Should active homosexuals be permitted to flaunt their lifestyle at a CatholicSchool?

[Evanescence]

Hey. Out of curiosity, could you define/ explain what “rights” you are referring to??? I am unclear on what you mean. Thanks and God Bless.

I’m referring to the United Nations declaration on human rights

Is this it? Catholics are too good for homos? have you ever thought on how these people feel getting rejected by gods Catholic church?

Evanescence

 

[CatholicCid]

Is this it? Catholics are too good for homos? have you ever thought on how these people feel getting rejected by gods Catholic church?

Well, first off… It’s God… not gods… That implies polythestic (sp?) beliefs.
And… No, Catholics are not “too good for homos” or do we reject Homosexuals (All “homos” I know prefer the word Homosexual to homo… Since that isn’t really respectful)
The Church does not even find anything wrong with Homosexuals… But it says homosexual acts are wrong.
If a Gay/Lesbian couple enroll their child/ren at a Catholic School… Then go to functions and “flaunt” their relationship, they are openly taunting Church doctrine and apparently only want their Kids there for the Education part of “A Catholic Education”

Catholic institutions are here to provide a Good Catholic Education, not just a General Education… That could be found in a Public School.

There was a lesbian at my catholic school. She wasn’t any bother.

A Lesbian or Gay person is just a person… Equal as all… But if that Lesbian went around “flaunting” and “scandalizing” about her Lesbian relationship and mocking the Doctrines of the Church… Then she wouldn’t be “any bother.”

I don’t like taking away others rights thats just persecuting.

If someone is flaunting their “right” to go against the Church, isn’t that persecuting Catholics in a sense? And we take away no rights from anyone… If someone refuses to follow Catholic teachings, why would they even bother to enroll at a Catholic School? That is just interupting the rights of others who actually attend to recieve a Catholic education.

I’d say it would go to “If your coming here to mock our Teachings… Why should we allow you in?”

have you ever thought on how these people

No offence, but Homosexuals aren’t “these people”… They are people… Just like everyone else… You know, the whole equality deal… That just sounds like profiling more than anything

 

[Other_Eric]

CatholicCid:

Well, first off… It’s God… not gods… That implies polythestic (sp?) beliefs.
And… No, Catholics are not “too good for homos” or do we reject Homosexuals (All “homos” I know prefer the word Homosexual to homo… Since that isn’t really respectful)
The Church does not even find anything wrong with Homosexuals… But it says homosexual acts are wrong.
If a Gay/Lesbian couple enroll their child/ren at a Catholic School… Then go to functions and “flaunt” their relationship, they are openly taunting Church doctrine and apparently only want their Kids there for the Education part of “A Catholic Education”

Catholic institutions are here to provide a Good Catholic Education, not just a General Education… That could be found in a Public School.

A Lesbian or Gay person is just a person… Equal as all… But if that Lesbian went around “flaunting” and “scandalizing” about her Lesbian relationship and mocking the Doctrines of the Church… Then she wouldn’t be “any bother.”

If someone is flaunting their “right” to go against the Church, isn’t that persecuting Catholics in a sense? And we take away no rights from anyone… If someone refuses to follow Catholic teachings, why would they even bother to enroll at a Catholic School? That is just interupting the rights of others who actually attend to recieve a Catholic education.

I’d say it would go to “If your coming here to mock our Teachings… Why should we allow you in?”

No offence, but Homosexuals aren’t “these people”… They are people… Just like everyone else… You know, the whole equality deal… That just sounds like profiling more than anything

Hi CatholicCid!

I think, in Evanescence’s defense, that she meant to type “God’s” instead of “gods.” I would further suggest that if you intended to find examples of impeccable typing that you might be in the wrong place.

Other than that, I don’t really have too much of a problem with anything you’ve written.

I do wonder, however, what it means to “flaunt” one’s illicit relationship. When presented with a same-sex couple, how high should we set our standard for appropriate behavior? Should they be allowed to both appear at a school function, even if they display no physical affection? In order to enroll their children, should they uniquely be made to sign off on every statement from the Nicene Creed in order to determine whether their intention is to mock the faith? In the absence of direct evidence, how much should we be able to charitably assume about the nature of their relationship?

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Other Eric:

I do wonder, however, what it means to “flaunt” one’s illicit relationship. When presented with a same-sex couple, how high should we set our standard for appropriate behavior? Should they be allowed to both appear at a school function, even if they display no physical affection? In order to enroll their children, should they uniquely be made to sign off on every statement from the Nicene Creed in order to determine whether their intention is to mock the faith? In the absence of direct evidence, how much should we be able to charitably assume about the nature of their relationship?

In the case of St. John the Baptist Parish in Costa Mesa, the couple had a newspaper article about them (“Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home,” January 12, 2004). There is no doubt as to the nature of their relationship or their promotion of homosexual marriage. They are avowed activists.

 

[CatQuilt]

Other Eric:

Hi CatholicCid!

I think, in Evanescence’s defense, that she meant to type “God’s” instead of “gods.” I would further suggest that if you intended to find examples of impeccable typing that you might be in the wrong place.

Frequently, people attempt to make a ‘point’ by refering to God as god or even plurals, gods. That is why it’s important to be as precise as possible.

Thanks!

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

In the case of St. John the Baptist Parish in Costa Mesa, the couple had a newspaper article about them (“Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home,” January 12, 2004). There is no doubt as to the nature of their relationship or their promotion of homosexual marriage. They are avowed activists.

Hi Promotor Fidei!
I think one is always going to be able to find couples, such as the one in your example, who relish making the nature of their relationship a public issue. You are also going to find couples that do not jump at this opportunity, such as the one in Orange County, which started this thread. As I understand it they have consistently refused to talk to the media. Of course, this couple also wears wedding bands. My question, it seems, remains. There are always going to be couples who enroll their students in a Catholic school who do not share the Church’s values. In cases where we have a same-sex couple, how do we expect them to conduct themselves? What does not flaunting their relationship mean in practical terms?

 

[Other_Eric]

CatQuilt:

Frequently, people attempt to make a ‘point’ by refering to God as god or even plurals, gods. That is why it’s important to be as precise as possible.

Thanks!

Hi CatQuilt!

I think that, in context, my reading of Evanescence’s post makes more sense. I also think that simply clinging to typos and trying to create implications from them quickly leads one down a path to a straw man argument. For myself, I try to address points that have been explicitly made. Precision is important, but if I have I question about is likely a typo, I ask for a clarification so that my response will be precise.

 

[CatholicCid]

I think, in Evanescence’s defense, that she meant to type “God’s” instead of “gods.” I would further suggest that if you intended to find examples of impeccable typing that you might be in the wrong place.

It could mean that… When I type something refering to mult. gods, I type it like that… gods… lowercase and s… So I probably read through it and thought it refered to mult. gods since that is what I am accustomed to reading… If I wanted impeccable typing I would become an English teacher… I was just pointin something out from my perspective…

I do wonder, however, what it means to “flaunt” one’s illicit relationship.

I would consider flaunting going out of one’s way to gain attention when none is needed.

When presented with a same-sex couple, how high should we set our standard for appropriate behavior?

The standard would be… The standard… What would be appropriate for a opposite-sex couple would basically do it…
My parents have kissed at a school function I’m sure… But if they were to stand up in a room of people sitting and kiss for no reason other than to draw attention to their kiss… I would consider that highly inappropiate (and probably embarrassing… =p )

Should they be allowed to both appear at a school function, even if they display no physical affection?

I would still see that depending on what the intent is… If they attend a function, but come in clothing representing Gay Pride and wear Rainbow sashes… I would see that as flaunting and uncalled for…

In order to enroll their children, should they uniquely be made to sign off on every statement from the Nicene Creed in order to determine whether their intention is to mock the faith?

I would prefer for the staff to do that, but that’s just me
In order to enroll, I would probably ask the intent of sending the student there, but then again, I would do that for everyone…
As I said, I’ve seen people attend Catholic Schools just for the fact the quality of the education is better… At my own school… We were overfilled this year… Half of the Junior and Freshman classes had to find a locker partner because there were not enough lockers to accomidate the student body.
I remember being on the Bus in eight grade listening to some students talk about where to go to High School…
"Yeah, if you want to go for sports go or … If you want education, go "
Though, My school does actually have you sign a form agreeing to the School rules… One being "Any conduct which, in opinion of school officials, is contrary to the principles and teaching of the Catholic Church can lead to Suspension/Expulsion from "
You have to sign to the agreement so… they basically can expell on any reason (with the rest of the guidelines) and no legal courts could really overturn the decision.
I think this is one of the better ways to handle any situation… It does not single anyone out and leaves everyone student/parent to said expectations.

In the absence of direct evidence, how much should we be able to charitably assume about the nature of their relationship?

If there is no evidence, there would be little need for any action by the school.
Basically, I think it just has to be remember Catholic Schools are not State run… Sending your children to them is not a right… It’s a privilege… There should be a certain consideration when attending functions hosted by the Institution to realize that some actions may offend other people at the Function…
I can go out into a shopping center and start giving everyone their the middle finger and cursing them out… But that would be crude, offensive, inconsiderate, and uncalled for… There is a time and place for everything… So people have to take into consideration their surroundings before doing something.

 

[Other_Eric]

CatholicCid:

It could mean that… When I type something refering to mult. gods, I type it like that… gods… lowercase and s… So I probably read through it and thought it refered to mult. gods since that is what I am accustomed to reading… If I wanted impeccable typing I would become an English teacher… I was just pointin something out from my perspective…

I would consider flaunting going out of one’s way to gain attention when none is needed.

The standard would be… The standard… What would be appropriate for a opposite-sex couple would basically do it…
My parents have kissed at a school function I’m sure… But if they were to stand up in a room of people sitting and kiss for no reason other than to draw attention to their kiss… I would consider that highly inappropiate (and probably embarrassing… =p )

I would still see that depending on what the intent is… If they attend a function, but come in clothing representing Gay Pride and wear Rainbow sashes… I would see that as flaunting and uncalled for…

I would prefer for the staff to do that, but that’s just me
In order to enroll, I would probably ask the intent of sending the student there, but then again, I would do that for everyone…
As I said, I’ve seen people attend Catholic Schools just for the fact the quality of the education is better… At my own school… We were overfilled this year… Half of the Junior and Freshman classes had to find a locker partner because there were not enough lockers to accomidate the student body.
I remember being on the Bus in eight grade listening to some students talk about where to go to High School…
"Yeah, if you want to go for sports go or … If you want education, go "
Though, My school does actually have you sign a form agreeing to the School rules… One being "Any conduct which, in opinion of school officials, is contrary to the principles and teaching of the Catholic Church can lead to Suspension/Expulsion from "
You have to sign to the agreement so… they basically can expell on any reason (with the rest of the guidelines) and no legal courts could really overturn the decision.
I think this is one of the better ways to handle any situation… It does not single anyone out and leaves everyone student/parent to said expectations.

If there is no evidence, there would be little need for any action by the school.
Basically, I think it just has to be remember Catholic Schools are not State run… Sending your children to them is not a right… It’s a privilege… There should be a certain consideration when attending functions hosted by the Institution to realize that some actions may offend other people at the Function…
I can go out into a shopping center and start giving everyone their the middle finger and cursing them out… But that would be crude, offensive, inconsiderate, and uncalled for… There is a time and place for everything… So people have to take into consideration their surroundings before doing something.

Hi CatholicCid!

It seems to me that a same-sex couple certainly cannot be held to the same standard of behavior as an opposite sex couple. Consider the behavior that one might observe among your classmates at highschool. The kissing does not cause the same scandal as it would for a same-sex couple. Even forms of physical affection that the culture judges appropriate for public display, such as holding hands, would be beyond the pale. The most innocuous forms of affection become scandalous for a same-sex couple in a way they never can for an opposite-sex couple because they make explicit an arrangement that can be nothing other than sinful.

Such a couple has no need for overt displays of defiance such as wearing a rainbow. Their actions will always draw attention in a way that similar actions coming from an opposite-sex couple will not. Therefore we simply cannot apply the same standard of behavior to them that we would apply even to a non-married opposite-sex couple. The standard that we apply to them must be different. The nature of the same-sex couple means that when in the company of the orthodox their actions are going to be scrutinized more closely. It quickly becomes impossible to predict who will become offended, what they are likely to be offended by and whether or not the offense taken is reasonable. There are, after all, those who would be offended merely by the presence of such a couple.

I just think that the concept of “flaunting” is too subjective. What I may consider to be impermissible you may perceive as perfectly legitimate. I just think we need to establish some bright-line, concrete standards of behavior for these types of couples.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

It seems to me that a same-sex couple certainly cannot be held to the same standard of behavior as an opposite sex couple.

The standard that we apply to them must be different. The nature of the same-sex couple means that when in the company of the orthodox their actions are going to be scrutinized more closely. It quickly becomes impossible to predict who will become offended, what they are likely to be offended by and whether or not the offense taken is reasonable. There are, after all, those who would be offended merely by the presence of such a couple.

I just think we need to establish some bright-line, concrete standards of behavior for these types of couples.

I reject the relativistic/pluralistic notion of a legitimate category or “nature” to same-sex “couples”. The nature of same-sex “couples” is an objectively disordered relationship dyad resulting from two individuals choosing to give relationship expression to their individual disordered desire–nothing more, nothing less.

Same-sex “couples” offend the truth and nature of the dignity of man by giving expression to a disordered desire.

I just think that we need to usher in a greater understanding and appreciation for natural law as the only basis for the objective standard for the morality of man’s choices.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Other Eric:

Hi Promotor Fidei!
I think one is always going to be able to find couples, such as the one in your example, who relish making the nature of their relationship a public issue. You are also going to find couples that do not jump at this opportunity, such as the one in Orange County, which started this thread. As I understand it they have consistently refused to talk to the media. Of course, this couple also wears wedding bands.

Other Eric, the couple in Orange County gave interviews in the New York Times. They only stopped giving interviews when the controversy started. They are avowed activists.

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

I reject the relativistic/pluralistic notion of a legitimate category or “nature” to same-sex “couples”. The nature of same-sex “couples” is an objectively disordered relationship dyad resulting from two individuals choosing to give relationship expression to their individual disordered desire–nothing more, nothing less.

Same-sex “couples” offend the truth and nature of the dignity of man by giving expression to a disordered desire.

I just think that we need to usher in a greater understanding and appreciation for natural law as the only basis for the objective standard for the morality of man’s choices.

Hi felra!

I don’t quite understand what you are getting at. Nothing I have written denies that “the nature of same-sex ‘couples’ is an objectively disordered relationship.” It is because this arrangement is as disordered as it is that it attracts attention to itself. Because it attracts more attention to itself than a similarly situated opposite-sex couple, the same-sex couple in order to observe the boundaries of propriety, must be held to a different standard of conduct.

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

Other Eric, the couple in Orange County gave interviews in the New York Times. They only stopped giving interviews when the controversy started. They are avowed activists.

Hi Promotor Fidei!

I haven’t seen any of these articles in the New York Times. Could you please provide a link?

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

I don’t quite understand what you are getting at. Nothing I have written denies that “the nature of same-sex ‘couples’ is an objectively disordered relationship.” It is because this arrangement is as disordered as it is that it attracts attention to itself. Because it attracts more attention to itself than a similarly situated opposite-sex couple, the same-sex couple in order to observe the boundaries of propriety, must be held to a different standard of conduct.

My point is: I do not extend any recognition to same-sex “couple” as a legitimate entity in my Christian world view, hence, a “different standard” does not enter into my consideration. To do so otherwise, will, de facto validate this illicit relationship. They have already grossly violated the established norms of decency by publicly becoming a “couple”; the rest (public displays) is simply offshoots of this dyad expression of individual disorder.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Other Eric:

I haven’t seen any of these articles in the New York Times. Could you please provide a link?

Hello Other Eric, here it is:
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C12FF3E540C718DDDA80894DC404482&incamp=archive:search

It profiles the couple and includes quotes from one of them.
Other Eric:

I just think that the concept of “flaunting” is too subjective. What I may consider to be impermissible you may perceive as perfectly legitimate. I just think we need to establish some bright-line, concrete standards of behavior for these types of couples.

Would you regard the examples below as “flaunting”?

‘I’ve seen my friends received into the Church with their lovers as sponsors. I’ve seen bishops welcome the gay and lesbian community by name. I’ve seen gay couples bring up the gifts at the offertory procession. … I have seen the archbishop of Los Angeles process into a church (for the record, not my parish) preceded by six gay pride flags (and I wept).’
ericstoltz.com/writings/America1.html from an article in “America” americamagazine.org/

Would your average layman who saw these things conclude that the Church endorses genital homosexuality? If a Catholic with homosexual tendencies is striving to leave a chaste life, are these examples helpful?

People who teach that mortal sin is vitue would do well to drown themselves. Matthew 18:6
bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=18&verse=6&version=31&context=verse

I do not mean to imply that you endorse these things. I am furious with bishops whose actions and inaction have brought scandal and a billion dollars of debt upon our Church.
cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2791
bishop-accountability.org/

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

My point is: I do not extend any recognition to same-sex “couple” as a legitimate entity in my Christian world view, hence, a “different standard” does not enter into my consideration. To do so otherwise, will, de facto validate this illicit relationship. They have already grossly violated the established norms of decency by publicly becoming a “couple”; the rest (public displays) is simply offshoots of this dyad expression of individual disorder.

Hi felra!

Yes. I understand your position well. Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes said it best: “When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions.” Personally, I do not find the arguments against homosexuality so devoid of merit that I am reduced to squabbling over the correct usage of a few words.

 

[felra]

Other Eric:

Hi felra!

Yes. I understand your position well. Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes said it best: “When in doubt, deny all terms and definitions.” Personally, I do not find the arguments against homosexuality so devoid of merit that I am reduced to squabbling over the correct usage of a few words.

If you understand my position very well, then you would realize that I have no doubts about where my morality derives from, i.e., when I look down, I know for absolutely sure the foundation that I am standing on.

 

[Other_Eric]

Promotor Fidei:

Hello Other Eric, here it is:
query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C12FF3E540C718DDDA80894DC404482&incamp=archive:search

It profiles the couple and includes quotes from one of them.

Would you regard the examples below as “flaunting”?

‘I’ve seen my friends received into the Church with their lovers as sponsors. I’ve seen bishops welcome the gay and lesbian community by name. I’ve seen gay couples bring up the gifts at the offertory procession. … I have seen the archbishop of Los Angeles process into a church (for the record, not my parish) preceded by six gay pride flags (and I wept).’
ericstoltz.com/writings/America1.html from an article in “America” americamagazine.org/

Would your average layman who saw these things conclude that the Church endorses genital homosexuality? If a Catholic with homosexual tendencies is striving to leave a chaste life, are these examples helpful?

People who teach that mortal sin is vitue would do well to drown themselves. Matthew 18:6
bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=18&verse=6&version=31&context=verse

I do not mean to imply that you endorse these things. I am furious with bishops whose actions and inaction have brought scandal and a billion dollars of debt upon our Church.
cwnews.com/offtherecord/offtherecord.cfm?task=singledisplay&recnum=2791
bishop-accountability.org/

Hi Promotor Fidei!

I’ve read that article. There’s one quote from one person living in Anaheim that might be one of the individuals involved. Every news article that I’ve read that’s specifically addresses the situation in Costa Mesa has neither a quote from the couple nor their names. Surely, if they wished to be activists, there would be no better time to speak up then now. I’m sure it’s possible that the man quoted in the New York Times is one of them, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was more than one gay couple living in Orange County, California.

Surely the examples you have given are rather explicit examples of the flaunting of a homosexual identity. Evil, however, does not always appear dressed in red spandex and brandishing a pitchfork and horns. It would be sad if the examples you have linked to constituted the place where you would draw the line. I was given to understand that there should be some much more serious preexisting problems before we ever got to the spectacle of an archbishop proceeding down the aisle flanked by rainbow flags.

So, all I’m asking is where do we draw the line? What is going to constitute full-scale flaunting as opposed to an accidental imprudent revelation or a malicious assumption?

 

[Other_Eric]

felra:

If you understand my position very well, then you would realize that I have no doubts about where my morality derives from, i.e., when I look down, I know for absolutely sure the foundation that I am standing on.

Hi felra!

But, you use the term “dyad.” This is also a de facto legitimization of the illicit relationship. You’ve reduced the profound arguments against homosexual behavior to a semantic game. In this way, you’re no better than the homosexuals themselves who argue endlessly over what the correct word usage for their condition should be.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Other Eric:

I’ve read that article. There’s one quote from one person living in Anaheim that might be one of the individuals involved. Every news article that I’ve read that’s specifically addresses the situation in Costa Mesa has neither a quote from the couple nor their names. Surely, if they wished to be activists, there would be no better time to speak up then now. I’m sure it’s possible that the man quoted in the New York Times is one of them, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there was more than one gay couple living in Orange County, California.

Surely the examples you have given are rather explicit examples of the flaunting of a homosexual identity. Evil, however, does not always appear dressed in red spandex and brandishing a pitchfork and horns. It would be sad if the examples you have linked to constituted the place where you would draw the line. I was given to understand that there should be some much more serious preexisting problems before we ever got to the spectacle of an archbishop proceeding down the aisle flanked by rainbow flags.

So, all I’m asking is where do we draw the line? What is going to constitute full-scale flaunting as opposed to an accidental imprudent revelation or a malicious assumption?

Other Eric, my sister attends St. John the Baptist parish in Orange County, California. The man in that article is indeed one of the couple in question. Their activism was public at the school, integrated into their volunteer work there, which caused the controversy in the first place.

You are quite right that there are more serious examples of flaunting it, namely: Promoting, shielding and covering-up for unchaste clergy who sexually harass other men or sexually abuse boys: bishop-accountability.org/ca-la/

However, when Archbishop Mahoney marches down an aisle flanked by Gay Pride rainbow banners, he puts a stamp of approval on genital homosexuality and gross corruption in the Church.

“How much filth there is in the church, even among those who, in the priesthood, should belong entirely to Him. How much pride, how much self-sufficiency” -Pope Benedict

Were I pastor, where would I draw the line on “flaunting” sin when someone is publicly known to be in a state of mortal sin and is unrepentant? I would disallow any more than mere attendance to a Church or school event. Such a person should not be eucharistic minster, lectors, volunteers or in any kind of leadership positon. However, no-one should be denied attendance unless they are disruptive.