May I ask what this discussion has to do with bullying? A religious doctrinal position nor a belief as taught seems to me to be just what it is. I suppose though that some might assume since they cannot have the changes they demand it is some sort of bullying. Not in my world.I have a simple solution for any bullying. Growing up when ever my father caught his children bullying it was a slap accross the face, a foot to the fanny, and grounded for a minimum of a month. Who was being bullied was not relevant. That put an end to it quickly. These snotty brats that bully today need that kind of treatment.
You believe everything you read from Christian Today? And even if the articles you cited reveal facts about these “Catholic groups”, you still are failing to produce evidence that the Church supports their behavior
North Carolina bishops Peter J. Jugis of Charlotte and Michael F. Burbidge of Raleigh have written to voters asking them to oppose sections of a school bullying bill now before the state legislature that they say could open the door to same-sex marriage.
“We seek your assistance with Senate Bill 526 (SB526), the “School Violence Protection Act” (also known as the “Bullying Bill”),” the bishops write.
"The bill is significant on several levels, both positively and negatively.
"All students and school employees should be free of bullying or harassing behavior. This is in accord with their fundamental dignity as human beings. Legislation that will 1) protect this human dignity, 2) educate about the reasons why bullying or harassment are both detrimental and unacceptable and 3) remediate the behaviors of those who bully or harass is laudable. SB526 is an attempt to reduce school violence and many of its points are commendable.
"However, one section of the bill opens the door to a potential future problem that concerns us greatly. The section in question describes specific differentiating characteristics that result in bullying or harassment. The list includes such things as race, national origin, disabilities, etc. It also includes gender identity and sexual orientation.
i
i
“We agree that bullying or harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation is reprehensible and should not be tolerated,” the bishops write.
However, the bishops say they are concerned with the “highly problematic consequence to the inclusion of these two specific differentiating characteristics should it become law”.
"In three states that have a law similar to SB526, the law was used as part of a lawsuit to persuade a judge or court to mandate same-sex marriage.
“We believe the passage of SB526 into law could be the precursor of actions by our legislature and/or our courts to mandate same-sex marriage in our state because it has occurred already in three other states. This would be contrary to our fundamental teaching and understanding of marriage,” they say.
The bishops insist that “all students and school employees should be free of bullying or harassing behavior”.
CathNews USA quoting Catholic Voice NC, the Bishops’ own website."However, we cannot accept the specific language noted above because of the possibility of it being used to open the door to same-sex marriage. Changing the title and text of this bill and making all forms of bullying and harassment unacceptable without specifying particular groups or characteristics will cover all persons, the bishops argue.
Frankly, their excuse for opposing this legislation doesn’t pass the giggle test. Perhaps if the Church had a better reputation for honesty, we may give the bishops the benefit of the doubt. In view of the shennanigans in Canada though, no organisation, be it commercial, political, or religious, with such a self-admitted lack of regard for being open about their motives, not just in the past, but continuing, should have their words taken uncritically and at face value.GLSEN studies have shown that 86.2% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 44.1% reported being physically harassed and 22.1% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation
NARTH Scientific Advisory Committee member Joseph Berger said on a blog in reaction to a San Francisco Chronicle article on gender identity issues, “I suggest, indeed, letting children who wish go to school in clothes of the opposite sex – but not counselling other children to not tease them or hurt their feelings.
“On the contrary, don’t interfere, and let the other children ridicule the child who has lost that clear boundary between play-acting at home and the reality needs of the outside world.
I’m sure the Bishops would disapprove : they just don’t want anything done to change the situation.“Maybe, in this way, the child will re-establish that necessary boundary.”
Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. Thanks for the details. I still fail to see the issue you have here. First of all, 2 bishops from NC do not necessarily represent the entire Church. But even so, I see no evidence here of supporting and condoning bullying of homosexuals. And I certainly see no reason why the Church would disagree with these two bishops’ decision to refrain from supporting policy which has been proven to be used to gain same-sex marriage legislation. I would oppose that type of policy as well. That doesn’t mean that the bishops are condoning bullying. Nor do I see anything of your original allegation: *“Catholic groups have even opposed anti-bullying measures at schools, saying that to protect children of gay parents from physical assault would be to condone sin” *CathNews USA quoting Catholic Voice NC, the Bishops’ own website.
Those are statistics from exclusively Catholic schools?The actual statistics
Seems to pass the test to me. If same-sex marriage is a hidden agenda within the policy (which it clearly seems to be), then I would oppose it too.Frankly, their excuse for opposing this legislation doesn’t pass the giggle test.
Oh that’s good. Sling mud that often, do you? Got any statistics on that claim? Since you seem to be a self-professed expert of the Church, perhaps you can expound upon all the other reputations that the Church is known for?Perhaps if the Church had a better reputation for honesty, we may give the bishops the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, and just how is it that you’re being careful here?We must be careful however to distinguish the hierachical organisation, staffed with fallible humans, from the Church’s true aim.
No doubt, but NARTH is not a Catholic organization, so I’m not sure why you brought Mr. Berger’s comments into play here.NARTH has been quoted a lot on this forum and in Catholic publications as an authoritative source.
You asked them personally?I’m sure the Bishops would disapprove : they just don’t want anything done to change the situation.
Quite an accusation which begs for supporting data.The [Catholic diocese in the U.S.] have stated that they wish to continue to persecute [gays], to continue to deny them employment, rental accommodation, being able to travel by bus, train, aircraft or taxi, to make use of public baths or other facilities, to deny them access to cinemas and even hospitals. That the right to mercilessly persecute sinners, to starve them and deny them shelter and medical care is part of the bedrock of Christianity. Lest they be seen to condone the sin.
Ive read about schoolyeard bulllying in this thread so I am responding to it. I don’t see any hate the sin, love the sinner being promoted here.May I ask what this discussion has to do with bullying? A religious doctrinal position nor a belief as taught seems to me to be just what it is. I suppose though that some might assume since they cannot have the changes they demand it is some sort of bullying. Not in my world.
I got my fanny kicked for bullying and teasing. I think both should be punished in school, period. I’m not gong to try and split hairs on definitions or try and figure out where any line is crossed. The way I was raised in that rspect is the way every child should be raised. I happen to not be pro gay, but I mind my own business, because without truely prying you dont know whether sin is really being committed or not. Remember gay acts are no more sinful than a traditional male / female couple just shacking up, yet I dont see the same uproar over that. Remeber it is the sexual act that is a sin, not having the feelings. If mere feeling kept one out of heaven, heaven would be empty.I need to ask a question and would like an honest answer:
Is it the argument of the pro-homosexual posters that the Catholic Church should ignore the biblical teachings of homosexuality as being an abomination? Or is it their position that the Church should ignore some sins and absolve those who commit them and change the belief doctrine of the Church?
It seems to me that those who are opposed to the Catholic teachings are themselves not even Catholic and from what I glean they do not consider themselves as belonging to any Christian congregation and actually not inclined towards any religious beliefs either unless they represent abstractions separate from core faith values.
The Church never took the position that a homosexual was a sinner simply by being just that. What the Church has stated and clearly is that the commission of the act of homosexuality was a sin. In fact any act of fornication is a sin whether it be between opposite sex or same sex.
And please do not confuse bullying with teasing which each of us, Catholic and non-Catholic have gone through as part of our younger years. In our parish we actually have in place a prohibition against school bullying that is stricter than most laws. And this edict was formulated not by a district law but by the Catholic diocese itself.
Absolutely not.I need to ask a question and would like an honest answer:
Is it the argument of the pro-homosexual posters that the Catholic Church should ignore the biblical teachings of homosexuality as being an abomination?
11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.
12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.
In general, not true. In my own particular case, guilty as charged in all particulars.It seems to me that those who are opposed to the Catholic teachings are themselves not even Catholic and from what I glean they do not consider themselves as belonging to any Christian congregation and actually not inclined towards any religious beliefs either unless they represent abstractions separate from core faith values.
34 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
35 One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:
Compare with a somewhat earlier statement - by about 50 years.36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37Jesus replied: " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."
The Talmud tells a story about a man who went to see Rabbi Hillel and asked him to teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot. Rabbi Hillel answered:
It is my contention that whenever you try to interpret the many and various rules, you have to keep in mind the two (or one in Rabbi Hillel’s view) greatest commandments. The ones that form the basis of all of the Law and the Prophets. If you find yourself breaking either one, you’ve missed the point.“What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, while the rest is commentary…go and learn it.”
1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
Lots of people here have a deep knowledge of Catechism and religious law. They have Faith. Many speak or write most eloquently. Many do great good works for the Church.13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
In view of your subsequent comments, I unreservedly withdraw this accusation. With apologies.You’re not interested in addressing the issue.
Please take that up with the writer of the book “Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools Perspective” by Michael J. Bayly.which “conservative members”? More importantly, proof that these members are representative of the Church’s official position on the treatment of homosexuals?
Evidence of Catholic support for the legislation that led to this situation:And how about Mrs. Langbehn? Still waiting to see how her issue was fueled by the Catholic Church as you seemed to indicate in your original slurry of accusations.
We support existing Florida law, which does not allow adoption by homosexuals. The best interest of a child is the primary consideration in his or her placement for adoption. While we affirm and defend the human and civil rights of homosexual persons, we also affirm and defend the Church’s teaching on marriage and family. Laws allowing adoption by homosexuals may have the effect of legitimizing homosexual activity. We oppose any proposal which does not maintain a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual activity. Our concerns extend to the Florida policy allowing homosexuals to be foster parents, even though these arrangements are temporary and not permanent.
As was shown by the first URL, it was not thought that legislation which would prevent a member of a same-sex partnership - or the children of that partnership - from visiting their dying partner was “unjust discrmination”. Or we wouldn’t have had this:We understand the desire to tolerate adoption by homosexuals under the pretext of avoiding discrimination. We are against unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians, but we are also opposed to a policy which will in effect give legal sanction to homosexual acts.
…
The Florida Catholic Conference supports the existing Florida law recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman as husband and wife and banning same sex marriage (Section 741.212 FS). We support proposals that will strengthen that ban, provided they do not discriminate unduly against gay and lesbian persons. Human dignity and human rights are God-given; they are not earned nor are they legislated. Our tradition affirms these rights, seeking human respect, economic and personal security and social equality for all people.
Florida’s bishops are urging a “yes” vote on Amendment 2.
It was pointed out repeatedly by opponents of Amendment 2 that such consequences were inevitable - they had happened on other jurisdictions that passed similar legislation.Miami Auxiliary Bishop Felipe Estevez, spiritual director of the south Florida chapter of CALL, urged members to “mobilize the consciences of our citizenship to vote massively in favor of amendment 2.”
A Florida judge on Tuesday overturned a Florida law that prohibits homosexuals from adopting children. Attorneys for Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum immediately announced the state would appeal the ruling.
When the right of a child to have the best possible set of foster parents is sacrificed so that a group cannot be seen to be supporting something they hate - and hate is not too strong a word - then there’s something wrong.Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman said the 31-year-old law violates equal protection rights for the children and prospective homosexual parents. She ruled that “there is no rational basis to prohibit gay parents from adopting.”
I totally agree with the positions taken by the Catholic Church on the issue of adoption of children by same sex couples. Foster parents too should be good examples for the children to follow and I do not see two men or two women sleeping in bed together as being a good lesson that a child might be ‘required’ to witness simply by their closeness to the sinful behavior.Evidence of Catholic support for the legislation that led to this situation:
thefloridacatholic.org/election_2008/election_articles/20081010_rop_amendment_2_s1.php
Note the following, from the Catholic Conference
flacathconf.org/Publications/Positionpapers/AdoptionSameSex06.htm
As was shown by the first URL, it was not thought that legislation which would prevent a member of a same-sex partnership - or the children of that partnership - from visiting their dying partner was “unjust discrimination”. Or we wouldn’t have had this:
It was pointed out repeatedly by opponents of Amendment 2 that such consequences were inevitable - they had happened on other jurisdictions that passed similar legislation.
In passing - about the adoption issue - When the right of a child to have the best possible set of foster parents is sacrificed so that a group cannot be seen to be supporting something they hate - and hate is not too strong a word - then there’s something wrong.
I continually read platitudes and assurances. In general, all the right things are being said. But actions speak louder than words.
The couple had done this - they even had mutual medical powers of attorney. Which were presented to the hospital - and ignored.In most hospitals during the last stage of death the visitors permitted are limited to relatives usually with there being an exception for those listed in legal papers such as Living Wills, Declarations, and other authorizations giving right of bedside attendance. My husband and I have such documents and think everybody should do the same. This way you take out of the hands those not in the know and reinforce your own wishes in writing. Otherwise how is the hospital to know whether the person at the side of your bed is welcome or not. It is assumed family members are welcome but even that in some cases has been fraught with difficulty for some hospitals and hospices who are caring for the dying patient.
Florida’s bishops are urging a “yes” vote on Amendment 2.
They knew what the consequences would be. They knew that same-sex marriage was already legally forbidden. They knew of the identical cases in other states where similar wording was in effect.Miami Auxiliary Bishop Felipe Estevez, spiritual director of the south Florida chapter of CALL, urged members to “mobilize the consciences of our citizenship to vote massively in favor of amendment 2.”
Hi Diane. This is a good question and the answer is a bit complicated. I will not speak for others, only myself.I need to ask a question and would like an honest answer:
Is it the argument of the pro-homosexual posters that the Catholic Church should ignore the biblical teachings of homosexuality as being an abomination? Or is it their position that the Church should ignore some sins and absolve those who commit them and change the belief doctrine of the Church?
Zoe Brain,The couple had done this - they even had mutual medical powers of attorney. Which were presented to the hospital - and ignored.
The legislation is worded such that it is supposed to prevent hospitals from giving any of the rights normally given to married couples to same sex partners. Had she been a stranger with a medical power of attorney, she would have been let in. But as a same-sex partner, she arguably couldn’t be, living will. medical power of attorney or no. Because a married partner in the same circumstances - such as yourself - would have been.
The prevention of the children from being at her bedside was a gratuitous piece of inhumanity the hospital added in for good measure.
Since the Church is apparently fine with ignoring the biblical teachings that say that sin is a matter between the sinner and God alone, and that people should concern themselves with their own sins and not the sins of others, I don’t see why not. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.I need to ask a question and would like an honest answer:
Is it the argument of the pro-homosexual posters that the Catholic Church should ignore the biblical teachings of homosexuality as being an abomination? Or is it their position that the Church should ignore some sins and absolve those who commit them and change the belief doctrine of the Church?
Here is a link as to the bible and christian perspectives on homosexuality. We can get lost in the interpretations and disect it as usual, but getting back to the basics, a good read for both gays and straights and bi’s. Sorry if this link has already been offered for reading.Since the Church is apparently fine with ignoring the biblical teachings that say that sin is a matter between the sinner and God alone, and that people should concern themselves with their own sins and not the sins of others, I don’t see why not. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
A very well prepared document of faith and satisfies my question. I agree with the tenants as expressed in the perspective and wish others would take heed in what it says rather than create confusion so as to advance their own inclinations and excuses in answer to the sinful ACTS that are clearly explained in the bible as abominations.Here is a link as to the bible and christian perspectives on homosexuality. We can get lost in the interpretations and disect it as usual, but getting back to the basics, a good read for both gays and straights and bi’s. Sorry if this link has already been offered for reading.
bible.org/article/homosexuality-christian-perspective
The Episcopalians are picking up people like the former Gov of NJ. He was so false to his naive former wife using her for his personal political gain and doing the whole marriage and having children thing. Now he wants to become an Episcopal priest? Yikers. He was well known among his peers growing up as very likely homosexual. I happen to think they are born that way but of course not knowing until they’ve grown a bit as to sexuality preferences. What turns them on, etc…, just as some people are born left handed, they can’t just change to right unless ambidextrous. Bi-sexuals are born that way too imo. I don’t agree with all of that link’s author’s views. However it was very well written and connected to bible quotes. I enjoyed it too. Thanks for the positive feedback.A very well prepared document of faith and satisfies my question. I agree with the tenants as expressed in the perspective and wish others would take heed in what it says rather than create confusion so as to advance their own inclinations and excuses in answer to the sinful ACTS that are clearly explained in the bible as abominations.
I would be the first to support a homosexuals behavior if he or she can show me one fact of research, not a subliminal allusion, that one is born to be homosexual. Perhaps one is inclined to be a kleptomaniac as well but to that too I would demand proof of valid research. Supposition is not fact! An inclination is not by itself a right to ignore a religious value and the homosexual act is clearly spelled out in the bible as a sin as professed by the Catholic Church.
I would and have taken issue with some priests like the Dean of Notre Dame who by his actions gave a wink and a nod to a person who is sinful by his support of abortion and awarded him an award. But any religious who does that dishonors himself rather than the religious doctrine he claims to value. There are too many who call themselves Christian on the one hand and dilute Christian values on the other. I would turn my back on such a person as did many in the Episcopal Church who did much the same to Robinson. And if those two Florida bishops acted contrary to church law then they too should be taken to task.
If it is any comfort to others, I would have voiced my objection to those who denied access to the dying woman on her deathbed especially since it was her wish to have the person there and provided for that eventuality legally.
I thank you, New Age Catholic, for the paper you presented. It clears up the matter for me but I doubt it will change the minds of those who have already condemned christian values and will continue to do so in actions and words.
How about these?I would be the first to support a homosexuals behavior if he or she can show me one fact of research, not a subliminal allusion, that one is born to be homosexual.