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

[Lisa_N]

BLB_Oregon:

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 I don’t think anyone suggests that we only consider sexual sins. But a) that was the stated issue of the thread and b) most of us do not know public thieves, rapists, murderers, etc who are signing up to volunteer in schools. The kind of sins that most of us encounter are probably sexual sins because for the most part they are not part of the criminal justice system. Public sexual sinners do walk the streets, have kids, and volunteer in schools. Further most sexual sin (contracepting, masturbation, etc) is the kind of thing that is not a public issue and unlikely to be obvious to either the children or school officials. It’s a lot easier to identify a couple of homosexuals standing arm in arm than to look at someone and know whether they are having an affair, taking the Pill or masturbating at home.

So the focus on homosexuality in this thread is not because we take other sins less seriously. Rather I think it’s that we really do not encounter people engaged in very grave sins who are signing up to volunteer in schools. However clearly homosexuals are trying to normalize their behavior by infiltrating various organizations such as schools.
Lisa N

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Lisa N:

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

Let’s keep this on the subject of scandal.
The catechism defines scandal:
“Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. (Boldface mine.) The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. … Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is lead deliberately into a grave offense.”

Scandal is not something that makes people go “oh, my!” Scandal is something that makes people go “But, Mom, everyone else is doing it.” That puts these two sins on ground close enough to call even. Which behavior is more scandalous depends on which you are more likely to be tempted to try!

The statistics would seem to show that divorce and re-marriage are at least if not more “catching” than adoption of a homosexual life. There was once a time in which the divorced and re-married were not allowed in to mingle in “society”, and the divorce rate was much lower. That we don’t blink an eye at it now shows how scandalized we really are. As I wrote before, the sexual sins that have less shock value are just the tip of the iceberg. We surround ourselves with deadly sin, and don’t bat an eye.

So, either allow people in our schools that live a life of serious sin, or don’t, but don’t be two-faced about it.

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

BLB Oregon I don’t think anyone suggests that we only consider sexual sins. But a) that was the stated issue of the thread and b) most of us do not know public thieves, rapists, murderers, etc who are signing up to volunteer in schools. The kind of sins that most of us encounter are probably sexual sins because for the most part they are not part of the criminal justice system. Public sexual sinners do walk the streets, have kids, and volunteer in schools. Further most sexual sin (contracepting, masturbation, etc) is the kind of thing that is not a public issue and unlikely to be obvious to either the children or school officials. It’s a lot easier to identify a couple of homosexuals standing arm in arm than to look at someone and know whether they are having an affair, taking the Pill or masturbating at home.

So the focus on homosexuality in this thread is not because we take other sins less seriously. Rather I think it’s that we really do not encounter people engaged in very grave sins who are signing up to volunteer in schools. However clearly homosexuals are trying to normalize their behavior by infiltrating various organizations such as schools.
Lisa N

Where do we get the idea that two openly “gay” men have a right to teach or volunteer at a Catholic grade school? It is unmitigated arrogance. And then, for some to claim the Church should accept it under the guise that we are all sinners is beyond comprehension. We have no sense of proportion or discernment. Apparently exposing our innocent children to perversion is a Christian imperative these days.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

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

I’m well aware of your hard line on homosexuality and your tolerance of adultery. ONE of those is merits a mention in the Commandments.

 

[dennisknapp]

katherine2:

I’m well aware of your hard line on homosexuality and your tolerance of adultery. ONE of those is merits a mention in the Commandments.

Katherine,

Do you think active homosexuals should be allowed to vulunteer at Catholic schools?

If you do, how do you reconcile this with the Churches teaching regarding those who participate in an active homosexual lifestyle?

Peace

 

[katherine2]

dennisknapp:

Katherine,

Do you think active homosexuals should be allowed to vulunteer at Catholic schools?

If you do, how do you reconcile this with the Churches teaching regarding those who participate in an active homosexual lifestyle?

Peace

I would leave it to the discretion of the pastor and principal.

 

[miguel]

katherine2:

I would leave it to the discretion of the pastor and principal.

What about the parents? The Church gives the parents ultimate responsibility in the education of their children.

 

[dennisknapp]

katherine2:

I would leave it to the discretion of the pastor and principal.

Why would you leave it up to the discretion of the pastor and principal?

Would you agree with them if they said no?

Peace

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

I’m well aware of your hard line on homosexuality and your tolerance of adultery. ONE of those is merits a mention in the Commandments.

No I do not have a hard line on homosexuality. However when homosexuals make their sin a public issue then I do object. If a homosexual wishes to engage in his behavior in the privacy of his home, then it’s between him and God. When he brings his ‘lifestyle’ to the school and tries to convince everyone that this is on par with married folks, that’s where I have the ‘hard line.’

As to the Ten Commandments, using YOUR standard there is a lot of good company amongst the adulterers. Or do you REALLY think the tablets meant someone not married according to the current dictates of the Catholic church?

However once again please provide some official Catholic doctrine that equates active homosexuality with a second marriage. I don’t recall getting married, even if not in the Church as “disordered thinking” Maybe you can enlighten me

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

BLB_Oregon:

Let’s keep this on the subject of scandal.
The catechism defines scandal:
“Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. (Boldface mine.) The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. … Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is lead deliberately into a grave offense.”

That puts these two sins on ground close enough to call even. Which behavior is more scandalous depends on which you are more likely to be tempted to try!.

However there are other standards along with the “Scandal Factor.” Is a second marriage called disordered thinking?

BLB_Oregon:

The statistics would seem to show that divorce and re-marriage are at least if not more “catching” than adoption of a homosexual life. There was once a time in which the divorced and re-married were not allowed in to mingle in “society”, and the divorce rate was much lower. That we don’t blink an eye at it now shows how scandalized we really are. As I wrote before, the sexual sins that have less shock value are just the tip of the iceberg. We surround ourselves with deadly sin, and don’t bat an eye.

So, either allow people in our schools that live a life of serious sin, or don’t, but don’t be two-faced about it.

THe divorce rate was lower before ‘no fault divorce.’ That has more to do with the increase than any other factor IMO. Most people Catholic or not, don’t consider divorce a “deadly sin.” Is that in the CCC too? I am not in any way belittling the damage of divorce I am just astonished that someone would equate behavior that was considered mental illness until relatively recently, a behavior that has had untold consequences for the Church, a behavior that is very clearly listed in the Bible as an abomination, with a divorce and remarriage. Do you REALLY think the two are equivalent?

Lisa N

 

[BLB_Oregon]

I think there is agreement that the danger in taking a “tolerant” stance is the possibility of causing scandal in the catechism sense: that is, acting in a way that will lead others into sin by making sinful behavior more attractive or more acceptable.

The danger in taking a “hard-line” stance is two-fold: one is that we might create a sort of a caste system of parents or supporters of the school: those who are allowed to volunteer and those who aren’t. The other is that we might set ourselves up as judges of which serious sin we’re not going to tolerate and which serious sin we’re going to choose to look the other way about. Furthermore, some of the lines of thought we have going above get very close to a kind of a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. The policy needs to be not “if you’re open about it, you’re not welcome”, but rather, “we can tolerate these behaviors, but these we cannot.” The difference is “don’t do it” rather than “don’t get caught”… a difference not lost on gradeschoolers!

We face tough questions, and no matter how we answer, not facing it is not an option. The answer from the New Testament is that if someone is in serious sin, you go to them about it, then if they refuse to hear it, you take more of the church with you each successive time until you bring about at least an agreement on the need to repent or the unfortunate necessity of putting the offender out of the community… which is to say, you take it on a case by case basis, handle it personally and apply your rule equally and without bias towards social station or the type (rather than the gravity) of the sin, and in the final analysis, refuse to give up on the traditional teaching on the matter.

Any thoughts on that as a possibility?

 

[Lisa_N]

BLB_Oregon:

We face tough questions, and no matter how we answer, not facing it is not an option. The answer from the New Testament is that if someone is in serious sin, you go to them about it, then if they refuse to hear it, you take more of the church with you each successive time until you bring about at least an agreement on the need to repent or the unfortunate necessity of putting the offender out of the community… which is to say, you take it on a case by case basis, handle it personally and apply your rule equally and without bias towards social station or the type (rather than the gravity) of the sin, and in the final analysis, refuse to give up on the traditional teaching on the matter.

Any thoughts on that as a possibility?

I think that’s a good approach. I understand that it seems hypocritical to say that a couple in its second marriage,no annulment, is ok and a homosexual couple is not. I guess the way I see it, is WHAT are they volunteering for and what impact will this have on the kids? That’s my whole issue. I don’t think the school is in charge of monitoring peoples’ sins. However they should request that anyone in contact with kids not be living openly in a sinful arrangement. If the couple in a second marriage wants to help out in the back office or the two gay guys work on the website from home, it’s not such a problem IMO because they aren’t encountering the children. The issue arises in such case as with the homosexuals in the California school who show up as a couple, and one of whom volunteers in the classroom. But I would feel the same way about a parenting couple that is shacking up or one carrying on a blatent affair who brings her lover to school events. It’s not just that it’s homosexual, it’s because some insist on being so darned public that it seems like I have a thing about homosexuals.

I was listening to Michael Medved’s show and he had a caller who was upset that a reader of his columns objected to the openly homosexual content and contacted advertisers to suggest they pull their ads. He claimed this woman’s acts violated ‘freedom of speech.’ But as Medved commented, in Oscar Wilde’s day, homosexuality was called “the love that dare not speak its name” and said today it’s “the love that won’t shut up!” It’s the public outing that I find offensive. The actual sin is between them and God.

Lisa N

 

[roymckenzie]

miguel:

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.

My friend I do believe it is in both cases adultery. Like honking around with your next door neighbor’s wife, or bubba and big hunk man honking around or someone honking around with an equine it is all adultery. Secondly when we go against God’s we may fooling ourselves into believing it is natural but nothing can be natural that goes against God’s law.

 

[roymckenzie]

Lisa N:

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

Well sister you said it yourself,
Lisa N:

Well YOU can but I don’t think you will get much support.

The level of support does not indicate the correctness of an issue. Right before the end Hitler had a lot of support but he was dead wrong.

Jesus:

Jesus said to them, "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats 19 my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

Jesus was not very popular

Jesus:

As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.

Did that lack of support make Jesus wrong?

My point is right is correct and wrong is not support or no support.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Lisa N:

I was listening to Michael Medved’s show and he had a caller who was upset that a reader of his columns objected to the openly homosexual content and contacted advertisers to suggest they pull their ads. He claimed this woman’s acts violated ‘freedom of speech.’

It amazes me how where our “rights and freedoms” have gone. You will hear the same people advocate their right to say anything they want, without objection from anyone else, turn around and feel the right to express their offense at those who don’t agree with them.

I would like people who call others “sexual deviants” and those who call others “religious fanatics” to both sit down and realize how their speech, right or wrong, shuts down the listening ability of the people they’re trying to talk to. It has so little to do with rights and so much to do with the reality of human nature.

 

[miguel]

roymckenzie:

My friend I do believe it is in both cases adultery. Like honking around with your next door neighbor’s wife, or bubba and big hunk man honking around or someone honking around with an equine it is all adultery. Secondly when we go against God’s we may fooling ourselves into believing it is natural but nothing can be natural that goes against God’s law.

I’m drawing distinctions because certain behaviors are more indicative of mental health disorders. And this should factor into our decisions about how best to protect our kids, not only from moral harm, but from physical harm as well.

 

[Lisa_N]

roymckenzie:

Well sister you said it yourself,

The level of support does not indicate the correctness of an issue. Right before the end Hitler had a lot of support but he was dead wrong.

My point is right is correct and wrong is not support or no support.

1. No I do not equate homosexuality with second marriages
2. The reference to ‘support’ was with respect to the CCC. I have asked Katherine2 repeatedly to demonstrate that the Catholic church considers second marriages and homosexuality equally disordered behaviors. Does the church consider these two behaviors equivalent? I realize they are both sins, but are they equivalent?
3. I think if you make a statement that has no support or very limited support, it has a higher likelihood of being false. Hitler had support amongst a tiny fraction of the world’s populations, most of which either didn’t know what he stood for or followed his line for their own betterment (power and money). Given that hundreds of thousands of men lost their lives fighting Hitler, and given that we do not mourn his passing, I suspect that the majority of the world did not support him. He was also very wrong.

Lisa N

 

[BLB_Oregon]

miguel:

I’m drawing distinctions because certain behaviors are more indicative of mental health disorders. And this should factor into our decisions about how best to protect our kids, not only from moral harm, but from physical harm as well.

This isn’t a thread about whether we should allow people who are bipolar or schizophrenic in our schools. This is not about keeping our kids away from psychotics or neurotics. This isn’t even about screening out parents from sporting events who have anger-management issues (although perhaps it should be). It is about keeping our kids away from homosexuals. If you want to play statistics, a better way to keep kids from being sexually abused isn’t to keep them away from homosexuals, but to keep them away from* men**.* If you’re playing the safety card, there it is: the majority of pediatric sexual abuse would never happen if children were never left alone with adolescent and post-adolescent males. Making homosexual males the lone bogeymen is to live in denial.

Mind you, I’m not saying you can’t keep homosexuals out of schools. But if you have a stated objective for doing so, pursue it… don’t just use it as an excuse to prop up a narrow and forgone conclusion.

Keep in mind, too, that our discussion is complicated by the fact that most Catholic schools enroll at least some non-Catholic students with non-Catholic parents. At these schools, you aren’t required to be a practicing Catholic to attend. Rather, you have to abide by the fact that the school exists in order to teach the Catholic faith. This makes exclusion in the absence of open dissent a less viable option.

 

[stmichaeliscool]

How is an ACTIVE homosexual living a CHASTE life?

 

[BLB_Oregon]

stmichaeliscool:

How is an ACTIVE homosexual living a CHASTE life?

Maybe they’re politically active? Active volunteers? Go to the gym alot? Maybe just living out of the closet is exercise enough… I don’t know!