Students try to banish Catholic chaplain from campus for anti-gay stance

[aspirant]

Openly gay people certainly arent allowed to receive the Eucharist.

As someone has already pointed out, any Catholic in a state of grace who has made first communion may receive the Eucharist. I would also add that the Church obliges us to do so at least once a year, and I would heartily recommend frequent communion to any gay Catholic striving to live a chaste life.

The USCCB stressed this in the pastoral message “Always Our Children”:
"USCCB:

Christ summons all his followers—whether they are married or living a single celibate life—to a higher standard of loving. This includes not only fidelity, forgiveness, hope, perseverance, and sacrifice, but also chastity, which is expressed in modesty and self-control. **The chaste life is possible, though not always easy, for it involves a continual effort to turn toward God and away from sin, especially with the strength of the sacraments of penance and Eucharist. ** Indeed God expects everyone to strive for the perfection of love, but to achieve it gradually through stages of moral growth (cf. John Paul II, On the Family, 1981, no. 34). To keep our feet on the path of conversion, God’s grace is available to and sufficient for everyone open to receiving it.

Similarly:
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.

There is nothing wrong with someone having a gay orientation and trying to live a chaste life while attending a Catholic school. Gay teens can even support each other in following Church teaching.

There are always groups of friends at dances who didn’t bring dates but still wanted to go for the social aspect or to get professional photos taken with their friends.

I once attended the prom with a group of friends in this way, myself.

Dakota, there is no closet.

Yes, there is. I’ve known more than one homosexual person who was, for a time, “closeted,” i.e. not publicly acknowledging his or her sexual orientation. “Coming out of the closet” was, for these people, often a gradual process: it began with telling trusted confidants on an individual basis, such as a confessor, family members, and friends. Over time, it became more and more broadly known. Now they are generally open about it.

Being openly gay means living the lifestyle of a gay person which signifies living in sin.

No, that’s not what it means.

 

[90Domer]

Progressivism 101: ban what disagrees with you.

And can I add Sentimentalism 201: make decisions based on your feelings?

 

[Francoist]

Yes, Soviet Russia did indeed support Franco in 1937 along with Nazi Germany and Totalitarian Italy. Alignment against the Communists only came about after the fall of Berlin and the outbreak of the Cold War.

Sorry but that isn’t true. The Soviet Union supported the Republican government of Madrid. It was their supply of tanks, aircraft, money and materials (as well as commissars) to the Republicans that necessitated Franco’s acceptance of German and Italian aid. Franco held the socialist leaders of Germany and Italy in contempt (though he appears to have had great respect for the German military) and the feeling of antipathy was mutual. Hitler considered plans to invade Spain.

Franco was a Traditionalist Catholic. His ideology was ordered to the restoration of Spain to patriotism and to the Catholic Church, which was almost totally exterminated by the Leftist faction called “Republicans”.

History lesson over… back to the topic. There is no such thing as a “homosexual person” as if it’s some kind of race, like a black or a white person. Homosexual acts are a certain sort of sin that is against natural and Divine law. If you don’t do those sins then you are doing what everyone is supposed to do as well: you are resisting temptations and following the will of God. What specific sort of temptation is irrelevant!

Suppose one man is tempted to consort with strippers. Is he a “strippersexual”? Suppose another man is tempted to omit almsgiving. Is he a “Miser-American”? No. So what if a person’s preferred target of fornication is a person of the same sex? You’re not supposed to fornicate regardless. There’s nothing socially special about avoiding your pet sin. It’s what you are supposed to do.

If you are avoiding it, whatever it is, good for you. It is better to make God happy than yourself. But you needn’t wear a special t-shirt proclaiming it. God knows it.

 

[aspirant]

if you think that homosexual acts are wrong, don’t you think that kicking kids out of a Catholic school, where they stand a good chance of learning why homosexual acts are wrong, is condemning them to a life of sin?

Yes, it is ultimately the responsibility of each individual to live a life as close to Christ’s teachings as she can. But that’s a difficult task without the unconditional love and support of the Christian community! What lesson are we teaching other young students when we marginalize those who need our help the most?

it is not clear that anyone was expelled from a school for being homosexual.

Earlier in the thread, someone claimed that gay students were prohibited from attending a school. The word “prom” was left out, which led to confusion. By the time it was clarified, however, some people were defending the idea of prohibiting homosexual students from attending parochial schools altogether.

Unless the student was caught in a sexual act, which would be grounds for expulsion of heterosexual students too.

I would hope that such a policy, where it exists, would be applied regardless whether the violators were heterosexual or homosexual.

“Living in sin” means to persist in it, to have no desire to change. That may be true of you—I wouldn’t know—but it isn’t of me.

If “living in sin” is understood to mean “persisting in sin with no desire to change,” then it is not fairly asserted that all openly homosexual people are living in sin (as some here appear to be suggesting, though you do not).

Finally, no one is trying to exclude homosexual persons from Church.

Some people here have, however, defended the idea of excluding homosexual persons from parochial schools.

It is not just homosexual sex acts that homosexuals are wrong about.

Not all homosexual persons, as has been pointed out by yourself and others, are “wrong about” homosexual sex. Some gay people believe homosexual sex is wrong and strive to live chaste lives in accordance with Church teaching.

Personally, I suspect that the number of faithful homosexual persons might be larger if more gay people did not feel so marginalized by fellow Catholics and Christians early on. We are, by nature, social creatures. We want to live in relationships in which we feel welcomed, treated with dignity and respect. We do not want to live in environments where the words and actions of others-- whether or not they are intended to have this effect-- make us feel unwelcome, unwanted, disrespected, disregarded, or unloved. If Christian communities do not make conscious efforts to treat homosexual persons with dignity and respect, make conscious efforts to welcome them into the life of faith and pursuit of holiness together with us, we do them a disservice and it is not surprising that they would seek welcoming relationships elsewhere. We need not change the Church’s moral teaching regarding sex in order to love people better than we seem to be doing.

Many homosexual persons are devout and enthusiastic members of the Church. They sin and repent as others do and we all move along together.

I think what you are forgetting is that the sin of SSA is a very visible sin.

SSA is disordered but it is not, by itself, a sin.

you do not see couples cheating on their spouse calling in to radio shows

It’s a tangent, but I have seen and heard this sort of thing on radio and TV.

 

[adrift]

What, exactly, is it? By your definition a billion different things could be “scandal.”

SCANDAL
Any action or its omission, not necessarily sinful in itself, that is likely to induce another to do something morally wrong. Direct scandal, also called diabolical, has the deliberate intention to induce another to sin. In indirect scandal a person does something that he or she forsees will at least likely lead another to commit sin, but this is rather tolerated than positively desired. (Etym. Latin scandalum, stumbling block.)

 

[Corki]

Sorry, I had to take care of some stuff IRL. I know this thread has moved merrily along but since you addressed me directly, I wanted to come back and respond.

So you are for prevent openly gay students from attending a Catholic school?

I think that any one who flaunts a lifestyle against Church teaching should not attend a Catholic school. Whether that person be “openly gay” or “openly substance abusing” or “openly fornicating”. Morality is important and the school has a duty to protect the students from this type of behavior. To ignore it is to give scandal.

Actually, from what I can tell the church is simply against the sexual act.

You would be mistaken.

I mean by your logic as a man if I dance with another guy to practice dancing that is morally wrong or if I kiss my male friend or my father for that matter that is morally wrong. I mean if this were the case there are some rather strange contradictions of really strong male friendships in the bible

If you can’t tell the difference between a guy taking a dance lesson and a guy dancing with his male “date” then there’s a problem. Same with kissing a male relative. It’s unlikely that you are acting as a “couple”.

The problem is with homosexual behaviors. If it’s not a behavior based on same-sex attraction, it’s not a homosexual behavior.

 

[Stephanie_Pauls]

I do know this, but I was trying to give an example of how SSA inclined sins are different from other sins. I don’t see Pride Parades for cheating husbands. And I know the two are not the same! Please, I’m trying my best here to convey a point.

I can understand that. Im one who likes things said to be correct. Ive been told that is a result of me having aspergers. those who are cheating know that everyone is against it. Homosexuality is a different animal. Some think its ok some think its not…

 

[clem456]

Are there agreeable common sense definitions for the following?

same sex attracted

homosexual

homosexuality

gay

chaste

celibate

Many of these disagreements stem from people using words according to their own personal definitions.

 

[fix]

news.yahoo.com/students-try-banish-catholic-chaplain-campus-anti-gay-122022298.html

The very nerve of a priest counseling people who come to him about their homosexual acts being told chastity the answer. Plus, he’s anti-abortion. The horror, the horror!

People have learned to claim offense at anything that denies them any desire. The students turn morality upside down and demand all agree with their distorted views. Point out the truth of the seriousness of the matter and you will be called uncharitable. The emphasis is no longer on truth. The emphasis is on perceived tone and feelings.

 

[fix]

Sorry, I had to take care of some stuff IRL. I know this thread has moved merrily along but since you addressed me directly, I wanted to come back and respond.

I think that any one who flaunts a lifestyle against Church teaching should not attend a Catholic school. Whether that person be “openly gay” or “openly substance abusing” or “openly fornicating”. Morality is important and the school has a duty to protect the students from this type of behavior. To ignore it is to give scandal.

You would be mistaken.

If you can’t tell the difference between a guy taking a dance lesson and a guy dancing with his male “date” then there’s a problem. Same with kissing a male relative. It’s unlikely that you are acting as a “couple”.

The problem is with homosexual behaviors. If it’s not a behavior based on same-sex attraction, it’s not a homosexual behavior.

Not long ago your argument would have been viewed as a parody. People would see it as almost sarcasm pointing out what is self evident.

Now it is a serious argument and explanation.

Can you imagine ?

 

[adrift]

You and I choose to live in sin every day. Everyone here does. Every person.

And we all try to be less sinful - and we try because our parents, our teachers, and our friends taught us to love God. But kids aren’t going to magically learn that after you kick them out of a Catholic school!

That’s what I seriously don’t get about everyone who thinks we should exclude a particular kind or type of sinner. We all sin, each one of us. Each of us persists in our sinfulness. How am I any better or more deserving of the love of God or the care of the community than a person who engages in homosexual acts?

I’m not! Neither are you. And we should do our best to help those who need our help the most!

I don’t care what kind of sin you commit. You break one commandment you break them all. It is when you promote immorality that you have crossed the line. If you parade around and encourage others to commit sin that makes the difference of how you treat the sinner. The students are not apologetic for their sin. You don’t endanger others by saying we all sin so we should ignore their behavior and ignoring it bring tacit approval to the sin. This is not help.

 

[Kolbe300]

Not all homosexual persons, as has been pointed out by yourself and others, are “wrong about” homosexual sex. Some gay people believe homosexual sex is wrong and strive to live chaste lives in accordance with Church teaching.

Personally, I suspect that the number of faithful homosexual persons might be larger if more gay people did not feel so marginalized by fellow Catholics and Christians early on. We are, by nature, social creatures. We want to live in relationships in which we feel welcomed, treated with dignity and respect. We do not want to live in environments where the words and actions of others-- whether or not they are intended to have this effect-- make us feel unwelcome, unwanted, disrespected, disregarded, or unloved. If Christian communities do not make conscious efforts to treat homosexual persons with dignity and respect, make conscious efforts to welcome them into the life of faith and pursuit of holiness together with us, we do them a disservice and it is not surprising that they would seek welcoming relationships elsewhere. We need not change the Church’s moral teaching regarding sex in order to love people better than we seem to be doing.

Thank you, Aspirant, for your words here. As a faithful Catholic man who happens to be gay, I appreciate your understanding and wish more people saw the situation as you do. I couldn’t agree with you more.

 

[aspirant]

Are there agreeable common sense definitions for the following?

That’s probably a good idea. Although I don’t feel up to really thorough definitions, this should give the gist of my usage:

same-sex attracted sexually attracted to members of the same sex, e.g. a man who is sexually attracted to other men. (This is not necessarily exclusive; a man sexually attracted to other men may also be attracted to women.) Does not necessarily suggest engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

homosexual as a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. as another part of speech, indicating attraction to members of the same sex. Does not necessarily suggest engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

homosexuality see above.

gay as a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. sometimes used specifically for men, other times for both men and women. as another part of speech, indicating attraction to members of the same sex. Does not necessarily suggest engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

chaste living or striving to live according to the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding sexual morality as that teaching applies to one’s particular vocation and state in life. (Whole books could be written about this, of course, but I’m trying to come up with a brief description.)

celibate abstaining from sexual activity. (This, like what I said about “chaste,” is profoundly dissatisfying and incomplete. I do not prefer entirely negative definitions of either word. So if you think this is inadequate, please understand that I do too.)

 

[Edward_H]

Yes.

Yes.

Yes. Depending on how safe that person is.

Probably not, since they aren’t a part of the faith, anyway.

Yes.

A school without moral standards isn’t Catholic. Don’t confuse a Church for a school. No parent would send their kids to a schools that didn’t have moral standards.

 

[Edward_H]

If that is your response then you don’t know what those words mean.

The types you gave actually are Greek definitions of love, not Catholic definitions. But if you think more substantially about them, you’ll see they share a common element, one that Christ showed us on the Cross: Self donation. This is the Catholic definition of love…and it applies to friends, spouses, etc even though the love may express itself in different ways.

Marital love, even in sexual matters needs to be self donating, according to Catholic teaching.

 

[adrift]

You are using the word celibacy wrong, it means abstaining from marriage.

That is not the meaning of celibacy. Do you realize that there are Josephite marriages? Those are marriages that are celibate. He was using celibacy correctly.
Free dictionary defines it as

: 1. Abstinence from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.

Openly gay does not mean sexually active.

Being “out” does not actually mean sexually active, it means not being "in the closet’.

Openly homosexual of course means sexaully active. Otherwise it wouldn’t be openly.

 

[aspirant]

Openly homosexual of course means sexaully active. Otherwise it wouldn’t be openly.

This is incorrect. “Open” refers to the public knowledge of a person’s sexual orientation.

 

[Edward_H]

This is incorrect. “Open” refers to the public knowledge of a person’s sexual orientation.

I don’t think there is really a common understanding here. I’ve heard it used both ways. Open = active, practicing. Open = out, public knowledge.

The problem is that the reverse is even less clear: in the closet means private, but could be active or not.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

That’s probably a good idea. Although I don’t feel up to really thorough definitions, this should give the gist of my usage:

same-sex attracted sexually attracted to members of the same sex, e.g. a man who is sexually attracted to other men. (This is not necessarily exclusive; a man sexually attracted to other men may also be attracted to women.) Does not necessarily suggest engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

homosexual as a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. as another part of speech, indicating attraction to members of the same sex. Does not necessarily suggest engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

homosexuality see above.

gay as a noun, a person who is attracted to members of the same sex. sometimes used specifically for men, other times for both men and women. as another part of speech, indicating attraction to members of the same sex. Does not necessarily suggest engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex.

chaste living or striving to live according to the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding sexual morality as that teaching applies to one’s particular vocation and state in life. (Whole books could be written about this, of course, but I’m trying to come up with a brief description.)

celibate abstaining from sexual activity. (This, like what I said about “chaste,” is profoundly dissatisfying and incomplete. I do not prefer entirely negative definitions of either word. So if you think this is inadequate, please understand that I do too.)

For chastity and celibacy I would like to put forward the definitions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

CCC:

II. THE VOCATION TO CHASTITY

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.

CCC:

2349 "People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single."136 Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence:

There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church.137

The types you gave actually are Greek definitions of love, not Catholic definitions. But if you think more substantially about them, you’ll see they share a common element, one that Christ showed us on the Cross: Self donation. This is the Catholic definition of love…and it applies to friends, spouses, etc even though the love may express itself in different ways.

Marital love, even in sexual matters needs to be self donating, according to Catholic teaching.

How about an encyclical
Deus Caritas Est:

1. That love between man and woman which is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings, was called eros by the ancient Greeks. Let us note straight away that the Greek Old Testament uses the word eros only twice, while the New Testament does not use it at all: of the three Greek words for love, eros, philia (the love of friendship) and agape, New Testament writers prefer the last, which occurs rather infrequently in Greek usage. As for the term philia, the love of friendship, it is used with added depth of meaning in Saint John’s Gospel in order to express the relationship between Jesus and his disciples. The tendency to avoid the word eros, together with the new vision of love expressed through the word agape, clearly point to something new and distinct about the Christian understanding of love. In the critique of Christianity which began with the Enlightenment and grew progressively more radical, this new element was seen as something thoroughly negative. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, Christianity had poisoned eros, which for its part, while not completely succumbing, gradually degenerated into vice.[1] Here the German philosopher was expressing a widely-held perception: doesn’t the Church, with all her commandments and prohibitions, turn to bitterness the most precious thing in life? Doesn’t she blow the whistle just when the joy which is the Creator’s gift offers us a happiness which is itself a certain foretaste of the Divine?

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

 

[adrift]

This is incorrect. “Open” refers to the public knowledge of a person’s sexual orientation.

How would anyone know? Yeah people go around and say I have the inclination to steal, have lustful thoughts, I would like to have my neighbors wife I agree with you that Open means that an individual has made it public knowledge but has done so by openly living as a homosexual.