste, so the question is confusing. I would be skeptical of someone who says they’ll be chaste in order to get a job. My argument is on behalf of those people who have previously committed their lives to chastity, not for the job, but for love of Christ and love of virtue.

It does not matter if the homosexual is chaste or not, homosexuality is a mental health disorder independent of celebacy.

Persuse some of these biographies:

Andrew Cunanan carpenoctem.tv/killers/cun.html

John Wayne Gacy carpenoctem.tv/killers/gacy.html

Aileen Wournos carpenoctem.tv/killers/wournos.html

Jeffrey Dahmer carpenoctem.tv/killers/dahmer.html

Ed Gein carpenoctem.tv/killers/gein.html

Richard Speck mayhem.net/Crime/speck.html

And ask: What responsible parent would leave their child in the care of a homosexual, active or not?