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

[Dolores49]

No, not even if they claim they are chaste.

It’s way, way too risky. The potential risk to children outweigh the right of a homosexual person to employment.

In 2002, Insight on the News published an article, “Gay Lobby Scrambles to Hide Truth About Child Molestation.” Search for this article at www.FindArticles.com

An Excerpt:

JUNE 3, 2002
Homosexual groups are going into orbit over the ongoing revelations of Roman Catholic priests who have molested preteen and teen-age boys in Boston and elsewhere. A few weeks ago, for instance, a group of alleged Catholics who practice sodomy held a protest rally outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Its media event was organized by Dignity/USA, a homosexual “Catholic” organization, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

Mary Louis Cervone, president of Dignity/USA, told reporters, “Threatening to purge the priesthood of gay men is a way for church leaders to deflect attention from the real moral crisis in the church. That is, a culture of secrecy, conspiracy and lies by priests, bishops and cardinals that has disgraced the very institution of Catholicism.”

Cervone is doing what most homosexual groups now are doing. She’s trying to turn public attention away from a very simple fact: The recent scandals in Boston in the Catholic Church involve priests who routinely have been caught sexually molesting preteen and teen-age boys.
…
It is convenient for sodomy advocates to blame a “culture of secrecy” on the molestation of hundreds of boys at the hands of homosexual priests, but the truth is obvious to any rational person: A man who molests a preteen or teenage boy is engaging in homosexual behavior. To say that he is a “pedophile” and not a homosexual is thoroughly dishonest.
…
In addition, research indicates that although homosexuals account for only 1 to 2 percent of the general population, they actually molest children at far higher rates than do their heterosexual counterparts. Dr. Judith Reisman in her book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, notes the work done by Dr. Gene Abel, who compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. He found that homosexuals accounted for 150 boy victims per sex abuser, compared with 19 female victims per heterosexual child molester. In essence the study found that homosexuals are more than nine times as likely to sodomize children as are heterosexual sex predators.
…

In July 2001, the New York Post published shocking details about the high homosexual molestation rates among New York’s public-school teachers. Homosexuals were seven times more likely to molest children as heterosexuals.

Even GLAAD inadvertently has admitted that homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than do heterosexuals. They note that heterosexuals are responsible for 74 percent of male assaults and 77 percent of female assaults.

This leaves a 26 percent rate for homosexual molesters of boys. Yet, as pointed out earlier, homosexuals account for only 1 to 2 percent of the population. In short, homosexuals are at least 13 times as likely as heterosexuals to molest children.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Dolores49:

No, not even if they claim they are chaste.

It’s way, way too risky. The potential risk to children outweigh the right of a homosexual person to employment.

In 2002, Insight on the News published an article, “Gay Lobby Scrambles to Hide Truth About Child Molestation.” Search for this article at www.FindArticles.com

An Excerpt:

JUNE 3, 2002
Homosexual groups are going into orbit over the ongoing revelations of Roman Catholic priests who have molested preteen and teen-age boys in Boston and elsewhere. A few weeks ago, for instance, a group of alleged Catholics who practice sodomy held a protest rally outside of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City. Its media event was organized by Dignity/USA, a homosexual “Catholic” organization, and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

Mary Louis Cervone, president of Dignity/USA, told reporters, “Threatening to purge the priesthood of gay men is a way for church leaders to deflect attention from the real moral crisis in the church. That is, a culture of secrecy, conspiracy and lies by priests, bishops and cardinals that has disgraced the very institution of Catholicism.”

Cervone is doing what most homosexual groups now are doing. She’s trying to turn public attention away from a very simple fact: The recent scandals in Boston in the Catholic Church involve priests who routinely have been caught sexually molesting preteen and teen-age boys.
…
It is convenient for sodomy advocates to blame a “culture of secrecy” on the molestation of hundreds of boys at the hands of homosexual priests, but the truth is obvious to any rational person: A man who molests a preteen or teenage boy is engaging in homosexual behavior. To say that he is a “pedophile” and not a homosexual is thoroughly dishonest.
…
In addition, research indicates that although homosexuals account for only 1 to 2 percent of the general population, they actually molest children at far higher rates than do their heterosexual counterparts. Dr. Judith Reisman in her book, Kinsey: Crimes & Consequences, notes the work done by Dr. Gene Abel, who compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. He found that homosexuals accounted for 150 boy victims per sex abuser, compared with 19 female victims per heterosexual child molester. In essence the study found that **homosexuals are more than nine times as likely to sodomize **children as are heterosexual sex predators.
…

In July 2001, the New York Post published shocking details about the high homosexual molestation rates among New York’s public-school teachers. Homosexuals were seven times more likely to molest children as heterosexuals.

Even GLAAD inadvertently has admitted that homosexuals molest children at far higher rates than do heterosexuals. They note that heterosexuals are responsible for 74 percent of male assaults and 77 percent of female assaults.

This leaves a 26 percent rate for homosexual molesters of boys. Yet, as pointed out earlier, homosexuals account for only 1 to 2 percent of the population. In short, homosexuals are at least 13 times as likely as heterosexuals to molest children.

At our church in Costa Mesa, CA we had two priests whom were accused of molesting teenage boys and yet after that the school and church officials still permitted a practicing homosexual to work alone (unsupervised) with kindergartners. When will they learn their lesson?

 

[Gratias_Grace]

To be too kind-hearted can be misused by others!

To be a homosexual is not a sin. It’s homosexual practice that is sinful. It is **the practice ** of this sinful behavoir that the Church condemn. (CCC 2357).

When two men (or two women) who feel attracted to same-sex IGNORES that they are called to live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality (CCC 2359), they in reality says: ”We will not accept the authoroty of the Church. We want to be our own authoroties”.

To be so PROUD that they themselves will decide when to obey Church and when to not obey is a sin. As a matter of fact to be proud is one of the sins that earlier was called ”the seven deadly”. They are still mentioned in the Cathechism (CCC1866)
A link description of ”the seven deadly”:
whitestonejournal.com/seven/

Of course it is not up to us to jugde others. God will do that! But we can’t denie that we are responsible for our contribution to others sins. This is clear in CCC 1868-1869: §1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.
  §1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”"

When to homosexual men adopt a child and want the child to go to a chatholic school their sins are doubled many times. First they will not obey (take advice from Church) and practice their homosexuality. They act as there is no help to get if they want to follow the Churchs teaching and stay chaste. There is. Then they adopt a child into a setting that is forbidden by God. As if that is not enough, they even want other parents and children to participate in their sin by forcing them to accept them as PARENTS in a catholic school.

Remember the sin of adoping a child into an illegal union (man and man are not to be one) are not the same as when an illegal sexual union between man and woman (not married to each other). To fall in sin under strong emotions, is not the same as to PLAN a sin. To become adoptiveparents is a long process. There is no excuse. The same-sex couple cannot proclame that they fell in sin. They planned it in ignorance of a truth they are supposed to know.

It is a shame that they present the child to a catholic school and drag others into their sin!!! The child is not 6 months when they present it to school. They have had years to be sorrow for their sins. If the will to live in a rightous way in their relationshaip with God ever was there, they have had many years to prepare themselves for sacramental confession and to reunite with the Church.

People with same-sex attractions can get help in an organisation called COURAGE:
couragerc.net/index.html

To be continued

 

[Gratias_Grace]

Continued:

Back to the heading I used: ” To be too kind-hearted can be misused by others”.

I think that if an adopted child of two people living in a same-sex marriage is accepted at a catholic school, every one at that school is involved in this unlegal union (in the eyes of God). Every parent will be involved in the explanations to their own children that the adopted child didn’t choose his parents and that the same-sex union is unacceptable in Gods eyes.

**We must not mistake a refusal of giving the child a place in school as an uncharitable act. We are supposed to NOT be praising or approving others sins. Neither are we to protect evil-doers (CCC 1968). **

I think that the best catholic schools can do, are to make clear rules about not to accept children of same-sex marriage. If that specification is one of the first things parents see when go for the schools Website, they at once know that the school they want to send their child to follow what is usually practised and preached as CATHOLIC MORAL. ”Ordinary parents” (two sexes) can feel safe and the ”Disordered parents” (same-sex couple) will get a chanse to reflect on the moral behind thir behavioir.

As good catholics we are also to respect all the struggles chaste homosexuals are going through. To accsept adopted children of same-sex- marriage in catholic schools is a cruel thing to do to all those who really try to do the work to stay chaste. (If they had not stayed chaste, they could have ”married” and parents to an adopted child, too). It is like saying: ”We don’t care about all the struggles you are going through or are living with now in your try to live in a way that please God!

We must not let us confuse by evil-doers. We live in a very secular world and we must have the courage to live and stay catholic and to be proud of it even when we have to make unpopular decitions:
catholicexchange.com/bday/

Of course, what I have said, excludes same-sex-parents (or openly practising homosexuals without children) to be active as wolunteers or to work at Catholic Schools!

What about a refused adopted child of same-sex-parents future? We can pray for this child to grow up normally, - to be able to forgive his same-sex parents for adopting him into an unlegal union in the eye of God, - to love both of his parents as individuals but not accsepting their sin, - to he himself to stay close to God and long for practiseing RIGHT Catholic Moral in his own life as a grown up.

G.Grace

 

[roymckenzie]

BLB_Oregon:

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!

Come on you are smart I have read a number of your posts. You know what the thread is talking about my friend. It is talking about (active=participating in the homosexual activity) homosexuals.

You are way to use smart to use the straw man fallacy.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

roymckenzie:

Come on you are smart I have read a number of your posts. You know what the thread is talking about my friend. It is talking about (active=participating in the homosexual activity) homosexuals.

You are way to use smart to use the straw man fallacy.

I was joking. You are right, the question is a bit of an oxymoron.

 

[BLB_Oregon]

Gratias Grace:

What about a refused adopted child of same-sex-parents future? We can pray for this child to grow up normally, - to be able to forgive his same-sex parents for adopting him into an unlegal union in the eye of God, - to love both of his parents as individuals but not accsepting their sin, - to he himself to stay close to God and long for practiseing RIGHT Catholic Moral in his own life as a grown up.

The use of caps on “RIGHT” is a little much, don’t you think?
Jesus never said, “Thou Shalt be Right.” The Pharisees did everything RIGHT (ask St. Paul); they found his teachings profoundly upsetting. Jesus councilled his followers to listen to the truth that the Pharisees taught, but not to follow their examples. To follow the commandments of God is important–to love as God loves requires that–but to be so concerned with letter-of-the-law righteousness that you won’t let sinners touch you is also a spiritually dangerous path to teach to children. I’m not trying to pin that on you personally; I’m saying that is the logical implication I see in this kind of school policy.

Again, you can take the “likelihood of offending” thing too far. Homosexuals may be more likely to molest than heterosexuals (I don’t know), but something like 95% of all molestation is done by men. That doesn’t justify keeping children away from all men. Are you going to bar gay men, but not lesbians, since lesbians pose a very low threat? I doubt that is what you are proposing, but that is the logical end of your justifications.

I appreciate your defense of the teachings of the Church. We need to do that. We ought not retreat from what we have been taught in order to avoid conflicts. At the same time, though, we are bound to steer the most compassionate course possible, even when it is messier and somewhat more ambiguous. Black and white morality won’t get you there… the world had that before Our Lord came and saved us. My reading of Romans is that St. Paul would go so far as to say that is what Jesus saved us from.

So while I can appreciate the line of reasoning that would exclude parents who willfully remain in an unacceptable living arrangement from sending their children to a Catholic school, I can’t agree with it–particularly not if the school accepts non-Catholic students, which essentially all of them do. That in itself suggests that children can cope being near “works in progress” who may still have some serious issues with identifying the works of “the world, the flesh, and the devil.” If the parents can’t cope with their children being taught the Church position on homosexuality (or anything else), then they can choose to take their children elsewhere. In the absence of a specific known danger posed by a particular individual, I also can’t accept a parental caste system. That is not the way our Church works, and it should not be the experience of the Church given to students at Catholic schools.

I think we each see where the other stands. Many schools face this same question. Peace be with them, and with us. May God guide us, now and always. And thank you for speaking up for the right that God has given you to see. We all need to hear it.

 

[roymckenzie]

BLB_Oregon:

I was joking. You are right, the question is a bit of an oxymoron.

Ok, the problem I have is I am not very smart. I don’t always get jokes. Jokes are good it is just I am not smart.

 

[fix]

Recently, we had a thread about a female teacher at a Catholic school that was fired for publicly signing a letter endorsing abortion as a choice. The Church was correct in dismissing her. She knew full well what was expected of her and she intentionally did the opposite.

No one has a right to attend a Catholic school. Certainly, no parent, teacher, priest, nun has any right to live a scandalous life and parade that in front of innocent children. Prohibiting scandal, even the appearance of scandal, is not a caste system but legitimate policy and good morals.

 

[katherine2]

dennisknapp:

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

Would you agree with them if they said no?

Peace

I would, though obviously it could be done in either a crude or a charitable manner. I would not support the former.

Now may I repositing this question to make it more relative to the reality of my world? Every Catholic school I know of uses the term “volunteer” as a euphamism. Its not voluntary, its mandatory. Parents are told they are expected to volunteer.

If every other family is “volunteering” is it acceptable for gay parents to say “oh, we’re gay. we won’t be volunteering for anything.But we certainly wish you the best for the bake sale, the bazzar, the playground monitoring, the website design, the library staffing, the secretarial work, etc”?

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

No I do not have a hard line on homosexuality.

You certain seem to find it more offensive than adultery.

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.’

Let’s be clear. When you say “making it public”, you don’t mean performing sex acts in the street. You mean behaving like a couple. Just as much a public act as a person who has attempted a second marriage is making it public. Marriage is a public act.

Or do you REALLY think the tablets meant someone not married according to the current dictates of the Catholic church?

I don’t share your view that the Church’s teachings on marriage are reformable.

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

I can’t think of something more disordered as abonding the person God joined you together with for life and entering a “marriage” with anotehr person.

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

. Most people Catholic or not, don’t consider divorce a “deadly sin.”
Lisa N

Most people, catholic or not, don’t consider alot of things deadly sins. That doesn’t make it right.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

I would, though obviously it could be done in either a crude or a charitable manner. I would not support the former.

Now may I repositing this question to make it more relative to the reality of my world? Every Catholic school I know of uses the term “volunteer” as a euphamism. Its not voluntary, its mandatory. Parents are told they are expected to volunteer.

If every other family is “volunteering” is it acceptable for gay parents to say “oh, we’re gay. we won’t be volunteering for anything.But we certainly wish you the best for the bake sale, the bazzar, the playground monitoring, the website design, the library staffing, the secretarial work, etc”?

This is a non-issue. The concern is whether an active sinner of any kind would be in effect corrupting the children due to his/her direct contact. Not all volunteer positions require direct contact with children. I’ve volunteered with many agencies and you do not always get to CHOOSE what you do. The agency/organization puts you where you are needed and where your skillset is most valuable. So if Bob and Steve are to volunteer at the school, there are plenty of activities that would allow them to serve but not promote their lifestyle to the kids.

Further organizations are foolish if they do not consider a person’s problems or challenges. For example at a local private school a parent was put on a carpool list although she was an alcoholic. She claimed to have gone through rehab and everyone wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt. She was stopped in front of the school with a car full of kids and a .14 blood alcohol level. IOW this was NOT a suitable volunteer position for this woman. Similarly if a person has a gambling problem, I don’t think I’d put them in charge of the money. I’ve seen too many organizations that have been bankrupted by a volunteer who helped himself/herself to the till. Anyone who is to work with children should be able to pass a RIGOROUS background check and if they cannot or refuse, should be put into a volunteer position that prevents direct contact.

You may enjoy red herring Katherine2, but most of us can see and smell it for what it is.

LIsa N

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Most people, catholic or not, don’t consider alot of things deadly sins. That doesn’t make it right.

Katherine2 for the tenth time, please provide the guidance from the CCC that says homosexuality is equivalent to divorce and that divorce is a deadly sin? I am not basing this on my opinion. I have just never seen anything to that effect but given I’m just starting on this journey, maybe I have missed some important information.

Thank you
Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

**2380 ***Adultery *refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations - even transient ones - they commit adultery. Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire. The sixth commandment and the New Testament forbid adultery absolutely. The prophets denounce the gravity of adultery; they see it as an image of the sin of idolatry.

**2381 **Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union.

**2400 **Adultery, divorce, polygamy, and free union are grave offenses against the dignity of marriage.

**1858 **Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

**1447 **Over the centuries the concrete form in which the Church has exercised this power received from the Lord has varied considerably. During the first centuries the reconciliation of Christians who had committed particularly grave sins after their Baptism (for example, idolatry, murder, or adultery)

**2384 ***Divorce *is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

**1756 **It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[dennisknapp]

katherine2:

I would, though obviously it could be done in either a crude or a charitable manner. I would not support the former.

Now may I repositing this question to make it more relative to the reality of my world? Every Catholic school I know of uses the term “volunteer” as a euphamism. Its not voluntary, its mandatory. Parents are told they are expected to volunteer.

If every other family is “volunteering” is it acceptable for gay parents to say “oh, we’re gay. we won’t be volunteering for anything.But we certainly wish you the best for the bake sale, the bazzar, the playground monitoring, the website design, the library staffing, the secretarial work, etc”?

What are your views regarding homosexuality? Just curious?

Peace

 

[sweetchuck]

No, not even if they claim they are chaste.

It’s way, way too risky. The potential risk to children outweigh the right of a homosexual person to employment.

In 2002, Insight on the News published an article, “Gay Lobby Scrambles to Hide Truth About Child Molestation.”

…

That article you posted makes no mention of whether nonpracticing “chaste” homosexuals were included in the research. I would imagine that a chaste homosexual would be no more likely to commit child molestation than you or I. Why would they resist one sexual temptation and not another? Your argument is an improper conclusion based on the article you posted BECAUSE the article itself makes no mention of reforrmed homosexuals. I imagine mortal sin is much like smoking, if you engage in it, you’re likely to die of certain illnesses, if you quit, after a certain time, you’re no more likely to die of certain illnesses than lifelong nonsmokers.

 

[miguel]

sweetchuck:

That article you posted makes no mention of whether nonpracticing “chaste” homosexuals were included in the research. I would imagine that a chaste homosexual would be no more likely to commit child molestation than you or I. Why would they resist one sexual temptation and not another? Your argument is an improper conclusion based on the article you posted BECAUSE the article itself makes no mention of reforrmed homosexuals. I imagine mortal sin is much like smoking, if you engage in it, you’re likely to die of certain illnesses, if you quit, after a certain time, you’re no more likely to die of certain illnesses than lifelong nonsmokers.

It is a risky group. And this is attributable to the fact that the condition of SSA is disordered, as the Church teaches. The percentages given reflect the fact that some molest and some don’t. Within the non-molesting, some of those could include the chaste, the less disordered, and those who have simply not had the opportunity to molest. We don’t really know. What we do know is that it is a risky group when it comes to contact with children. And parents need to be aware of that when policy decisions are made affect the safety of their children.

 

[Lisa_N]

Katherine thank you for addressing one half of the issue. I asked if there were specifics regarding equating homosexual activity with divorce, or based on your interpretation that divorce is even a more grave sin than engaging in sodomy. I understand that adultery is a grave sin but I do not see anything in this section dealing with homosexual acts and the gravity vis a vis divorce/adultery.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Katherine thank you for addressing one half of the issue. I asked if there were specifics regarding equating homosexual activity with divorce, or based on your interpretation that divorce is even a more grave sin than engaging in sodomy. I understand that adultery is a grave sin but I do not see anything in this section dealing with homosexual acts and the gravity vis a vis divorce/adultery.
Lisa N

Thank you. I was not able to find anything directly asserting is was a graver sin. The Church, in her wisdom, has avoided getting excessily detailed in the ranking of sins. She offers some guidence, but not a huge amount. She prefers to direct people to the confessional. if we are pressed to look for some guidance, let’s first dismiss two items raised. The Old Testament term “abomination” has been given more “punch” in secular language than the Church applies to it. That ha sbeen beaten to death elsewhere but a full review of all the acts called an abomination in the OT would mak eclear than more than such citing is needed. Also the “Sins that Cry to Heaven for Vengence” is not a Catholic teaching but a pious saying, nothing more. Those sins, BTW are murder, the sin of the sodomites, witholding just wages from workers, political oppression, injustice to the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan.

Now what hints can we glean from the CCC?

**2380 **Christ condemns even adultery of mere desire.
(homosexual desires, not acted on, the Church takes a more pastoral approach to, calling it a “burden” which some carry).

**2381 **Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents’ stable union.
Here, adultery not only harms the sinner, but the spouse, society, future generations, and children. It is not a personal sin but a social sin.

**1858 **Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”
Here the CCC cites the Commandments as a source for gravity.

**2384 **. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

None of this directly compares homosexuality to adultery but it does use quite strong lanugage.