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

  • Thread starter Thread starter markeverett49
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
Then for the purposes of our conversion here, please understand that when I use “open” I understand that to mean “publicly known orientation” (whether sexually active or not) and when I use “closeted” I understand that to mean “orientation not publicly known” (whether sexually active or not). 🙂
For chastity and celibacy I would like to put forward the definitions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Infinitely better. Should’ve done it, but I got lazy. 😉
How would anyone know?
A person’s sexual orientation? The person is willing to mention and/or discuss it. Kolbe300, for example, just wrote: “As a faithful Catholic man who happens to be gay…”
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.
If by “openly living as a homosexual” you mean willing to mention and/or discuss it, yes. If by “openly living as a homosexual” you mean sexually active with people of the same sex, there are many clear examples to the contrary.
 
Then for the purposes of our conversion here, please understand that when I use “open” I understand that to mean “publicly known orientation” (whether sexually active or not) and when I use “closeted” I understand that to mean “orientation not publicly known” (whether sexually active or not). 🙂

.
So now we know your definition but it is not shared by everyone
What does openly gay mean?
Openly gay people are people who don’t care if people find out if he/she is gay.
Openly gay people act just like themselves in public…they might kiss in public, hold hands or just tell others that they are gay!
I appreciate people who are brave enough to enjoy their lives by being themselves everywhere they go!
I’m openly gay and have no regrets whatsoever!
People like me for being myself and the way I am. I think it’s a person’s character that matter the most.
“Openly gay” means “out,” visible, not secretive about being gay, not hidden.
The opposite meaning would be “closeted.” Someone who is closeted will have secret affairs, secret relationships. They have not yet revealed to the world, to their work environment, or to their families that they are gay.(My emphasis)
“Openly gay” used to be called “a known homosexual.” This is someone who makes no secret about being gay. Sometimes people will put limits or qualifiers on such a term, saying something like, “I’m out to my family but not at work.”
 
It is shared by the people you quoted, however.
My kids go to Catholic high schools and I am both encouraged and disappointed by the teachers/education… Of course the majority are lay teachers. It is very liberal which maybe 60-70% of which is okay, even good, cause it does focus on social justice. But it (and some teachers) go to far. These kids are all touchy feely and tolerant and accepting (at least among one another). It is a typical form of ‘peer pressure’ and ‘conformity’ for their age group… but… 180 degrees from when I was a kid. It is too accepting and too tolerant. Is it better or worse… I don’t know, just radically different. I can still ‘get through’ to my 15 yr old when I want/need to. Sometimes ‘tough love’ is necessary.

I’m not going to argue the “gay” or SSA thing, I’ll just say that the CCC and Bible give me a pretty firm stance on the subject which for the most part seems to boil down to “love the sinner, hate the sin”.

The point - I applaud the Chaplain and ‘boo’ the kids. It’s a teachable moment. Maximize the maximum and minimize the minimum.

PS - Adultery, porn, masturbation, infidelity, fornication, even willfull lust (fantasizing) etc… are, or can be, just as sinful as "active’ SSA… (don’t want to come across as biased or… unaware…)
 
For chastity and celibacy I would like to put forward the definitions in the Catechism of the Catholic Church

How about an encyclical

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html
Your use of the encyclical actually undercuts your point.

Did you actually read what you inserted from the encyclical? “Greek words” and then he goes on and relates each GREEK concept to the CHRISTian example of love.

Did Jesus not constantly self-donate to His apostles?

“… 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…”.
 
Look I’m not going to denigrate your knowledge of history. .
Don’t try things you can’t do.
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.
Tha Spanish Civil War ran from 1936 to 1939. Franco was supported by Germany and Italy while the Soviet Union supported the Republican side. The Soviet Union would be greatly surprised to learn they were supporting Franco by arming his enemies.
The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) broke out when the Spanish army in Morocco when a few of the most influent generals of the Spanish Army, led by General Francisco Franco, rose up against the democratically elected Republican government, presided over by Manuel Azaña. Allegiances were not always clear-cut during this conflict. Essentially, the ranks of the Left (also known as Loyalist and Republican) comprised workers, peasants and trade unions, but also the Spanish government, Socialists, Communists and Anarchists. The Right (also known as Nationalist), was supported by rebellious factions of the army, industry, landowners, the middle classes and the Catholic Church. For various and somewhat contradictory reasons, the Loyalists received the support of the Soviet Union and European democracies, while the Nationalists were armed and equipped by the Fascist governments of Germany and Italy.

The Spanish Civil War would prove to be both fierce and bloody. Although the resources of the two sides were not that unequal, the Nationalists were better organized and received extensive material aid from Germany. The Loyalists received very little assistance from the Soviet Union and, moreover, were divided by internal conflicts between Communist, Socialist and Anarchist factions.
history.com/topics/francisco-franco
 
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 ?
That’s part of what is so frustrating. Imagine if we talked like that about any other sinful behavior.

Mr. Jones isn’t* really* committing adultery - he dates other women, kisses and hugs them in public and introduces them as his girlfriends but as long as he only has sex with his wife, it’s not sinful. :eek:

Mr. Smith isn’t really a pervert. He’s 50 and dates a 12 year old. They kiss and hug in public, he calls her his girlfriend but as long as he isn’t having sex with her, it’s just fine. :eek:
 
That’s part of what is so frustrating. Imagine if we talked like that about any other sinful behavior.

Mr. Jones isn’t* really* committing adultery - he dates other women, kisses and hugs them in public and introduces them as his girlfriends but as long as he only has sex with his wife, it’s not sinful. :eek:

Mr. Smith isn’t really a pervert. He’s 50 and dates a 12 year old. They kiss and hug in public, he calls her his girlfriend but as long as he isn’t having sex with her, it’s just fine. :eek:
Ah, it is so true. It is quite absurd. Now we require complicated philosophical arguments to point out what is self evident.
 
This is the price of lack of teaching to the young people.
How true. The class room of the Institution of Family now extinct, the clergy finds himself teaching basic principles, this without *real time *tradition the family would normally have provided beforehand. So we have a shock effect when the dire truth is told. The ideal that Christ has envisaged is that the class room is the continuation of basic teaching and traditions of the family. (except for these intermediate times before the globe becomes entirely Catholic as Christ intended, and we find ourselves in evangelical situations.)

So we need to go back to foundational traditions and orthodoxy, re-establish fundamental Catholic schools, get families to teach Catholicism, fill the home environment with visual cues and reminders of a Holy home(shrines,crucifixes,holy water, observances,fasting,feasts,celebrations,etc) reject dysfunctional outside influences and ideas(affairs,TV, homosexuality,abortion,divorce,etc), and form our children spiritually into children of Christ.

This chaplain now has the proper environment to continue his teaching.
 
Can we pause one minute? Did a Canadian Catholic bishop actually expel gay students from a Catholic high school?

After a more thorough (though not exhaustive) search, I find no evidence that this has happened. I see news stories of evangelical pastors, Anglican bishops, and even a University head expelling gay students. I see a news story about a school booting a guidance counselor who refused to give relationship advice to a gay couple. I see nothing about a Canadian Catholic bishop expelling gay students.

That said, we have two conversations nominally related by the topic of students in homosexual relationships, but otherwise very different - the OP began with gay students trying to kick out a priest, the conversation is mainly about a bishop (allegedly) kicking out gay students. While the latter is a good theoretical discussion to have, I don’t think we can apply it as much to the former - should students be allowed to be gay versus should priests be allowed to say that homosexuality is a sin?

Would anyone object to splitting and renaming these threads?
 
Other points:
As for the question of expelling children from a Catholic school (-I’m not sure that happened in this case, but on that subject in general), I didn’t grow up Catholic, much less go to a Catholic school, but I am aware children have been asked to leave Catholic schools for lots of reasons. One was becoming pregnant. Others have included cheating, bullying, and theft.
This is true for public schools as well. I knew a number of students who were expelled for fighting, drug possession or other behaviors that were disruptive. I was actually referred by my junior high principal for expulsion for fighting, which was ironic because I was the one being picked on. Students’ being expelled for pregnancy used to happen in public schools as well but thankfully that’s changed (how on earth is a single mom supposed to support her kids without a diploma, much less degree or trade school?). The true scandal is that while my wife attended her Catholic high school, the school had their first incident of a student having a baby. Previously there were simply a lot of abortions. Terrible and I am glad that a cultural shift has happened.

Be that as it may, Catholic schools aren’t the only ones who kick students out, and often by the time we hear a story we only get the sensationalist side of it. There was a major scandal during my senior year in which two 14-year-old black girls tried out for the varsity cheer team, didn’t make it (they were up against 30-some other girls, many of them juniors and seniors), filed suit, and in the end the head of the cheer team got a permanent record mark for discrimination, and the cheer coach was dismissed. But all you heard in the paper was “Cheer team accused of racism.”
Fair enough. But hypothetically, just for fun conversation, would you agree with a decision to expel such a student?
I honestly don’t know we have all the facts here to make a judgement. On the basis of “can we kick out kids who simply say they’re gay?” No, please, let’s not do that. The lifestyle is incompatible, but is it honestly disruptive? Beyond that I trust the school’s judgement because they have the responsibility of keeping everyone and everything orderly and in line. Freedom of expression is limited in school even though Universities tend to be more lax about it.

A student who will tell you he is gay if you ask but doesn’t hit on the other boys is different behavior from that of a student who dresses in drag, makes sexual comments, or makes out with his boyfriend in the hallway. One is there to learn and acts appropriately, the other is disruptive. A boy sexually harrassing a girl or displaying excessive PDA wouldn’t be tolerated either, and at a parochial school where uniforms are mandatory (I’d be surprised if they weren’t), everyone has the same limitation on how to dress so I’d support the school taking action against a boy who cross-dresses so long as they’d take the same action against another boy who just wears jeans and a t-shirt or a girl who wears an inappropriate-length skirt. Again, it’s a judgement call, and I trust the school more to know what the kids need than a local or even national paper to get sufficient facts to present an unbiased account of events.
Gay students who are kicked out of their Catholic schools are more likely to be embittered and spiteful towards their faith than anything else. And you think that’s a good thing?
They likely will be embittered. I don’t want to make that the decision-rule for discipline or policy, but rather every interaction with a student requires that we keep in mind treating them with dignity and respect without condoning an act that is out of line, illegal or immoral. Regardless of orientation, school is not the place to act out sexual proclivities regardless of your attraction. I was written up once for making out with my girlfriend in the hallway - and my high school security was fond of walking into couples who were holding hands so they’d have to let go. The point, while irritating at the time, was well-taken: keep your hands to yourself while you’re here, and learn.

The older the person, the more responsibility he or she must take. Consider a work-place. At my work, we have a policy of no tolerance for harassment, and a policy of not talking about sex, politics, or religion. I have gay co-workers. We know they’re gay, but they’re here to do their jobs just as we are. It doesn’t come up beyond “what did you do this weekend?” “I went to a movie with my…” etc. Whether someone is straight or gay is irrelevant to the task at hand, and you absolutely do not see rainbow flags, or political stickers, or religious signs at desks or cubes. I keep a crucifix at my desk, where only I can see it. An IT guy (who is Muslim) complained. My response was “you shouldn’t have been sitting in my desk”. It never went beyond that.
 
You might have something resembling a valid point if you were trying to equate homosexuality and kleptomania, but you aren’t and don’t.

Being out means not in the closet. Any lifestyle a gay person leads is a “gay lifestyle”, even Joshua Weed.
There is no reason to be out.

I do not go around, parading myself as a non practicing fornicator, a non practicing adulterer, or a non practicing masturbator. So a person saying theyre a non practicing “openly gay” person makes about as much sense.

If you do not make your lifestyle about stealing, your are not a thief, despite your inclination to steal.

If you do not make your lifestyle about gay acts, you are not a gay person, despite your inclination to the same sex.
 
There is no reason to be out.

I do not go around, parading myself as a non practicing fornicator, a non practicing adulterer, or a non practicing masturbator. So a person saying theyre a non practicing “openly gay” person makes about as much sense.

If you do not make your lifestyle about stealing, you are not a thief, despite your inclination to steal.

If you do not make our lifestyle about gay acts, you are not a gay person, despite your inclination to the same sex.
Correct, it is about total identification as a person and desperately wanting affirmation.
 
There is no reason to be out.
Actually, there are a lot of reasons to be out, even for a homosexual person who isn’t sexually active. Here are a couple:

1 - a desire to be honest
2 - to participate in a conversation about sexuality honestly
3- to answer the question, “Why aren’t you dating?”
4 - to answer the statement, “I’ve got a friend I want to set you up with.”
5 - So you can get appropriate help in spiritual direction and counseling.
6 - So you can stand up to people who make crude jokes without realizing just who it is they are offending.

Those are just a few.
 
Correct, it is about total identification as a person and desperately wanting affirmation.
The only people “totally identifying” someone by their sexuality aren’t the homosexuals. I think people here believe homosexual people identify totally by their sexuality because that is how they identify someone who says they are homosexual. It’s a bad case of projection.
 
The only people “totally identifying” someone by their sexuality aren’t the homosexuals. I think people here believe homosexual people identify totally by their sexuality because that is how they identify someone who says they are homosexual. It’s a bad case of projection.
No. People only know because that is what is constantly talked about.
 
Actually, there are a lot of reasons to be out, even for a homosexual person who isn’t sexually active. Here are a couple:

1 - a desire to be honest
2 - to participate in a conversation about sexuality honestly
3- to answer the question, “Why aren’t you dating?”
4 - to answer the statement, “I’ve got a friend I want to set you up with.”
5 - So you can get appropriate help in spiritual direction and counseling.
6 - So you can stand up to people who make crude jokes without realizing just who it is they are offending.

Those are just a few.
Starting with number one, does that mean I have to “come out” and tell everyone constantly that I have inclinations to lust, anger, masturbation, stealing, over eating, being lazy?

And since when is it “dishonest” to not make public our temptations?
 
No. People only know because that is what is constantly talked about.
You may notice that 99.9% of the threads started on this forum to discuss homosexuality aren’t started by the homosexual people. That’s a big clue as to just who it is that’s “constantly” talking about it.
 
You may notice that 99.9% of the threads started on this forum to discuss homosexuality aren’t started by the homosexual people. That’s a big clue as to just who it is that’s “constantly” talking about it.
What is talked about here is a response to what is started by 99.9%of homosexuals in the media and in the world, which is quite frequently.
 
Starting with number one, does that mean I have to “come out” and tell everyone constantly that I have inclinations to lust, anger, masturbation, stealing, over eating, being lazy?

And since when is it “dishonest” to not make public our temptations?
For starters, a sexual orientation isn’t simply a sum of temptations. And why does coming out have to be some public announcement? I don’t think anyone is arguing for standing on a streetcorner with a blowhorn and a sign. Is telling my family about my sexual orientation coming out? I’d say it is. And like I said, there are times when it is necessary.

Am I the only one that thinks it would be great to have faithful homosexual Catholics as living examples of Church teaching being lived?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top