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

[roymckenzie]

BLB_Oregon:

If we don’t allow sinners to volunteer at Catholic schools, who is going to work there? The acid test should be whether a person advocates against the teaching of the Church. If someone is in the habit of saying, “Well, the Church is wrong on this or that”, then that is a big problem, particularly if the matter is grave. But if they refuse to contradict the Church, you can’t throw them out because their lives don’t meet the mark or because they are not sufficiently aware of their sins. None of us would pass that test.

Really, are you going to strap the heterosexuals to a lie detector and ask if they slept together before marriage, ever use contraception, fudge on their taxes, gossip, contribute to strife in their families, always vote the Catholic party line (whatever that is) and so on? Half of all Catholic marriages end in divorce. Are we going to send the kids of the divorced parents away, too, until they get their annulments? Of course not.

The point is not are we going to send the kids away, it is, are we going to send the parents away. If the parents have had a divorce and no annulment then they are living in mortal sin and they are advertising for evil. It is my belief that those married folks that are honking around are committing the same kind of sin as the active homosexual. Both the philanderers and the active homosexual are committing grave mortal sins and until they stop they should not be allowed to promote their life style.

 

[fix]

Steve Andersen:

No? How can you make a broad characterization that all of these people here do this and all of those people over there do that?
there is no basis for any of that

I’ve known heterosexual people with very serious mental disorders
Some of whom shouldn’t be around children…most of whom were fine

Once again this vitriol is just amazing

Don’t start judging groups. That way lies a whole lot of problems

It is not about admonishing people for sinful behavior or not

It’s about singling out one particular brand of sinner rather than another

Is anyone saying the heterosexual school volunteers are without sin?
If Johnny’s mom has affairs or if his dad steals from his company would they be turned away? So apparently it is the type of sin that is a concern here rather than sinnfullness in general

The Church isn’t for perfect people, they don’t need it

But the rest of us do

We all struggle with our own demons
Who are you to say that yours are worse (or better) than mine?

IFAIK Works are still a key tenant of Catholicism

I heard a nice sermon last Sunday about the poor in spirit…those who struggle… those who question

My post was in response to posts like the one quoted here. Can’t you see a difference betwen one who sins, privately, admits to sinning and confesses it as compared to a public sinner who denies they are sinning and may lead others into that sin?

Openly “gay” men living together is a grave scandal. It is saying to all that they reject the teachings of the Church and invite others to do so. Why would any parent want their innocent children to be exposed to such a grave scandal?

 

[tom.wineman]

mayanneee:

being gay is not a choice it’s who they are… i hope none of your children arnt gay…not because it’s a hard life…but because of your short sightedness attitude…if they turned out 2 be different 2 u, u may lose part of your family…and that would be a loss…all people no matter there sexuality have feelings and faith…remember god created all of us, not just the straight men and women…all of us!!!

You are suffering from an over dose of rationalism.

---

That reasoning, I was born that way, has been used
**for everything between **bed wetting and serial killing.

---

Nobody is born perfect but it is no excuse to say
my genes make me do it.

 

[AnnieD]

Steve Andersen:

how do you know ther aren’t masochists and sadists around your children now?
that is usually something that people do in the privacy of their homes

who knows? I normally don’t ask people those kinds of questions

IIRC most of the abuses took place decades ago
not in “todays world”
and the incidence was lower than in the general population (which is, thankfully, a small number too)

I don’t see the connection that someone who is a “sexual sinner” is automatically a danger to childern

this preoccupation that some people have with the personal practices of others is…disturbing.

I was speaking about Sadists and Masochists if as a group decide they want special protections by law, as Homosexuals have special laws, even though the original laws were made for people to be treated equally.

With Homosexuals, it’s pretty well known, you don’t have to ask them their sexual orientation…they tell everyone, whether the other’s want to know it or not. I don’t feel I have to tell people my sexual orientation at schools.

I’m afraid that Priests are still abusing children in 'Today’s World. One Priest in our diocese was beaten and in critical condition for
solicitation of a minor. This happened about a month ago.

Annie

 

[fix]

roymckenzie:

The point is not are we going to send the kids away, it is, are we going to send the parents away. If the parents have had a divorce and no annulment then they are living in mortal sin and they are advertising for evil. It is my belief that those married folks that are honking around are committing the same kind of sin as the active homosexual. Both the philanderers and the active homosexual are committing grave mortal sins and until they stop they should not be allowed to promote their life style.

This is the point. Living a public life contrary to the faith and attempting to portray such a life as virtuous is beyond contempt. These people need our prayers and correction when possible, but they do not need to influence our children, particularly at a Catholic school.

 

[AnnieD]

Steve Andersen:

this preoccupation that some people have with the personal practices of others is…disturbing.

Don’t you find it disturbing, Steve, that we have to know about other’s personal practices whether we want to hear them or not? It is thrown in our faces.

Annie

 

[miguel]

roymckenzie:

…It is my belief that those married folks that are honking around are committing the same kind of sin as the active homosexual…

Actually, it’s not the same kind of sin at all. At least heterosexual sin is natural. Homosexual sin is unnatural and the homosexual condition is disordered.

 

[AnnieD]

“Like nothing is bad”? I don’t understand. I did not suggest at all that the school should not be clear on what Church teaching is or that anyone should be allowed on campus if they advocate against it. I’m suggesting that if only the sinless need apply, the volunteer list will be rather short.

.

When I mentioned that nothing was bad, BLB-Oregon, I wasn’t referring to your post, I was just referring in general to how everyone is asked to accept a lifestyle that is unacceptable to most, or to keep God out of our lives, because of minority views. I’m not ready to accept depravity.

If homosexuals are not trying to push their lifestyle and keep trying for acceptance of their lifestyle, I wonder why they insist on everyone knowing their sexual preference. I don’t see heterosexuals telling schools their sexual preferences.

There are other people who are preying on children too, but like you mentioned they don’t carry a sign, but many homosexuals carry a verbal sign, they boast of it and I don’t think they should be
in our schools as a volunteer or as a teacher.


Annie

 

[roymckenzie]

AnnieD:

When I mentioned that nothing was bad, BLB-Oregon, I wasn’t referring to your post, I was just referring in general to how everyone is asked to accept a lifestyle that is unacceptable to most, or to keep God out of our lives, because of minority views. I’m not ready to accept depravity.

If homosexuals are not trying to push their lifestyle and keep trying for acceptance of their lifestyle, I wonder why they insist on everyone knowing their sexual preference. I don’t see heterosexuals telling schools their sexual preferences.

There are other people who are preying on children too, but like you mentioned they don’t carry a sign, but many homosexuals carry a verbal sign, they boast of it and I don’t think they should be
in our schools as a volunteer or as a teacher.


Annie

 

[Lisa_N]

AnnieD:

When I mentioned that nothing was bad, BLB-Oregon, I wasn’t referring to your post, I was just referring in general to how everyone is asked to accept a lifestyle that is unacceptable to most, or to keep God out of our lives, because of minority views. I’m not ready to accept depravity.

If homosexuals are not trying to push their lifestyle and keep trying for acceptance of their lifestyle, I wonder why they insist on everyone knowing their sexual preference. I don’t see heterosexuals telling schools their sexual preferences.

There are other people who are preying on children too, but like you mentioned they don’t carry a sign, but many homosexuals carry a verbal sign, they boast of it and I don’t think they should be
in our schools as a volunteer or as a teacher.


Annie

Both you and fix have hit the issue spot on. The problem with trying to compare an ‘out and open’ homosexual with someone who may be contracepting or have engaged in extramarital sex in the past is that it’s not being paraded in front of us with the demand that we accept this IMO unnatural viewpoint as legitimate. I would also expect someone who is out and open about their heterosexual sins to be rejected from Catholic school participation. If a parent started extolling the wonders of masturbation or extramarital affairs, I would expect as much of an objection as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch the soccer match.

It’s not simply that a sin is being committed. BLB Oregon is right, if we had to cast out all sinners the halls of the school would be deserted. However with respect to other sins, they are not being proudly paraded in front of the rest of the world. Do we REALLY have a need to know what you are doing in your bedroom? I call this way too much sharing.

Lisa N

 

[roymckenzie]

Lisa N:

Both you and fix have hit the issue spot on. The problem with trying to compare an ‘out and open’ homosexual with someone who may be contracepting or have engaged in extramarital sex in the past is that it’s not being paraded in front of us with the demand that we accept this IMO unnatural viewpoint as legitimate. I would also expect someone who is out and open about their heterosexual sins to be rejected from Catholic school participation. If a parent started extolling the wonders of masturbation or extramarital affairs, I would expect as much of an objection as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch the soccer match.

It’s not simply that a sin is being committed. BLB Oregon is right, if we had to cast out all sinners the halls of the school would be deserted. However with respect to other sins, they are not being proudly paraded in front of the rest of the world. Do we REALLY have a need to know what you are doing in your bedroom? I call this way too much sharing.

Lisa N

My friend I mostly agree with you except in that there are hetrosexual individuals that parade their sins around as do the homosexuals. Those individuals are the ones that are shack-ups or divorce and remarriage, both of which are putting their sins in our faces.

Before I get flamed, I am not saying their kids should not be in Catholic schools I am saying they the parents should not workin or openly help the schools.

 

[katherine2]

roymckenzie:

My friend I mostly agree with you except in that there are hetrosexual individuals that parade their sins around as do the homosexuals. Those individuals are the ones that are shack-ups or divorce and remarriage, both of which are putting their sins in our faces.

Before I get flamed, I am not saying their kids should not be in Catholic schools I am saying they the parents should not workin or openly help the schools.

Amen.

Unfortunately, soem self-describe “orthodox” Catholics will go after gays with full force but give mushy-mushy defenses of those who have married outside the Church.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Amen.

Unfortunately, soem self-describe “orthodox” Catholics will go after gays with full force but give mushy-mushy defenses of those who have married outside the Church.

I agree. Any public scandal should be avoided. Innocent children do not need to be compromised in anyway, especially at a Catholic school. If one displays attitudes, or behaviors, that are contrary to the faith, they have no place in a Catholic school. This should be common understanding among those charged with raising our children in the faith, but it is not always so.

 

[Almeria]

roymckenzie:

My friend I mostly agree with you except in that there are hetrosexual individuals that parade their sins around as do the homosexuals. Those individuals are the ones that are shack-ups or divorce and remarriage, both of which are putting their sins in our faces.

Before I get flamed, I am not saying their kids should not be in Catholic schools I am saying they the parents should not workin or openly help the schools.

Roy, I think you missed one of the points Lisa made in the post you quoted. She said:

I would also expect someone who is out and open about their heterosexual sins to be rejected from Catholic school participation. If a parent started extolling the wonders of masturbation or extramarital affairs, I would expect as much of an objection as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch the soccer match.

So I think you guys are actually in agreement.

 

[katherine2]

I would also expect someone who is out and open about their heterosexual sins to be rejected from Catholic school participation. If a parent started extolling the wonders of masturbation or extramarital affairs, I would expect as much of an objection as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch the soccer match.

Just to make sure the comparision is of clear equivalents, it would be the same as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch a soccer match as if George and wifey #2 whom he married outside the church showed up arm in arm.

 

[miguel]

katherine2:

Just to make sure the comparision is of clear equivalents, it would be the same as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch a soccer match as if George and wifey #2 whom he married outside the church showed up arm in arm.

Unrepentant fornicators, adulterers, and homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. In that respect, there is a certain equivalency. But as to the condition of mental health, further distinctions need to be made. Otherwise bad policy results.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Just to make sure the comparision is of clear equivalents, it would be the same as if Bob and Steve showed up arm in arm to watch a soccer match as if George and wifey #2 whom he married outside the church showed up arm in arm.

There you go again. Show me Catholic doctrine that claims a second marriage (outside the church) is the moral and behavioral equivalent to active homosexuality. You cannot equate the two. Well YOU can but I don’t think you will get much support.

Lisa N

 

[BLB_Oregon]

fix:

I agree. Any public scandal should be avoided. Innocent children do not need to be compromised in anyway, especially at a Catholic school. If one displays attitudes, or behaviors, that are contrary to the faith, they have no place in a Catholic school. This should be common understanding among those charged with raising our children in the faith, but it is not always so.

Okay, but why are we restricting ourselves to sexual transgressions? When Jesus talked about separating the sheep from the goats, sex did not come up. That is not to say sexual sin is unimportant, but rather that there is some danger on fixating on a sin that poses no temptation to us, while failing to notice other sins that we are jaded to… and which, therefore, no longer “scandalize” us. We end up teaching kids that it is okay to be complacent to our own sins–go ahead and ignore that part of the Gospel, it’s not realistic!–as long as we oppose the “hot button” sins of others.

If a sin isn’t something that would get you put out of the Church, let’s not use it to put someone out of the schools. We don’t have second-class citizens in the Church. There are only sinners that are willing to accept the call, even when they fail to answer it, and those that deny that the call has been made. That’s all. Except for issues of safety and not providing a near occasion of sin, leave it at that.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

fix:

I agree. Any public scandal should be avoided. Innocent children do not need to be compromised in anyway, especially at a Catholic school. If one displays attitudes, or behaviors, that are contrary to the faith, they have no place in a Catholic school. This should be common understanding among those charged with raising our children in the faith, but it is not always so.

Okay, but why are we restricting ourselves to sexual transgressions? When Jesus talked about separating the sheep from the goats, sex did not come up. That is not to say sexual sin is unimportant, but rather that there is some danger on fixating on a sin that poses no temptation to us, while failing to notice other sins that we are jaded to… and which, therefore, no longer “scandalize” us. We end up teaching kids that it is okay to be complacent to our own sins–go ahead and ignore that part of the Gospel, it’s not realistic!–as long as we oppose the “hot button” sins of others.

If a sin isn’t something that would get you put out of the Church, let’s not use it to put someone out of the schools. We don’t have second-class citizens in the Church. There are only sinners that are willing to accept the call, even when they fail to answer it, and those that deny that the call has been made. That’s all. After that, keep it to safety issues.

 

[fix]

BLB_Oregon:

Okay, but why are we restricting ourselves to sexual transgressions?

We have not. Grave public sin, of any type, should not intentionally be paraded in a Catholicschool.

but rather that there is some danger on fixating on a sin that poses no temptation to us

I do not think that is the point. Exposing others to such depraved sin is the issue, particularly those in their formative years.

while failing to notice other sins that we are jaded to…

I see this as a false charge. Never have I read anyone hear claiming their sins should be overlooked. The DIFFERENCE is that faithful folks accept they sin, confess it, try to ammend their lives and tell others to not fall as they have. The public homosexuals claim they are not sinning, that those that say they are sinning are anti Christian and are not as loving as they are. That is the authentic charge of Phariseeism. One group claiming to be holier than the rest, all the while engaging in sinful hypocrisy. That is the “gay” agenda. Those that push the gay agenda are the authentic Pharisees of today.

We end up teaching kids that it is okay to be complacent to our own sins–go ahead and ignore that part of the Gospel, it’s not realistic!–as long as we oppose the “hot button” sins of others.

Where have you read anyone espousing such notions?

If a sin isn’t something that would get you put out of the Church, let’s not use it to put someone out of the schools.

Leading someone into sin is a grave offense. Whether the Church issues a public excommunication is not the issue. Should you tell your kids not to stay out of a crack house becuase the Church has not excomunicated those crack users and dealers?

We don’t have second-class citizens in the Church.

True, but we do know error has no rights. No one has a right to teach error or lead another into sin. Are you arguing public wife swappers should be lunch mothers? What about the president of planned parenthood? Can He or she be a volunteer to teach CCD?