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

  • Thread starter Thread starter St.Claire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Kevin Walker:
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? :hmmm:
Click to expand...
:eek:

The amount of bigotry coming from your posts is truly astonishing. These scare tactics to compare homosexuals with serial killers is just flat out deplorable. First you call them pedophiles, now you compare them with serial killers: Why do you hate them so much?
 
Sweetchuck,
Do you have kids?

If homosexuals want to volunteer in the school, go to a public school. People paying for a Catholic Education deserve a Catholic Education. If you want a private school, go to a private school. Just being Catholic does not give you the right to a Catholic Education. If people know you are gay, then there is a problem. If you want to be “chaste”, then do it without sharing your sexuality with everyone else. We don’t need to know. If you want to say it’s whats in ones heart, then keep your sexuality there also. My child does not need to know that one is homosexual. My Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. If one does not agree with that, go to a church that does, Don’t try to change mine.

There is tolerance for everyone except Catholics who are trying to live what the Church teaches.
 
The amount of bigotry coming from your posts is truly astonishing. These scare tactics to compare homosexuals with serial killers is just flat out deplorable. First you call them pedophiles, now you compare them with serial killers: Why do you hate them so much?
[/quote]

What bigotry? Since homosexuals are not a race, religion, or an ethnic group, where’s the bigotry?

Also the above list contains names of all homosexuals, every one! And it was determined by court psychiatrists that homosexuality played a role in the nature of their bizzare crimes, for example please re-read the biography of John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer, they both committed crimes of a homosexual nature as did every one else I listed, all homosexual oriented.

Pedophilia is a form of homosexualilty, so remember that:

PEDOPHILIA = HOMOSEXUALITY is a tataulogy and not an ad hominem attack.

So stop trying to obfuscate reality by suggesting that homosexuality is different than pedophilia or that homosexuals don’t make up the bulk of serial killers.
 
midwest mom:
Sweetchuck,
My Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is a sin. If one does not agree with that, go to a church that does, Don’t try to change mine.
Click to expand...
Your church is teaching unsound doctrine. Homosexuality is not sinful. Homosexual sex is. Homosexuality is a temptation. Temptation is not sin. Indulging temptations is sin. Thus, practicing homosexuals are living in sin, chaste, nonpracticing homosexuals are not. If you don’t like the church’s teachings on the matter, perhaps you should learn more about why the church teaches what she teaches (and telling someone to just go to another church is not an act of charity. Encouraging heresy never should be the resort to people who disagree with you). Don’t YOU try to change what the church teaches, because in this case, you are wrong.

Perhaps what is going on here is mostly ignorance of church teachings on the matter, though not in KW’s case, he prefers bigotry. I hope this will clear things up a bit. From the Catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church; Part III: Life in Christ:
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts [my emphasis] as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts [my emphasis] are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They [refers to acts] close the sexual act to the gift of life. They [refers to acts] do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they [refers to acts] be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. **They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **[my emphasis…ahem, KW!] These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. [my emphasis]
Click to expand...
 
Kevin Walker:
What bigotry?
Click to expand...
THIS bigotry:
Kevin Walker:
Since homosexuals are not a race, religion, or an ethnic group, where’s the bigotry?

Also the above list contains names of all homosexuals, every one! And it was determined by court psychiatrists that homosexuality played a role in the nature of their bizzare crimes, for example please re-read the biography of John Wayne Gacy or Jeffrey Dahmer, they both committed crimes of a homosexual nature as did every one else I listed, all homosexual oriented.

Pedophilia is a form of homosexualilty, so remember that:

PEDOPHILIA = HOMOSEXUALITY is a tataulogy and not an ad hominem attack.

So stop trying to obfuscate reality by suggesting that homosexuality is different than pedophilia or that homosexuals don’t make up the bulk of serial killers.
Click to expand...
You think that since someone doesn’t fall in those particular groups speaking hatefully against them as individuals, rather than speaking against their sins, is justified. Mental retardation isn’t race, religion or ethnic-group specific, is it cool to make fun of the mentally handicapped? You didn’t list gender, do you think discrimination against women is OK as well?

Now, normally, I think that quoting the dictionary to make a point is just dumb, but you clearly don’t know what a bigot is. From Websters.com:

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot

Now tell me, please, where is the part about religion, race or ethnic group?
 
sweetchuck,

you do a great job of taking out of context and addressing only what fits your agenda. I understand quit clearly what my church teaches, thank you. If you are living a “chaste” life, then I don’t know your gay, do I. Make as many excuses as you like.

Do you have kids? You didn’t answer that question? Are they in Catholic school?

I understand the Catholic faith, thank you. I will be much more specific with you since you apparently need that. My Church says homosexual sex is a sin.
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
THIS bigotry:

You think that since someone doesn’t fall in those particular groups speaking hatefully against them as individuals, rather than speaking against their sins, is justified. Mental retardation isn’t race, religion or ethnic-group specific, is it cool to make fun of the mentally handicapped? You didn’t list gender, do you think discrimination against women is OK as well?

Now, normally, I think that quoting the dictionary to make a point is just dumb, but you clearly don’t know what a bigot is. From Websters.com:

bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bigot

Now tell me, please, where is the part about religion, race or ethnic group?
Click to expand...
Well since I am not devoted to my own opinion, and I am not prejudice against any race, religion, or ethnic group, that means I am not a bigot!

I’m glad you mentioned the mentally handicapped because that is exactly where homosexuality is classified! Would you want any mentally handicapped individual flying an airplane, designing a bridge, deciding a defendant’s fate, directing a battle during war, performing open heart surgery, or in any capacity where emotional stability and clarity of thought is required? Of course not, and that is why it is imperative to keep homosexuals as far away from those occupations as possible, to prevent mishap and tragedy!

Please take the time to read this very interesting journal and study the information it contains regarding homosexuality:

narth.com/docs/correctionletter1.html

Thanks to homosexuals infiltrating the Catholic Church under false pretenses and commiting filthy acts of sexual abuse, psychiatrists and psychologists are now re-evaluating the mental health category of homosexuals. Whatever else homosexuals do in society is nobodyelse’s business but their own.
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
…But chaste homosexuals would pose no danger to children…
Click to expand...
I’m sorry. I just can’t let this statement go. The homosexual condition is a disorder with a bad track record of sexual abuse. That fact should make you a little more cautious, a little less emphatic. You don’t know they are no danger any more than I know the opposite. The disorder could, in some cases, make temptations more difficult to resist. The Church has even said it could be so severe that it would be a mitigating factor in a person’s culpability. The less a person is in their right mind, the less responsible for the evil they do. But the less a person is in their right mind, the less comfortable I am with having them around children. You quoted from the Catechism that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. I think the key word here is unjust. The word leaves open the possibility that, in some cases, discrimination could be just. Is it unjust to discriminate when the safety of children is threatened?

I have one other thing to add. Catholic adults, concerned about the safety of their children, should be able to discuss these sensitive issues without being called names. No one likes being called a bigot, even on this anonymous forum. Because of this fear, people tend to shy away from meaningful discussion of this issue, especially in public. But there is a price to pay for avoiding meaningful discussion. And kids are paying it.
 
midwest mom:
sweetchuck,

you do a great job of taking out of context and addressing only what fits your agenda. I understand quit clearly what my church teaches, thank you. If you are living a “chaste” life, then I don’t know your gay, do I. Make as many excuses as you like.

Do you have kids? You didn’t answer that question? Are they in Catholic school?

I understand the Catholic faith, thank you. I will be much more specific with you since you apparently need that. My Church says homosexual sex is a sin.
Click to expand...
And so it does. And I don’t need that, nor do I need your condescension. I remind you that this is a message board, and while I know what the Catholic faith teaches on the topic of homosexual sex, many others do not. And they may be mislead by you, so be careful with your words. And what you said in your previous post in the thread merited correction. You said, “My Catholic church teaches that homosexuality is a sin.” THAT is not what the Catholic Church teaches. (And I take nothing out of context. How could quoting the Catechism directly, word for word, and quoting the whole entry on chastity and homosexuality take it out of context??? Nor will I make any apologies for the Catechism either if it doesn’t fit some sort of ultraconservative mold people want it to have – this coming from me, a very conservative person, despite what people in this forum may think.)

Those are two different statements you made. Homosexuality is a temptation. Homosexual sex is a sin. And I don’t see what your question has to do with anything. Your question is likely intended to undermine my opinion if I don’t have kids at the same time making you some sort of authority source on the topic. Fortunately, the Magisterium trumps your teaching authority, so I instead ask, why would you stand in the way of “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition” (2358)?

Meanwhile, I have more than adequately answered questions regarding my background in posts in this thread. I suggest you read those rather than we bore messageboarders with senseless repetition. You might even understand my points, rather than projecting into my words what you think I think, which probably is not exactly what I think.
 
40.png
miguel:
I’m sorry. I just can’t let this statement go.
Click to expand...
Why not? I don’t think you understand what living chastely means. If someone is a danger to children, they are not truly living chastely. If they are entertaining TEMPTATIONS and turning them into ACTIONS or SINFUL THOUGHTS, then they are not living chastely, now are they? Certainly, discerning a person’s chastity would be a hard thing to do. And I understand that’s what most people object to: how do you trust someone when they say they’re chaste? Personally, I would much rather have a chaste homosexual (who lives a spiritual life, goes to Eucharistic adoration, prays the rosary, goes to Mass and gives his struggles to Christ) as an authority figure over my children rather than some unchaste heterosexual inclusive-language at Mass advocate, “tolerance”-preaching, “Storytime! Lets read Little Johnny Has 2 Mommies” teacher having authority over my children. Who, I ask, is the real danger?
40.png
miguel:
I have one other thing to add. Catholic adults, concerned about the safety of their children, should be able to discuss these sensitive issues without being called names. No one likes being called a bigot, even on this anonymous forum. Because of this fear, people tend to shy away from meaningful discussion of this issue, especially in public. But there is a price to pay for avoiding meaningful discussion. And kids are paying it.
Click to expand...
No one likes being called a pedophile either.

How can you defend KW’s posts and accuse me of jeopardizing children? He’s calling homosexuals pedophiles, as a generalization! He’s even comparing them with SERIAL MURDERERS!!! There IS such a thing as bigotry, you know. And I would imagine that a number of people who have shied away from this thread might agree that a number of KW posts have been bigoted. And I have not called other people bigots who disagree with me, no matter how much I dislike their opinions. I try with the best of my ability to respond to posts in a spirit of Christian charity, but some things, such as calling afflicted people “pedophiles” or comparing them with serial murderers I cannot condone.

Now, I want all people to be saved, including homosexuals. I believe we need to go the extra mile to minister to them so they can, as the Catechism says, “gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” God wills some people to be teachers. Surely, this would be God’s will for any number of truly holy people, all of whom are mortal, and struggle with some sort of temptation.

What would your life be like if you were defined by your temptation rather than the good things you do?
 
Of course, if they are an active homosexual they are not living a chaste life so I should have voted no. My apologies, my brain does not function well in the early morning. It doesn’t kick in until 10 am.
 
40.png
miguel:
I You quoted from the Catechism that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. I think the key word here is unjust. The word leaves open the possibility that, in some cases, discrimination could be just. Is it unjust to discriminate when the safety of children is threatened?
Click to expand...
Great point.
 
40.png
sweetchuck:
I don’t think you understand what living chastely means.
Click to expand...
I understand the virtue of chastity. Do you understand what disorder means? Do you understand that it could make a person less predictable around children? I worry about the disorder a person has more than whether the person is trying to live chastely. Granted, it is a good thing when any person tries to live chastely. No one is arguing that point. But that fact doesn’t change the other fact that a person with the homosexual condition has a disorder. You really haven’t acknowledged this in any of your posts. The Church’s teaching on this is threefold. Most people get it that homosexual behavior is sinful. Most people also get it that the homosexual condition itself is not a sin. But what often gets overlooked is the part that the homosexual condition is a disorder. Ignoring that part is dangerous because it leads to bad policy decisions.
40.png
sweetchuck:
…No one likes being called a pedophile either. How can you defend KW’s posts and accuse me of jeopardizing children? He’s calling homosexuals pedophiles, as a generalization! He’s even comparing them with SERIAL MURDERERS!!!There IS such a thing as bigotry, you know.I’m not passing judgement on KW one way or the other. But it is apparent to me that he is provocatively trying to get you to stop overlooking the disorder factor by drawing your attention to some of its undeniable and extreme manifestations.
Click to expand...
40.png
sweetchuck:
…Now, I want all people to be saved, including homosexuals. I believe we need to go the extra mile to minister to them so they can, as the Catechism says, “gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone here would disagree. But this is really not the point of this thread. Are there not ways we can go the extra mile without putting our children at risk?
 
:banghead: Under no circumstances should active or non active homosexuals be allowed to participate in a Catholic school or anything Catholic. Homosexuals are under demonic oppression, and no child should be influenced by the homosexual or the evil spirits. A great book to read is by an ex homosexual. Mario Bergner “Setting Love In Order” this book is a must read for anyone trying to understand the demonic that a homosexual goes through. The book is Mario’s story of how the lord Jesus Christ healed him of Aids and brought him out of demonic oppression. Please don’t allow yourself to be fooled by the devil.
 
BOBOBIGGIE said:
:banghead: Under no circumstances should active or non active homosexuals be allowed to participate in a Catholic school or anything Catholic. Homosexuals are under demonic oppression, and no child should be influenced by the homosexual or the evil spirits. A great book to read is by an ex homosexual. Mario Bergner “Setting Love In Order” this book is a must read for anyone trying to understand the demonic that a homosexual goes through. The book is Mario’s story of how the lord Jesus Christ healed him of Aids and brought him out of demonic oppression. Please don’t allow yourself to be fooled by the devil.
Click to expand...

I basically agree. And I couldn’t help but notice the sudden influx of homosexual opinion (both male and female) absurdly defending homosexuality particularly in light of all the damage done to the victims and the Church by homosexuals. Those defenders of homosexuality in their use of cant, sophistry and prolix minimilizing the homosexual danger cannot get past the reality that pedophile and pedorast are both horns on the same homosexual devil.
 
40.png
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.
Click to expand...
Where can they work, then? Would retail be excluded as an option? There might be children present there. Why not just restrict them from jobs that have a high degree of solitary closeness between them and children?
 
Lisa N:
Now what in the world does that have to do with whether homosexuals should be working with children? “Unjust employers” is completely a matter of someone’s opinion. I can only imagine your view would differ from mine.

Also how would the Catholic school even know about the person’s employment policies? You are throwing out herrings again. Please stick to the subject of the thread.

Katherine2 you are so quick to call someone on their failings. Take a look at your post and ask yourself it it was either fair or kind or even germane to the discussion?

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Hi Lisa,

Haven’t changed my stagename yet. This could be for another thread but it is also the reason I am not a solid a Republican as some people think me to be. The party platform has it right, for now, on the family issues but needs to bend on issues pertaining to big business abuse of the poor. Now we definitely might want to start another thread on this topic. I keep trying to find a new one to get our minds off the present one.😃
 
Consider where you would find homosexuals in gainful employment today without them working near kids: 1. as Hairdressers; 2. in Real Estate; 3. Morticians; 4. Entertainment industry; 5. Bars & Restaruants; 6. Finance; 7. Colleges & Universities; 8. Construction sites; 9. Fishing Boats; 10. Shipyards; 11. Newspapers; 12. Literature 13. Business; 14. Lawyers

Homosexuals have done quite well for themselves in these occupations without gravitating to Catholic schools to teach.
 
40.png
goofyjim:
Where can they work, then? Would retail be excluded as an option? There might be children present there. Why not just restrict them from jobs that have a high degree of solitary closeness between them and children?
Click to expand...
Jim, I don’t think that homosexuals would be excluded from many professions. It’s not the casual encounter with children that causes problems. The serius issue arises when the homosexual is in an authority or power position over the young person. IMO that is absolutely playing with fire and not worth taking a risk. You can look to the priest abuse scandal, the head of the shelter for street youth, or the head of a group home, the homosexual foster parent, for virtually identical results from different professions. But in each profession the adult had power over the child and threats of revealing the secret were taken seriously.

This is like hiring an alcoholic in liquor store. It’s just too tempting for some and not worth risking the person faltering by giving them too much trust or authority over kids. Now you could counter with not allowing heterosexuals to work with children of the opposite sex and frankly some of these predatory female teachers are really making a bad example. OTOH there is a higher incidence of pedophiles among homosexuals than their incidence in society. So I definitely think there is a higher level of risk.

Lisa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top