Sister Jane, Cowardly Clergy and Martin Niemoller Moments

79623

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

Pastor Martin Niemoller

Sister Jane Dominic Laurel is the latest victim of the group-think, all-things-homosexual movement. Her oppressor isn’t an amoral corporation. It’s the Catholic Church.

Sister Jane gave an hour-long presentation to students at Charlotte Catholic High School in North Carolina titled “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift”

Sister Jane is a member of the Dominican Sisters of Cecilia, which is known for its fidelity to the Magisterium. She has a doctorate in sacred theology from the Pontifical University of St Thomas Aquinas in Rome. Her presentation was based on a series of instructional videos created for Aquinas College in Nashville, where she is an associate professor.

The resulting uproar caused by this faithful Catholic nun faithfully teaching Catholic morality to a group of high school students in a Catholic High School immediately moved from disagreement to nasty confrontation.

In a meeting with “outraged” parents, the Rev Matthew Kauth, the school chaplain, apologized to parents and promised that the high school would develop “new policies that would better scrutinize visiting speakers in the future.”

Now, Sister Jane is “taking a sabbatical from teaching and canceling her other speaking engagements.”

After the fold-up of the Catholic Bishops in England, when they were scolded by a powerful British politician, I began to wonder exactly what’s with this all-male priesthood of ours. The craven behavior of the English bishops raised the question, at least in my mind, as to who is the teaching authority of the Catholic Church; the bishops or powerful politicians.

The situations in both Seattle and North Carolina make me wonder if the new teaching authority resides in angry mobs with tuition money.

Why are we bothering with an all-male priesthood, if the priests and bishops won’t act like men?

We. Need. Leadership.

We already have all the examples of collusion, running away, (what we call “crawfishing” here in Okieland) and back stabbing that anyone could want.

What those of us in the pews would like to see is active examples of manly defense of the Gospels and the Church by stand-up men of the cloth.

Scape-goating a nun during Lent, when we are remembering the sacrifice made by the Ultimate Scapegoat when He died on Calvary, is perhaps more apt than the boys in collars really want to be.

Are the men in our all-male priesthood men enough for these times? Are they men enough to pay the price of real leadership in ugly times when the Church is attacked, or are they going to sell the Gospels down the drain?

In politics, we have a saying, “I have your back.” That means that you are dealing with someone who will watch and not allow you to be blindsided; someone who will stick with you when things get dicey.

I have often criticized my fellow elected officials for certain behaviors, but I can tell you that I have not seen such a case of obvious cowardice as this from any elected official I ever served with.

The priests and the bishop put Sister Jane out on the ice and let the bears have her. How inspiring for the rest of us.

Why did they tuck tail and run away?

I don’t know.

Anyone can see that when the bears get through with her, they’re still going to turn and attack the boys in black. The only way to delay that is if they do sell out the Gospels, which, based on the comments by the school chaplain, is exactly what they plan to do.

Of course, the problem with that is that a lot of the rest of us aren’t going to trust them or follow them later, when they might need us; like when those bears come for them.

This was a Martin Niemoller moment. And they blew it.

When Pastor Niemöller was put in a concentration camp we wrote the year 1937; when the concentration camp was opened we wrote the year 1933, and the people who were put in the camps then were Communists. Who cared about them? We knew it, it was printed in the newspapers.
Who raised their voice, maybe the Confessing Church? We thought: Communists, those opponents of religion, those enemies of Christians – “should I be my brother’s keeper?”
Then they got rid of the sick, the so-called incurables. – I remember a conversation I had with a person who claimed to be a Christian. He said: Perhaps it’s right, these incurably sick people just cost the state money, they are just a burden to themselves and to others. Isn’t it best for all concerned if they are taken out of the middle [of society]? — Only then did the church as such take note. Then we started talking, until our voices were again silenced in public. Can we say, we aren’t guilty/responsible? The persecution of the Jews, the way we treated the occupied countries, or the things in Greece, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia or in Holland, that were written in the newspapers
I believe, we Confessing-Church-Christians have every reason to say: mea culpa, mea culpa! We can talk ourselves out of it with the excuse that it would have cost me my head if I had spoken out. From Wikipedia.

 

For more information, check out Deacon Greg Kandra, Katrina Fernandez, Jennifer Fitz, and Get Religion.

  • Sus_1

    I wish we had a transcript of the nun’s talk. From what I have read from parents whose kids attended the presentation, she was not talking about church teachings but her own opinions of homosexuality and gay people. Saying that children from single family homes are more likely to be homosexual is not part of the Church teachings.

    If the Sister had stuck to Church teachings instead of her opinions, which seem to be hateful and relying on untrue information, there would not be a problem.

    • hamiltonr

      Did she say that? Or is it a malicious story designed to aid in hazing this woman?

      • Faithr

        The counter petition was disputing what the other petition stated as fact and implied that petition had misunderstood her point.

      • Sus_1

        http://www.aquinascollege.edu/college-statement-charlotte-catholic-sister-jane-dominic/

        I’m going to trust what her college said happened.

        So tired of the hysteria over the gay. People seem to think that gay sex is the worst thing that has ever happened in this world. If God is going to punish us all, it’s not going to be because of the gays. It’s going to be because of how we treat each other.

        • johnnysc

          Sin in all it’s forms is what separates us from God. Jesus said…..“Neither do I condemn you (compassion). Go your way, and from now on do not sin again (conversion).” John 8:11

          Compassion for this life, conversion for the next.

          Like many you seem to only want to look at the first part and ignore the second part (sin). But the second part is just as pastoral as the first part.

          • Sus_1

            I don’t ignore the sin at all. I look at the numbers of sins committed. If you count up all the mortal sins committed by all of us, homosexual sex would be in the low numbers because the other mortal sins are happening in much higher numbers.

            The obsession with homosexual sex is creepy.

            • Brian English

              Well, I am not aware of any organized effort to force the Church to change its teaching on stealing, adultery, fornication, etc. Even the teaching on contraception, although ignored by most, is ridiculed, but not condemned as being the equivalent of racism.
              Do you actually believe that the Church wants to be talking about gay sex? The issue has been forced upon her by the outside culture because the outside culture hates the Church’s teaching.

              • hamiltonr

                However, there is a lawsuit filed by the ACLU in federal court attempting for force the bishops to stop teaching Catholic teaching concerning abortion where Catholic hospitals are concerned. This is a serious lawsuit, btw.

            • Linda Almaraz

              Not if you considered as truthful the two biblical cities that were destroyed because of such action.

        • bonaventure

          Yes, God will indeed punish those Christians who are treating homosexuals as if homosexuality was “okay.” We should treat homosexuals as we treat all other sinners: love the sinner but hate the sin and try to save the sinner from the sin by whatever means, the most important of which is love.

          But letting & encouraging another person (or group of people) to sin is NOT love.

        • FW Ken

          It’s the gay rights activists who are hysterical, shouting down with foul language and booing anyone they disagree with. That’s from an eyewitness to the meeting.

    • Almario Javier

      I don’t think It was hateful. It was just information that has not been deemed viable by a scholarly consensus.

      But yes, I deplore the mob action this has descended into. PFLAG and their counterparts on the other side have had their metaphorical quota of blood. As to the legitimate interests of the other parties? To them it is secondary.

      • jeffersonian_nc

        It was insulting. Now whether that is hateful or not is up for debate.

    • Leo Domitor

      You seem to be saying that it is fine for someone in Sr. Jane’s position to teach Church doctrine as long as that teaching is segregated from the real world. But the whole point of Church doctrine is to be a leaven in the world. Jesus said to Pilate: “For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth” (Jn 18:37). This truth, unless acted upon, is merely a sterile set of doctrines. For this reason He also said: “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly” (Jn 10:10). The two, truth and life, go together. There is no point in teaching one without the other.

    • johnnysc

      So if Sister had kept to the teachings of Jesus and the Catholic Church on homosexuality and marriage and only talked about paragraphs 2357, 2358 and 2359 of the CCC everything would have been fine? Don’t think so. There still would have been intolerance from those with an agenda and accusations like yours of ‘hateful’, ‘bigoted’ and any other word the homosexual agenda can use to bury the truth in relativism.

      http://www.familylifecenterstore.net/homosexuality/

      • Sus_1

        In my mind, all would have been fine if the nun had kept to the Church teachings. I doubt the young people would have accepted that but at least the administration could have defended her. Because she did not keep to the teachings, they can’t let it stand as is.

        • bonaventure

          Okay, so your solution is: let the speaker stand at the podium and read the CCC articles relating to the issue, and then just sit down. Right? Just to cover her behind, right?

          I mean, who cares that Sister JDL has a doctorate in moral theology from a highly reputable institution, right?

          But no… her views and her research is not allowed as long as it contradicts the social engineering of homosexual activists…

          What you are proposing is the death of academic freedom, which is exactly what the liberals strive for. And THAT is un-Catholic.

          The Catholic faith always has (and always will) encourage honest research… because when it is properly done, it inevitably leads back to the fullness of the Catholic faith on all matters of doctrine and morality.

    • Nerinab

      First of all, would these parents even recognize Church teaching? Second of all, can we rely on the biased assessment of said aggrieved parents to accurately represent Sister’s comments? Thirdly, are we going to allow people to further circumscribe what is now “acceptable” to debate? It seems that Lady Gaga theology has become the only allowable view on homosexuality. This does a disservice to all of us – especially impressionable kids.

    • Godfrey Buillon

      If the venue were a public school and Sr. Jane was merely given a time to explain the “Catholic side” and she quoted stats which are debatable, then I would agree with you however, that was not a public school or a secular forum, it was a Catholic school. If there were debatable stats in her talk, those could have been clarified during Q&A and everyone would have benefitted from it rather than lynch-mobbing her and taking hostage of the event. The truth is, regardless of whether she confined her talk to just Catholic teaching, the “mob” would not have any of it. They don’t want to hear the truth because it is too much of an affront to their conscience and the neglect of their faith.

  • oregon nurse

    I don’t think Sr. Jane was scapegoated. I think she made the mistake of using soft science, hardly settled or conclusive by scientific standards, and elevating it to the level of Catholic teaching. Now she’s suffering the consequences. She went way beyond what the Church teaches and into what makes homosexuals, homosexual. That and only that part of her presentation is what is at issue and it was apparently an add on to her normal curriculum. Even if what she presented was undisputed (far from it), it is not part of the Catholic doctrine she was there to teach. Even her college has distanced itself from her statements, after first defending her 2 days ago. Read their statement:
    http://www.aquinascollege.edu/college-statement-charlotte-catholic-sister-jane-dominic/

    Now people may assume they too have fed her to the wolves but I doubt it. If the sociological and anthropological studies in question were defensable as a basis for Catholic teaching on behavior that causes homosexuality, I’m sure there are plenty of bright and articulate people in that very same college who could make the case in defense of what Sr. said. That neither Sr. nor her colleagues are doing so is important to this discussion.

    • James

      Listening to some of Sr. Jane’s talks online, a lot of the content is her own opinions as a theologian and not necessarily the teachings of the Church. There are legitimate, faithful, Catholic criticisms of what she is saying.

      • hamiltonr

        The talk was not recorded. http://catholicnewsherald.com/42-news/rokstories/5264-charlotte-catholic-speaker-sparks-student-petition?showall=

        I have no doubt that this was a witch hunt. These things are happening everywhere, and they are often set up deals.

        • James

          No, the talk in Charlotte was not recorded, but the program is available online.

          http://www.newmanconnection.com/institute/courses/rich-gift-of-love

          I’m sure there is a witch hunt, but we shouldn’t defend ideas that we cannot defend out of disdain for the “other side”.

          • hamiltonr

            It’s not a matter of defending academic ideas. It’s a question of allowing people to be treated like this by a mob. That is an idea, too, you know.

            • oregon nurse

              Both need to be defended.

              • Almario Javier

                Agreed. Both (initial) sides have legitimate greivances. Unfortunately the PFLAG brigade has essentially destroyed any chance of a equitable resolution. It’s funny. The initial petitioners lost, the respondents lose, Sister loses, the diocese loses. The only beneficiaries are the outside activists. And Satan, of course, who loved pointless division.

            • Almario Javier

              But what was at controversy was originally debateable. But outside interests have turned this into a mob action.

              Sr. Jane’s ideas are defensible. But a school assembly was not the appropriate venue to voice things which went beyond Church teaching into the cutting edge. That belongs in a college classroom or lecture hall.

              • Brian English

                So basically she could read to them from the Catechism, but nothing more? Look, every day these kids get the secuar message that gays are born that way and, therefore, anyone who regards homosexuality as being sinful is the equivalent of a Klansman. The fact is, there is zero evidence to support a purely genetic basis for homosexuality. There are many different theories as to why and how it occurs. Sr. Jane presented one viewpoint, a viewpoint these kids will not receive anyplace else. God forbid these high school students might actually use their brains and think about this issue.

                • Almario Javier

                  Whether the temptation is inborn or not changes the teaching of Holy Mother Church not one iota. But it is disputed even among people like us whether the (deplorable in itself) disintegration of the nuclear family causes expressions of homosexuality. There are plenty of persons with SSA who came from good, intact Catholic families. To teach something that is not settled fact as if it were fact is bound to attract controversy, needless controversy.

                  Am I saying if she just stuck to the reasons why same sex acts are grave matter, there would be no controversy? Not necessarily, for that alone is anathema to the radicals. But we could have deprived them of a legitimate avenue of criticism.

                  Once again, the part of the lecture in controversy (which seems to have been recently added) was perhaps not appropriate for a high school mandatory assembly. In a college class, sure. But what is appropriate in one place may not be appropriate in another.

              • Godfrey Buillon

                you mean if there are controversial stats presented in her talk, it could not have been dealt with by a proper open forum in charity and respect? Really? How many times has the faith been presented in the most charitable and respectful manner and still speakers are shouted down and jeered? It’s not the venue, it’s the culture.

              • Lisa Julia

                Only because that school apparently blows at Catechesis. Our local Catholic High school which is run by the Sisters teaches this curriculum and nobody in 8 years has decided to whine and post online petitions and demand apologies. I know for a fact that these Sisters have one goal, and that’s to share the fruits of their contemplation and study with the world. I think the fact that they have only given 2 ‘official’ statements speaks volumes, and while it may appear that Sister’s self-appointed sabbatical seems like they’ve caved, it actually is more likely that are putting Christ in front of them as their model in how to handle this situation. Jesus told His disciples, if there’s a town that doesn’t accept your message, shake the dust from your feet and move on…and that’s what the Sisters are trying to do. We need to let them do it.

          • johnnysc

            Shouldn’t that work both ways? There are varied opinions on the causes of homosexuality in the medical community. Are you sure Sister Jane’s talk can not be defended?

            http://www.familylifecenterstore.net/homosexuality/

          • Peter Shaw

            I an a priest of the Diocese of Charlotte. For clarification, there are several elements that were in play:

            1st – There are students and parents who disagree with the teachings of Christ on Human Sexuality, especially on Homosexuality. They immediately reacted as secular society has taught them – they formed a lynch mob to go after the so-called intolerant people that so grievously offended their sensibilities.

            2nd – Sister had previously spoken at Charlotte Catholic High School, and her talks were received well by the parents and students who opted to attend them. In response to requests from the parents, the Chaplain, Fr. Matthew Kauth, invited Sister back to speak to the entire student body. Sister had added content to her talk, which Fr. Kauth wasn’t aware had happened, so when she asked him if she should give the same talk, he said yes. He was unaware of the added content, which seems to have been based on strongly debated statistics.

            3rd – The diocese didn’t sell out Sister, nor did they apologize for the teachings of the Church. What they did apologize for is for not informing parents of students about the potentially sensitive nature of the talk that Sister was going to give.

            All in all, the parents who were upset didn’t allow anyone to come to either the defense of Fr. Kauth or to express anything that had a positive tone during the meeting. Those who tried were met with boos and jeers. The fundamental lack of Charity on the parents part and the
            miscommunication between Fr. Kauth and Sister led to the the situation that occured. There wasn’t a witch hunt, nor did Bishop Jugis, Fr. Kauth, or any of the other clerics involved fail to provide leadership. In the end, an adolescent level maturity and understanding of the Faith took dominance over the crowd of parents, which wouldn’t allow any leadership to guide or direct them.

            • hamiltonr

              Thanks for your insight Father.

              I still think that allowing a mob like this — and you gave a pretty good description of a mob — dictate matters is cowardly. I speak as someone who has dealt with mobs, including angry constituents who could fire me, and not backed down and run away.

              If I can do it all alone, I’m totally flummoxed to understand why the priest and bishop couldn’t do it. When someone errs — and I do not have enough information to know if there was error, or just going against the all-encompassing anti-Catholic zeitgeist — you back them in public and correct it. But first you back them.

              I’m not talking about robbing banks and raping kids, by the way. This is not a moral fault. At worst, it is quoting something that is controversial scientific opinion but that came from legitimate scientific journals. The behavior that is faulty lies with the mob, not the nun.

              Backing your people and not letting them get run off when they are attacked like this is leadership 101.

              We’re going to see more of this Father. There already is more of it. I do not want to see my religious leaders turn and run again.

              As a Catholic, I am ashamed of the way this was handled.

              • oregon nurse

                I understand where you are coming from – I really do and feel the same sense of outrage. But you have tremendous political and public capital. Spend it wisely in situations where it will do the most good. Pick your battles carefully – it matters to the overall war. Fr. clearly told you that some of what you thought happened didn’t and you come across as too mad to see it.

                • hamiltonr

                  I am angry about this, that’s true. Unfortunately, (or fortunately, depending on how it works out :-) ) I don’t evaluate things in terms of spending capital and the like.

                  A long time ago, I was more that way, but then I had a radical conversion experience that I call “a conversion within a conversion.” At that point in my life, I stopped worrying about consequences to me.

                  I have often described this as being “a fool for Christ.” I often cast votes or take positions on my job that are just flat stupid from a political viewpoint. I know they are stupid when I do them. But I also believe that they are what is right.

                  I am quite profligate in how I spend myself in this regard. I take very little notice of it.

                  At first, this scared me. But that, too, was a long time ago. I’ve haven’t been afraid like that in many years.

                  My “capital” such as it is, belongs entirely to God.

                  I feel quite certain that Sister Jane was wronged. I also feel quite certain that what happened to her is part of a larger situation that is both on-going and developing in many places. It was, in short, a witch hunt, and ugly mob behavior, with a heavy does of biased reporting ladled on.

                  I’ve dealt with every single one of those things in my own life, btw.

                  The Catholic Church is under attack.

                  Our religious leaders need to stop crawfishing in the face of this attack and stand firm. They do not need to be pulling the rug out from under people like Sister Jane.

                  Having said that, I must tell you that you are right that I am angry. I know in a distant way (I know her mother better than her) a member of Sister Jane’s community. I also know what it feels like to be treated the way Sister has been treated.

                  I am angry as a Catholic because I want my Church to stand strong for Christ and stop weaseling when trouble comes. I am angry as someone who knows how truly dedicated and innocent these sisters are. I am angry as a human being who has felt the kind of anguish and grief Sister Jane must be going through. And I am disgusted as a woman who likes and admires manly men.

                  I think a manly man who will stand strong is one of the most beautiful things God ever made. I want religious leaders who are manly men of God, who use their manliness to stand for God and who support people like Sister Jane, not dump things on her and then run off and hide.

                  • oregon nurse

                    I agree with all you have to say. I know you are willing to put yourself out there personally every day and take the heat for unpopular views. I admire you for it. And I hope with all my heart that Sr. Jane is being supported by her community while understanding what went wrong and why public support had to be withdrawn. It leads to the heart of the point I was trying to make about the larger issue and not giving opponents ammunition.

                    In this case I was thinking not so much of the cost to you personally but of you as a public figure capable of rallying and uniting people and the cost in loss of credibility to the larger cause if your support gets misplaced. Selfish of me I know, but people will remember those times you were wrong (and encouraged others to be wrong along with you) to the exclusion of all the times you were right.

                    • hamiltonr

                      I know this is going to sound strange to you, but I’ve learned that you have to just do what you think is right and go home and eat supper with your family. People will hate you (that appears to be the new zeitgeist) and try to destroy you if you take a stand, period. If you let that make you afraid, you might as well stay home entirely.

                  • Gordis85

                    Yes! Amen!

                  • Nerinab

                    I think a manly man who will stand strong is one of the most beautiful things God ever made.
                    I preach this to both my sons and daughters every day. Thank you, Rep. Hamilton, for your eloquent, impassioned and authentic voice.

                  • Peter Shaw

                    Thank you for your reply. I agree with you that the leaders within the Church have a moral obligation to defend the innocent, instruct the ignorant, & correct those who profess erroneous teachings and to do so in bold and clear ways.

                    I would simply pose the question: What is to be “manly”? If we cut through everything else, manliness is virtuousness. Quite literally, that is how the Latin translates. In this case, Fr. Kauth presented the facts so that the Truth would be able to instruct those who were ignorant of them. In order to present the Truth, he had to express that some points of Sister’s talk were not dogmatic teaching of the Church, but rather informed conclusions based on data she had chosen to use. Whether the data was correct or not is not of import, but what is of import is that it is debated data. This isn’t pulling out the rug from underneath Sister. It isn’t weak to speak the Truth; it’s courageous. Courage is “manly”.

                    Furthermore, Fr. Kauth repeatedly told the crowd that Sister was not to be blamed, but instead told the angry mob to direct their anger at him and not her. Throughout the evening, Fr. Kauth endured all that was directed towards him until every single person that wanted to say something had their opportunity. This went on for over two hours. Willfully placing yourself as a shield for another person in order to protect them is an act of love, of true charity. Protecting Sister in the manner that Father did was an act of love, therefore “manly”.

                    Again, Nobody condoned the behavior of the crowd, nor did they placate to demands to apologize for the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Instead, they, as true spiritual Fathers, embraced the mob, a child throwing a tantrum, allowing them to tire themselves so that reason might be restored, if possible. Several parents who were unsure what to make of the whole affair walked away from that night shocked at their fellow parent’s treatment of these priests.

                    How else should they have handled the situation? Berate and chastise the parents? Would that have worked? No, it would have incensed the crowd more. Would it have been proper? Not coming from men who take their spiritual paternity seriously.

                    Finally, Bishop Jugis – A kinder, more sincere, more prayerful Son of the Church you will not find this side of Heaven. Time and again he has done battle to promote and defend Christ’s teachings and His Church. He was one of three bishops to sign a letter saying that politicians who publicly profess support for issues contrary to Church teaching should be denied communion (similar to Bishop Paprocki’s recent “manly” leadership in his diocese). He has tried to enforce Canonical & Liturgical Law within the diocese to the best of his ability. He allowed subsidiarity to guide the course with this issue – allow it to be dealt with on the nearest level to the source of the issue. Have no doubts about his solidarity with the priests, religious, & laity of the diocese. As one who has sworn to respect and obey him, it is a joy to have him as my spiritual father. I will also say that he is, of course, not perfect, but I sincerely believe that he is striving to be perfect as his Heavenly Father is Perfect.

                    You say that your angry? Injustice should cause a desire for Truth & Charity to correct error. How about directing it at the parents who have abandoned the promise they made before God & His Church on the day of their child’s Baptism: to raise their children in the Faith? The Bishops, Priests, and Deacons of the Church are there to aid them, but not be substitutes for them.

                    What about the 27 Senators and 137 Representatives (or so) who claim to be Catholics? Some are better than other, to be sure. Imagine if they were all Catholics who voted with their (formed and informed) consciences for what was best for their constituents?

                    At the end, there’s plenty of blame to go around for problems in the Church and leadership has not always been best on any level. You want to see leadership, “manly” leadership? Public chastisement rarely is the means for encouraging others to seek Holiness in this life. We know our faults. Instead, give the bishops and priests prayerful support, words of encouragement, and even the humble example of your life. We are wed to the Church as Christ is wed to the Church. Help us to embrace our responsibility of real leadership by showing us your love, as we all strive to give love to Christ.

                    Thank you for wanting to be more than a Catholic-in-name. Persevere by means of the Grace that Our Father is offering you and Christ’s blood was poured out to win for you. Please keep me in your prayers! Know that you will be in my prayers and that I will offer Mass for you & your family today (Sunday, April 6th).

            • oregon nurse

              Thank you Father. It’s nice to have the facts.

            • margaret1910

              Thank you, Father. You have given a very balanced overview of the issues involved. My problem is that the behavior of some of the parents was not dealt with promptly and sternly. I wish that the FIRST time there was booing, jeering, or any disrespect shown to Fr Kauth or Sister, the meeting would have ended. Perhaps in the opening remarks, this position could have been strongly stated.

              I am ashamed of the way this was allowed to play out. If the parents cannot control themselves and act like rational adults, they should be invited to leave the school at once, and permanently. There is no place at a Catholic school for parents or students who do not treat clergy and religious with proper respect.

              Thank you for your service to the Church and to all of us. I greatly appreciate what you and your fellow clergy and religious brothers and sisters do for us all. You are all in my prayers.

            • jeffersonian_nc

              Ah Father, you are so mistaken as to #1. You are also mistaken as to the content of her prior talk in #2. Apples and oranges.
              I responded earlier with a more detail analysis of your post (which was not rude) but it appears this site has an issue with open dialogue.

              • FW Ken

                Sometimes Rebecca takes awhile to get longer comments posted. It comes from having a life beyond this blog. How dare she. :-)

                • hamiltonr

                  Thanks Ken. I also don’t blog or even look at the blog on Sundays. I’m trying to honor the Sabbath.

                • jeffersonian_nc

                  Time is one thing. However, all but 2 of the posts appear to have been removed when there was nothing wrong with them. Such as correcting other posts as to the costs to attend CCHS.

                  • hamiltonr

                    I don’t remember reading any comments correcting the costs of attending CHHS. They may have gone to spam.

                    I don’t remember removing any comments at all to this post at all.

                    I delete whenever something is insulting, disrespects the pope, or contains bad language or crude innuendos. I also delete comments comments that attack the Church and every comment that attacks Jesus.

                    I delete most comments that are speaking to me personally and those that come from obvious raving lunatics.

                    I never block anyone. Everybody has a chance to try again.

                    This blog gets literally tens of thousands of comments. I delete less than 2% of them.

                    • jeffersonian_nc

                      Thanks for posting back. I am not sure what is occuring then. I would never insult the Church or Jesus. I do not think I have even challenged either in my posts. Yes, there are raving lunatics out there making posts (to everything on the internet). I actually agree with Cannon Law on the issue at hand – just did not like what my son told me he heard from Sister Jane.
                      Good luck with all of the comments. You have your hands full. Just so you know – the POV from most parents at CCHS (at least all of the ones I have spoken with) has never been to challenge the Church’s teachings or their right to teach them in a Diocesesan supported school, but rather they are just upset with the last half of Sister Jane’s lecture.

            • Lisa Julia

              I’m sorry, but according to a statement by Fr. Kauth, there WAS discussion with Sister about exactly what she would say and she even asked him to clarify if she was to add more commentary to her original talk, and he said YES…at least that is what he stated in a letter i saw. The problem with all the apologies is that those who offend easily are seeing it as a an apology in full for having Sister speak at all, and that is part of the problem, and the great tragedy that exists in our Church today. I happen to live in a Diocese where the Sisters teach at 2 local schools, including a high school where this very curriculum is taught!! In fact, in the 8 years the high school has been teaching the curriculum to the students, they also offer it free of charge to the parents. Not a peep has been heard from ANYONE and it’s the same talk/set of talks from Aquinas College.

            • Steve31

              i would have told these parents to take a hike to the closest heretical protestant church. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out..

              • FW Ken

                So would I, but perhaps that’s why God, in His wisdom, didn’t make us bishops.

            • Laura Lowder

              Father, if Sister had given the same talk earlier this year, I don’t understand why parents are so up in arms about this visit. Well, I do, which leads to my next point:

              WHAT THE HECK was PFLAG doing giving out armbands at the school? and how much interference — meddling — did they and other pro-gay-lobby groups have to do with stirring up this pot?

              You and the poster Id’ing as “Baptismal Vows,” I’d love to talk with you both over a cup of coffee… or three.

              • Peter Shaw

                Laura,
                The other talk I mentioned was given the previous academic year, so that might clarify that point. As for the PFLAG involvement, I don’t know what they were doing at the school that night and there isn’t any direct evidence of any meddling by any “pro-gay” lobby groups. It is interesting to note that those groups have been noticibly quite on this point. Maybe they are satisfied with the actions of the students and parents. All this to say – I really don’t know. Hope this helps and have a blessed end of Lent and Holy Week!

      • Bill

        That may be so, however, the FUROR that erupted in the meeting, which was attended by 1000 parents is certainly an indication where many in the Church now stand on gay marriage–53%, it has been reported by the Pew Study, of weekly mass-goers approve of same gender marriage. Wow! There’s a story in that number which must be addressed by the Church. Too many Catholics are being indoctrinated by the gay agenda in the media instead of by our clergy. They must speak up now and do so forcefully. Too many souls are in danger of eternal damnation.

    • Baptismal Vows

      Oregon nurse, since you brought it up I have a question. What is the “hard science” on the homosexual issue? I am a trained clinical therapist. You tell me. I have worked extensively with people struggling with homosexual orientation (both men and women, young and old). I read what is being reported as Sister Jane’s comments and I see no scientific anomaly here or hypotheses offensive to academic research. Sister Jane is degreed.

      • oregon nurse

        I think there is very little ‘hard science’ on the aspects of homosexual behavior she was talking about – namely what causes it. As I understand it from all the sources I’ve read she was giving the impression that certain causes are true and are to be accepted as part of Catholic teaching. I think the statement of her own college shows that they do not support her conclusions “In her presentation, Sister Jane Dominic spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals. Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise. ” That’s not to say they disagree with her, only that it was not appropriate for her to include this information in her talk.

        We know it’s not strictly genetic from identical twin studies. Beyond that, the cause(s) is still debatable. That doesn’t mean that people don’t use certain studies to form their working hypotheses, scientifically and clinically, but concensus is not the norm and reasonable people can and do disagree on what studies are most credible. I hope I answered your question.

        • Baptismal Vows

          No you didn’t but thanks anyway. I disagree with this assessment – “Sister Jane Dominic spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals. Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.”
          Faith and morals is an integral part of the study sociology and anthropology – you can’t necessarily separate the two.
          The causes are indeed debatable, and so is the supposed science on the issue. In my research I found the removal of the homosexual orientation by the APA as a traditional psychopathology more of a political agenda than anything else. The CCC states a “disordered orientation”. The CCC is not only a faith document but carefully based research on various academic disciplines. Official statements of the Church like this just don’t float.
          I maintain that Sister Jane made very careful, educated and researched statements. You may not agree with them personally, just as I don’t agree with you personally, but that doesn’t make them invalid.

  • FW Ken

    Since you opened the door, I’ll make a joke I rarely make: how can anyone look at the American bishops and think we don’t ordain women! The reason I don’t say that much is that it’s an insult to the many strong women I’ve known and loved. They were stronger, more resolute persons, committed to their beliefs than most of this sorry bench of bishops. The greatest scandal of the Catholic Church is the refusal of these men to deal with Catholic politicians who blatantly, adamently, fight against the clear teaching of the Church, and, in fact, all serious Christians.

    I read this today and nearly lost my lunch:

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/priest-removal-from-ministry-was-tied-to-communion-incident/

    This occurred in an archdiocese which has steadfastly refused to deal with pro-abortion politicians.

    • hamiltonr

      Thanks for the link Ken.

  • http://mombrll.blogspot.com Tina Bell

    I was teaching a confirmation class to about 60 8th graders so deficient in any familiarity with their faith that when at the beginning of class I had them stand up and say the Our Father they reacted with shock and disbelief. Nor did most of them appear to know the words to the prayer. And things proceeded to get worse. I doubt any teacher was able to teach those children anything at all, much less religion. Most of the time I had to raise my voice to be heard over their chatter. Let it be known that I am an experienced CCD teacher and have taught, with great pleasure, students ranging in age from 5th grade to High School. One of my favorite classes was the group of kids who were receiving the sacraments belatedly. A 17 year old Puerto Rican girl, a bit mentally challenged, even had a dressmaker sew her a special first communion dress. And one young girl, whose mother had walked out on her when she was four years old and whose father didn’t even attend her confirmation, pursued her studies with a noble and dogged determination. The kids in my new confirmation class were from a rich New Jersey suburb and as a reward for coming to my classroom and planting their bodies in the school desks they confidently expected a big party each with plenty of presents and monetary gifts. One night in the context of teaching them about baptism I quoted from a book on dogma “There is no salvation outside the church” and was preparing to explain precisely what that meant when they drowned me out with cries of outrage. The rest of the night is, mercifully, a blur… but the next week I was fired by the Youth Director, who was later discovered to be a child molester, for saying that “non-Catholics would go to hell”. Do not make the mistake of justifying the attacks of a mob of ignorant parents by citing the Sister’s use of anthropology or sociology to back up her arguments. Nothing excuses that kind of treatment of a nun. I don’t particularly care what her exact arguments were or what sources she used. My guess is she probably assumed that an appeal to church authority or natural law would be lost on her audience and she was trying to use arguments from authorities she thought they respected. Unfortunately the people she was trying to help, whose children she was trying to save, have no respect for any kind of argument because they are not moved by “though”t as we understand the word.
    When I was on a parish council years ago the parishioners drove the pastor, a tough old priest from the Bronx, to tears by their outraged response to his attempt to launch a tithing campaign. Its called giving scandal.

    • FW Ken

      Our DRE implemented a pre-test/post-test process a couple of years ago after she encountered a.high school senior who couldn’t answer “who is Jesus”. There wasn’t much of a squabble, afaik, but we are an inner-city, mostly worrying class parish.

    • Bill

      I stand with you on the generally dismal state of “some” CCD students. I taught 7th grade CCD for 15 years and much of what you have stated I have experienced. However, I hope that when you stated “There is no salvation outside the church [sic]” and “non-Catholics would go to hell” you explained that doctrine in detail, because as you have stated it, it is wrong. There is certainly salvation outside the Catholic Church.Please review your catechism 846-847. Further, Lumen gentium #16 says: “For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation.” John Paul II in his Encyclical on the Missions in #10 says the same: “For such people [those who do not formally enter the Church, as in LG 16] salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church.”

      • hamiltonr

        Bill, it’s a bit disingenuous for you not to inform this lady that you are an atheist who almost always attacks the Church on this blog.

        • Bill

          Sir;
          I NEVER attack the Church on this blog. I am not an atheist, but a devout Catholic, who attends mass most days, confessed on average once a month, taught CC classes exactly what the magisterium teaches. I have no idea how you could think I am an atheist. First–IF I did attack the Church, which I heartily deny, that alone would not make me an atheist. It could in fact make me a loyal son of the Church when I point out how the people in the Church–and not the Church itself, for she is holy–are doing disservice to the Church by their actions. One more item–I cannot fathom how you concluded I am an atheist from the post above. If you continue to have that belief, I suggest you see a psychiatrist.

          • hamiltonr

            I’m sorry. I confused you with a frequent commenter here, who is also named Bill. That Bill is an outspoken atheist.

            • Bill

              And I offer you my apologies for some of the comments I made. God bless & forgive.

              • hamiltonr

                Thank you and no worries. Blessings.

  • Matthew Bade

    I blame the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too syndrome which has grown to endemic proportions in our culture. Parents (rightly) want their children to have a quality education that eschews all the pitfalls and moral failings of the public school system; private schools, and not least Catholic ones, provide a wholesome alternative to our congenitally failing and oftentimes dangerous public schools. The problem is that many non- or nominal-Catholics desire this refuge for their children without the religious “strings,” and in the process wind up squishing the Church into an areligious Procrustean bed; conflict inevitably ensues when parents’ secular values come home to roost. You shouldn’t send your kids to a religious school if your spine can’t bear the full weight of a fully Catholic education.

    • FW Ken

      You point to a problem I’ve heard before: is it a parish school or a private school? A posh private school, at that.

    • Theologian

      I have been a Catholic educator in theology for two decades, and this comment cuts right to the heart of the problem with secularization in Catholic schools. As cultural Catholic parents reduce discipleship to the bare minimum, Catholic schools have to make a decision which of two paths they will take. This shameful episode shows that when the time to stand with Jesus and his Church arrives, too many take the path of least resistance. Luke 9:26 says it very clearly.

      • cyberman304

        As the Venerable Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, “If you want your child to lose the Faith then send them to a Catholic school. At least in a public school they have a fighting chance to keep their Faith.”

  • James

    A large part of the problem is that the bishops see themselves not as successors to the Apostles, but as bureaucrats and administrators.

    Wealthy donors are angry? “If we lose their money, then we can’t make our budget. Therefore, we must appease them.”, the bishops reason. Never mind that the “small donors” are slowly leaking out of the Church when they find mass less edifying than Sunday brunch.

    And it’s not just about the “hot button issues” related to sex. Cardinal Dolan folded quickly when wealthy donors were upset with some of Pope Francis’s remarks.

    • hamiltonr

      I agree. Far too often, they behave as if they were CEOs in a corporation instead of priests.

      • FW Ken

        Which is a large part of how we got the sex scandals. They protected “the company” rather than protecting children.

      • Howard

        The problem is more widespread than that. I’ve seen too many comments from too many Catholics lately not to notice that for a very large number even of “conservative Catholics”, their real god is Mammon, and Catholicism is just a hobby. For these people, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ when he talks about sex, but an ignorant old Argentinian when he talks about money. The reactions to Caritas in Veritate and Evangelii Gaudium have revealed that a much larger number are than I would have expected are that way.

        • Maggie Goff

          I agree with you totally, Howard.

        • The_Monk

          Popes JPII , BXVI and Francis are all citizens of cultures different from that of the U.S. The differences between the Polish and American economic systems are several and large. Similarly, there are huge differences between the U.S. and the cultural economies of Germany and Argentina. One simple difference is in the implemetation of public-sector worker’s unions in Poland vs. the U.S. One is a necessity, and the other is an abomination. The differences are large, but the U.S. is moving rapidly in a direction that will merge its culture with the restricted cultures of the other three nations. As reported in “Witness to Hope”, JPII was strong in his defense of the Church in Poland. Yet he was under no false illusion that the west (Europe and America) “got it”, because many certainly did not. As evidenced in the liberation theology movement (recall Archbishop Raymond Hunthausen of Seattle). The teachings of all three pertaining to social justice, if separated from the culture of the Pope making the statement, become confused in the translation.
          Peace….

    • joxxer

      actually I think few of them have any FAITH at all. Or they would not sell out so rapidly. Faith is something one is willing to give their life for–none of these guys will give up their being liked. No real men, let alone Catholics in this crowd.

    • Laura Lowder

      I don’t think that’s a fair assessment of what’s going on in Charlotte.

      It has to be said that JPII didn’t do Peter Jugis any favors when he appointed him as bishop of his home diocese. Since his appointment and ordination as Bp. of Charlotte, Bp. Jugis — who is a kind and gentle man, and a faithful shepherd — has had a LOT to clean up from his predecessor, who was probably a nice gentleman so far as it goes, but he was pretty loosey-goosey in Liturgy, Catechesis, even fidelity to doctrine. Add to that the resentments Bp. Jugis has faced from his former brother priests, some of whom scathingly refer to him as “ultraConservative” when he’s really just orthodox.

      Now — in the first place, I think it was a huge mistake having that meeting. That was an unnecessary and probably imprudent accommodation of the dissenting parent group, right there. In the second, if they had to have a meeting…. Well, a few days ago I was saying it should never have been scheduled when the Bishop couldn’t attend; now I’m thinking things might have been much uglier of “the big man” had been there. Maybe they wanted to keep things localized as possible in order to minimize the noise, but I’m just wondering about that.

      In any event, I think it’s pretty evident that they completely underestimated their opposition. Given that one alumni mom is now President of the local PFFLAG, and very openly involved in that organization, they should have been expecting things to get ugly and for outside interference to be at work, and confined the conversation accordingly.

      But even with the PFFLAG contingent predictably on hand, this is good ol’ North Carolina, center of the Bible Belt, even with the fairly large gay centers in Charlotte, Greensboro, and the Triangle. The sort of hostility demonstrated at that meeting just ain’t s’posed to be happ’nin’ ’round these parts. In any case, they sure got blindsided, didn’t they?

      Now. I’ve emailed Fr. Kauth, Sister, and Bp. Jugis, and I think it’s time to do a follow-up. The sharks may be temporarily sated from this feeding frenzy, but they’ll be back soon.

      Keep the Church in your prayers. Be prepared to do battle.

      • hamiltonr

        If Bishop Jugis doesn’t support what happened, he should say so. In fact, I’ll go a step further and say that he must say so.

        He sent his representative to the meeting, and by the reports I’ve read, the representative was a model of cutting and running.

        If that isn’t what the bishop wanted, he needs to get out there and say it.

  • Nerinab

    I’m breaking my Lenten fast to comment because this story enrages me. Kudos to Rep. Hamilton for discussing this issue. Everything we hear about this story is, at best, hearsay. The sister’s talk was not recorded and all we have are “tweets” and comments from those present at the meeting. Honestly, can we really take at face value comments offered by those claiming to be offended by sister’s remarks? Since we don’t know exactly what was said, and we certainly don’t know the manner in which it was presented, the best we can do is speculate.

    It would seem, at minimum, that the sister could expect the support of the Church, in general, and her colleagues, in particular. It’s not like this woman hasn’t given public talks before. Suddenly her views are problematic? Further, the causes of homosexuality are far from settled science and there are big differences between lesbian homosexuality and gay men. Is it now verboten to even mention that certain familial structures might play into one’s identifying as a homosexual. Is it not reasonable to wonder if raising children in homes without role models of both male and female behavior could also influence sexual identity?(I would recommend checking out the research of groups like NARTH and the psychologists who have worked with gay men and lesbian woman for years)

    Sister Jane deserved better, and as Catholics, so do we!

  • johnnysc

    Seems to me that Sister Jane is the one being bullied.

  • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

    You should not be surprised about the British bench of Bishops. The wonder is that there is one Catholic among them. Jelly would be outraged at being compared to their backbones.

  • RaymondNicholas

    Sorry if this reads like an angry post. I need to vent at the moment.
    Based on what I ‘ve read, the Chaplain in question caved, as well as the Diocese and the school. Not a one supported the nun.

    They found a “loophole” in the latter part of her speech and used it to destroy her. Everyone involved is a disgrace. Doesn’t anyone in the Church have the guts to stand up for her?

    The bishop and priests should be ashamed because the parent/student reaction is the result of fifty years of cowardly non-Catholic teaching from the pulpit and classroom. Everywhere in the country.

    The point is, nothing in the way of teaching the morals of the Church would have satisfied the ill-formed parents and students. What else will these willfully ignorant and borderline stupid people recant if forced to make a choice?

    It really makes me want to find a traditional Catholic Church, anywhere, and join. As for now, all I do is write in protest and boycott anything that I believe is anti-Catholic, and that means inside the Church too.

    • Merrymom

      I couldn’t agree with you more! Very well said!

  • lucho gatica

    “In this sense, we can once again listen to the words of Blessed John XXIII on the memorable day of 11 October 1962: “At times we have to listen, much to our regret, to the voices of people who, though burning with zeal, lack a sense of discretion and measure. In this modern age they can see nothing but prevarication and ruin … We feel that we must disagree with those prophets of doom who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand. In our times, divine Providence is leading us to a new order of human relations which, by human effort and even beyond all expectations, are directed to the fulfilment of God’s superior and inscrutable designs, in which everything, even human setbacks, leads to the greater good of the Church”.[65] Pope Francis Evangelii Gaudium

  • tj.nelson

    We think alike on this one – I just posted a comment about the role of women in the Church and how ‘they’ all want to improve that – then not one of them steps forward to defend Sr. Jane Dominic.

  • Howard

    AMEN

  • Maggie Sullivan

    What’s the use of an all-male priesthood if the priests and bishops won’t act like men? We need leaders…

    This is the best statement i have seen on the state of the church today

  • Michael Paul

    The chaplain said she was quoting a study published in the the Linacre Quarterly, a journal of the Catholic Medical Society. Here is an abstract I found which might be the material in question.

    “The best-established facts in relation to homosexuality point to
    developmental-psychological, not genetic or physiological, causation.
    The efforts of the last few decades to find evidence to support a
    biological theory have made it more doubtful than ever that such
    evidence will be found. In contrast, many studies have shown that the
    most significant factor which correlates with homosexuality is “gender
    nonconformity” or same-sex peer isolation. Another factor closely
    associated with homosexuality is an imbalance in parentchild
    interaction, notably forms of over-influence of the opposite-sex parent
    in combination with a deficient relationship with the same-sex parent.
    The third well-established correlation is with inherent, rather than
    discrimination-produced, “neuroticism” or emotional
    instability/immaturity.Structured around this pivotal
    evidence from statistical as well as clinical research, homosexuality
    is explained here as a character neurosis. Characteristics of this
    neurotic character syndrome include personality immaturity,
    self-victimization, and self-centeredness. This syndrome affects not
    only the emotional but also the moral and spiritual dimensions of the
    psyche and if indulged leads to generalized personality deterioration.
    Therapeutically, a holistic approach, simultaneously addressing the
    emotional, moral, and spiritual components of the psyche, offers the
    best opportunity for overcoming homosexuality. De-egocentrization and
    personality maturity, including the development of mature manhood/
    womanhood, are the goals of therapy.”

    The link is here:
    http://www.maneyonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/002436311803888267?queryID=32%2F130176

    • oregon nurse

      1. I think this is a very valid and common sense conclusion and certainly of importance for parents and therapists to be aware of. But how many other emotional and personality dysfunctions could one say the same thing about? Bullying? Domestic violence of both perpetrator and victim? Sexual precocity of all kinds? Underachievement? various ‘aholisms’? We all know that an intact family with loving biological parents who are both physically and emotionally present, preferably with a few siblings as well, is the most ideal setting for raising emotionally well adjusted children.

      2. Does it make sense from the perspective of Catholic theological teaching to worry about causes when the Church says in the catechism it’s not a choice? And does the why and how matter when the Church says the attraction is morally neutral and it’s the behavior that’s sinful? I believe that getting into the mud of when, why, and how just plays into the hands of people who want to excuse the behavior because it’s inherent. They will fight to the death to defend a biological cause but let them fight, ultimately it’s of no matter to the morality of it.

      • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

        Is same-sex attraction “morally neutral”? Actually, no, it’s objectively disordered, meaning it’s not ordered toward the good, further meaning it’s not morally neutral. An *unwilled* same-sex attraction is not *sinful*, but neither is it “morally neutral.” A freely *willed* same-sex attraction is both sinful and objectively disordered.

        • sns

          So very true. Thank you for pointing this out.

        • oregon nurse

          I disagree that the Church does not teach that ssa is morally neutral. Objectively disordered does not automatically = immoral. We all have natural appetites that are objectively disordered – it’s part of our fallen nature and the crosses we have to bear. It’s what we do about them that addresses the morality.

          • http://thebodyguardtob.wordpress.com/ Jim Russell

            Sorry you disagree, but “objectively disordered” *does* automatically mean “not ordered toward the good.” And that’s not a category best described as “morally neutral.” It *is* morally neutral specifically regarding subjective culpability when it is not willed. But the inclination itself is not ordered to the good….

            • Fabio Paolo Barbieri

              Guilt only arises when a disordered inclination is willingly followed. I have a disordered inclination to vicious anger. I am guilty when I follow it, especially should I consciously decide not to put any obstacles in its way.

      • Nerinab

        I think it important to actually quote what the catechism says about homosexuality:

        Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law.


        No where does it say that homosexuality is “not a choice.”

        • oregon nurse

          Thank you for correcting me. That is not in the catechism after I went back and checked. It is however accurate to say that it is a synthesis of Catholic teaching that since we don’t know the origins of ssa we should not presume that it is a choice people have made. The only certain choice is the choice to act.

        • SisterCynthia

          Thank you for finding this. From some of the comments I’ve been seeing, I was starting to fear the Church herself had been duped years ago, and that really made me heartsick. There is no way to logically pretend that the heart’s affections are “not” disordered while the very acts the heart desires ARE spoken of as “intrinsically disordered.” If the heart was not “sick” it would not crave that which is evil! :(

        • Michael Paul

          The catechism does not now say that homosexuality is “not a choice”. However, my copy of the original early English release of the CCC had a sentence in para 2358: “They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.” Later English editions came with an appendix of edits that had to be made to this early original, including the replacement of this sentence with “This inclination which is objectively disordered constitutes for most of them a trial.”

          • oregon nurse

            I was pretty sure I had read that in the catechism very recently. I must have been reading something someone posted from the edition you mentioned. Feels good to know I wasn’t imagining things. Thanks.

      • Brian English

        “They will fight to the death to defend a biological cause but let them fight, ultimately it’s of no matter to the morality of it.”
        But it does matter, because the current gay rights movement is premised upon a claim that being gay is no different than being black. Their constant claim that they are “born that way” cannot continue to go unchallenged.

      • robert chacon

        Absolutely! They so ardently cling to this biological cause because they think that if one does not have a choice in his sexuality he should be relieved of his responsibility to abide by any moral restrictions. But, if the logic of that argument is that any biological or uncontrollable behavior should be normalized, then we ALL need to really worry when we discover the biological and thus unresolvable nature of psychopathy and pedophilia!

    • Laura Lowder

      Thanks for this. I’ve been talking with clinical professionals over the past… nearly 30 years, and this is the gist of what I’ve heard again and again and again… and so far as I know, only one of them is Catholic.

    • SisterCynthia

      From my own experience in life and ministry, I’d say the Sister had the “temerity” to speak the truth. It offends those who want to pretend gay is great, but the reality is otherwise. It often is just one aspect of a very immature, petulant personality. Unfortunately, the “wise men” of today have proclaimed it both inherent (therefore, unchosen, which is a lie, and isn’t even born out in the actions of the LGBTQwhatever community, in cases like Chaz Bono, where a Professed Lesbian announces they are REALLY a Ttransgendered Man, and go in for a sex change) and good (another lie, revealed by the suicides and depression and violence the gay community tries to pin on their “oppression” by straights). This Brave New Understanding is feeding the cultural rot that says the self is the only standard by which one may know who/what they are and that whatever that self proclaims itself to be at this particular moment in time (always subject to further discovery) is inherently valid and worth celebrating.

    • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

      Cue XKCD — which element of the correlation comes first, the peer isolation, neuroticism, and relational deficiencies, or the homosexuality?

      And yeah, suggesting that homosexuality can be “overcome” sounds ominiously close to the “gay conversion” folk, who run a bit outside of the evidence-based mainstream of psychology, which in turn makes the topic figurative high explosives.

  • finishstrongdoc

    The science is now settled on how two people of the same gender achieve sexual gratification, and it doesn’t achieve what has been known throughout history as “marriage.” It never has. One may imagine this had something to do with what Sister Jane was trying to present to the students.

    When you learn how to react to the truth from watching “The View,” “Ellen” and “Oprah,” it comes as no surprise that the parents would come at Sister Jane with the proverbial pitchforks and tar.

    The denial mode about so-called “Same-Sex Marriage” will proceed in the same way and at the same speed as it did and does with abortion. Good men and good women will be thrown to the mobs of howling secularists dressed in a semblance of Christ, but denying the power thereof. And just as with abortion, the children will become sacrificed to the modern Molech, and will and are now participating blindly in the worship of that ancient devil.

    Big news flash: gay people do to themselves what many married people do to themselves in the so-called “marriage bed.” This makes for equality. But it doesn’t make for marriage.

  • joxxer

    I am outraged at this. Sister TEACHES THE FAITH and gets SILENCED when she should be praised and honored for doing the Bishops, priests and cardinals jobs!!! Instead the cowards (duty shirkers) fire her and condemn her!! What terrible leadership, but what can we expect from the spineless–who have already sold out the Faith and exchanged it to be Politically Correct. They did the same thing to Father John Hardon—SILENCED him too. Stoke up the coals boys, some fancy dressed customers are standing in line…

  • Gordis85

    With everything that has been said, done, rehashed, and said all over again, my hope is that Sister Jane is well. May her sabbatical allow her time to recollect, regather, and regain her peace. May her time alone with our Lord be one of healing and renewal. I am sure she did her best and will give her the benefit of doubt. Her religious order is a noble and faithful one and I am sure she is supported with love and prayer.

    As to those who “threw her under the bus,” well, what does one say without truly knowing the facts except as to what was tweeted or “reported?” Lack of silence on the part of the local Catholic Church sure speaks loud and clear. The statements put forth makes one wonder too. I will pray for all involved.

    Now, one more thing…since all of this has happened, after reading the news articles and different commentary…these words have been floating about…in my mind:

    thin skinned
    milquetoast
    lack of resolve
    watered down truths
    feeble
    cowardly
    knee jerk

    Forgive me but every time these words come to mind, I agree with Rebecca on her take with regards to the bishops and priests involved.

    Have any come to Sister’s defense since that meeting?

  • ForChristAlone

    If I were living in the diocese of Charlotte, I would send a letter to Bishop Jugis and a copy to my pastor telling them both that I will no longer contribute financially to either my parish or the diocese. I would also add that I will be encouraging my friends and family to do likewise. I live in a neighboring diocese and concluded long ago that my financial support to Catholic organizations was going to be other than my parish and diocese. There are plenty of ways to support my Catholic church; this is NOT going to be one of them. Bishops understand one thing: money, money, money.

  • ConservativismsBest

    AMEN, Rebecca! Thank you for being courageous enough to call out the pusillanimous priests and bishops who didn’t stand up for this nun who WAS standing for the true teachings of the Church– AND during Lent at that!! Shame on them!!! You put it SO very well.

  • Vijaya Bodach

    We were given the same lecture by Sister Jane at our Catholic High School (Bishop England) and it is a great gift to all who attended. There was nothing hateful in the speech. She was bringing JPII’s Theology of the Body to a new generation. I think it is a great pity Sister JDL is canceling her speaking engagements and taking a sabbatical — I will be writing to the college in support of her teaching. God bless and protect Sister JDL.

    • irena mangone

      Is it any wonder that when we read this in other countries people say only in America. Not because we are superior but hopefully we learn from the mistakes made by others . Please God that bishops from which ever country will be man enough to lead and not what has happened here in this istance and the awful abuse of children hide it all under the carpet. Jesus must be weeping. After all he suffered for us

  • thereserita

    I just emailed the Charlotte bishop at http://www.charlottediocese.org/contact-us & rqstd that he step up. Catholic nun gives Catholic teaching at Catholic school: Mayhem ensues & the Chancery is silent. Never thought I’d live to see the day…

    • david

      Thanks for the link. I just sent an Email of my own. Perhaps if all of us reading here sent him our thoughts and had a few friends do the same, it might give those in charge some iron in their spines.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      Thanks for the link.

  • J D

    As someone who was at this lynching, people should know that one of the priests, Fr. Kauth was a man and did take a stand. He is the school chaplain and took full responsibility for having Sr. Jane come to the school. He did not throw Sr. Jane under the bus but instead jumped in front of it. The hatred and vitriol was mostly pointed at him for having the temerity to invite Sr. Jane to speak. He did say that there was a portion of the talk that he had not heard before (she spoke at the school twice in the fall in a single-sex format). This portion was by his admission something in hindsight he would have presented in a different setting BUT he never stopped defending the fact that what Sr. Jane shared was in any way, shape or form something that he disagreed with. This caused just more wailing and gnashing of teeth from the Pharisees in the crowd.

    It was a very sad event as one “catholic” after another spewed forth language and darkness that would make most men wilt. Now, you are correct that neither the bishop or the Vicar of Education did not come to Fr. Kauth’s or Sr. Jane’s defense – the bishop was not even there as he had a ‘prior commitment’ at another diocese 4 hours away. (Some might say ‘wasn’t that convenient’.) Also no one from the administration came to his defense. Fr. Kauth is a noble, faithful and humble servant of the Church and I would harbor a guess that he asked that no one to come to his defense but instead suffered the shouts of “Crucify him! Crucify him!” like a man.

    • Theologian

      So the basic issue was that the complainers didn’t accept church teaching on sexual morality and that was why they were offended by the talk? Is that correct?

    • FW Ken

      Thank you for direct testimony. It supports my contention that the important point is not what Sr. Jane said, but the insane response to it.

    • Gordis85

      Thanks for your input.

    • Brian English

      This really misses the point. Fr. Kauth standing there and taking the abuse accomplishes nothing. And the shouting down of the parents who tried to support Sr. Jane is horrifying. Someone with authority at the school should have been there to tell the hecklers to sit down and shut up. The second time they tried to shout someone down, they should have been told to leave. If they refused to leave, they should have been told their children would be epelled from the school if they did not leave. The mob controls what goes on in the culture at large. They cannot be allowed to control what goes on inside the Church.

    • fredx2

      I have yet to hear specifically what the sister said that caused people to flip out. Could you give us specific examples?

      The most I have been able to discern is that she dared to say that most gay men are not monogamous (very true) or something along those lines.

      It is the hallmark of a movement that is built on lies that they go completely crazy when disagreed with, because they cannot stand the open air of honest debate. Therefore they hide behind the “I am so offended that you must have done something wrong” trick.

      Of course, any loose talk that did in fact demonize homosexuals would be wrong. However, I doubt a nun would do that kind of thing.

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        On-line accounts seem sparse on the details. However, the “Deacon’s Bench” blog post Ms. Hamilton provided mentions

        the portion of Sister Jane’s presentation of social science data about the alleged causes of same-sex attraction – which prompted many of the concerns from parents and students – was outside the scope of her academic background

        Given how prevalent some stereotypes with what at the most charitable can be called methodologically dubious support from empirical sociology seem to be in religious circles, I can see room there for a multitude of academic sins.

        I’ll also note, while gay men remain disproportionately likely to have had multiple partners, the GSS 2008-2012 data suggest that the majority have had no more than one in the last year; as such, “very true” may be an overstatement there.

    • Laura Lowder

      I’m glad and grateful to read your account. It’s a shame we can’t even trust the reporting of the event, isn’t it?

      I called the school to find out how to get in touch with the headmaster, not knowing the principal is actually on leave and the woman who answered the phone was pretty condescending when I told her I’m glad to know the kids got the information they did. She thought maybe I didn’t know what awful things had been said, and I told her, “Oh, I know what she said. And she told those kids the truth and I’m behind her 100%.” So I can just imagine how he’s been treated there at the school. My prayers continue.

  • Martha Wrightis

    I am so sick of things like this. When will the Church stand up to the world and say ‘enough’? When will the bishops actually promote the Church they claim to represent? The Church is imploding and its all the bishops’ collective fault.

  • BillLG5

    This is a tidal wave of low self-esteem proceeding from a fallen nature and culture, and there is a craving by those who practice homosexuality to be not only tolerated, but also completely accepted by all, everywhere,and always. They have tremendous momentum in today’s secular culture which foments hatred toward the teachings of Jesus which order rational beings towards the perfection of love.
    Likewise, the secular culture is redefining the nature of love and that which Jesus would say or do.
    Surely compassion and mercy are in order for all those who suffer confusion about that which is true, good and beautiful, however, the confused are prey to the spirit of hate and violence, and it appears they will not stop until all resistance in thought and action is completely exterminated. I am afraid might will make right. (But of course, even then, they will not have satisfaction because of the lack of truth in their beliefs.) We all need to choose how heavy a cross we shall bear. Perhaps Our Father will forgive those who do not know what they do. Stay close to Him in prayer, His teachings in Church and Scripture, and in the Sacraments (of which Holy Matrimony is one). Watch and pray. From an eternal perspective, believe it or not, Heaven is for real.

  • Matt

    Let’s give the bishop a chance to respond. As Catholics, we need to have pretty strong evidence before we correct our prelates!

    • hamiltonr

      I agree. He needs to respond.

  • cyberman304

    God bless Sister Jane.

  • SisterCynthia

    1–Good post. 2–There is an injustice done to believers with SSA when they are patted on the head by folks in the church and told, “hey, we totally don’t judge your attraction, just don’t act on it.” I’m pretty sure that such people don’t tell those with a bent towards rage, “hey, it’s cool that sometimes you wanna rip people’s faces off, just don’t act on it. We aren’t in the business of judging the heart, or correcting its depravity, we just want you to ACT holy.” As someone who has worked with people with SSA, and who once would have been patted on the head like this and left to languish in the misery that underlies screwed up sexuality, I get very, very, VERY tired of those who think they’re being good Christians when they consign anyone with sexual identity problems to remaining screwed up, as tho it’s actions not the heart that counts. REALLY?? While Christ and the apostles all encouraged right actions, they ALSO insisted that your heart must be well, too, because it is what your actions spring from. Pretending this is NOT a sickness/disorder is utterly foolish and cruel. And yes, I said SICKNESS/disorder, not SIN–sin comes when one embraces this mess AS their identity and runs with it. But if no one would consign someone with a broken leg to simply walking on it no matter the pain, why would a Christian consign someone with a shattered self-identity to living out their days that way, apart from seeking healing? Political correctness? A fantastical understanding of humanity that actually allows for multiple gender identities, all equally valid before God? That is not compassion, it is foolish, selfrighteous, worldly cruelty that says Christ is powerless or disinterested in the face of human depravity, so we should be ambivalent, too. I don’t think most Christians who take this tack understand what they are implying. But the implications remain.

    • prolifemomri

      Please keep in mind that we’re all learning. There is no right response to SSA, in general, though there are many wrong, dangerous responses. The truth can be stated in one way and heard in another, and often is, by the wounded, who themselves don’t know why they feel as do, frequently. The simple truth that what a person suddenly believes was their identity at birth was in no way exhibited from infancy through year x can be delivered gently but received as an epic explosion. Listening through all the ups and downs, though not agreeing, necessarily, and praying, are “safe” necessities, but speaking to a loved one with ssa is a minefield–like talking a suicidal person off a window ledge. I can’t imagine the difficulty of speaking to a large audience on the matter. I’m praying for anyone who attempts it, and for their audiences.

  • Tim

    Bravo Rebecca Hamilton, although I prefer to think it isn’t the Church doing this but only her employer.

  • Lisa Julia

    Best commentary i have read about this situation. I have been following it since the first story came out. My first reaction after the parent mob met was one of disgust. It was pretty darn obvious that Sister was thrown under the bus….by those who were supposed to stand up for her. I am so ashamed and saddened that this all went down. I am particularly upset by the fact the story won’t die. There’s a reason there has been no public commentary from the Sisters themselves, other than the statement from the President of Aquinas College. It all just needs to go away so the Sisters can go back to what they do best, teaching the Truth.

  • 1yRolandoOFS0

    “What those of us in the pews would like to see is active examples of manly defense of the Gospels and the Church by stand-up men of the cloth.”
    You come just short of saying, “Get a set!” If you’re serious, let “stand-up men” drop “the cloth,” so that they can openly face and experience human sexuality with our family.
    By the way, there were no “stand-up men” at the Cross. It was just women, and the “beloved disciple.” No” bears,” no “boys in black.” Just sinners.
    Paz y Bien, Rolando, OFS.

    • margaret1910

      I have read and re-read this, and I have no idea what you are trying to say. Can you clarify?

  • Ray

    I think a HUGE part of the problem in why I often find myself arguing most with fellow Catholics comes from the fact that we don’t teach the faith properly.

    I remember getting sex ed in 6th grade at my Catholic School. I don’t recall getting much more of the Catholic teachings regarding sexuality in my Catholic HS. I don’t recall getting a full explanation about Human Vitae.

    Certainly my parents could have filled that gap, but the problem with that idea is that the parents themselves may be either mis-infomed or they disagree with the doctrine.

    So we shouldn’t be shocked that fellow Catholics who get bombarded day in and day out with secular values at every single moment in the media react negatively to Church doctrine as if it is some new thing.

    It is absolutely time for the men of the Church to step up and I sure as heck hope that the Sisters do if the men aren’t willing to.

    On a side note:

    Another reason we have so many fall away from the faith is the fact that kids are not prepared with the knowledge and training needed to deal with evangelicals and the twists and half truths they run around spewing about the Catholic Church. It took a lot of research on my part to get acquainted with the counter arguments needed to respond to Protestant attacks, but I was completely unprepared in my Catholic education for any such thing.

    The message here is that our Catholic Schools need to do a much better job to teach the faith so that they can be better prepared to both defend it and live by it.

  • http://RickMK.com/ Rick Kephart

    A
    more cynical possibility would be that there is no cowardice involved,
    but that it’s really because there are some bishops and priests in the
    Church today who are sodomites themselves and have been working from
    within the Church to protect their own lustful way of life.

  • Bill S

    The resulting uproar caused by this faithful Catholic nun faithfully teaching Catholic morality to a group of high school students in a Catholic High School immediately moved from disagreement to nasty confrontation.

    She made ignorant homophobic statements that had nothing to do with Church teaching. Her ideas about the causes of homosexuality were insulting to the students and their parents and unfair to homosexuals. She owes everyone she offended an aplogy. People don’t have to put up with it.

    • hamiltonr

      I’ll get you a torch Bill, and you can stand in the mob, shouting “crucify her!”

  • JFX Pals

    Thank you. As a priest I am very worried at the state of the Church right now. I think our culture is terminal unless by divine intervention we can get it right. But that is highly improbable. The homosexual arrogance and power has become the primary shaper of our nation; everything is being defined by them. Even a radical atheist like Bill Maher has called out for what it really is. A whole generation of people, including those who call themselves disciples of Jesus Christ, are falling for this madness hook, line and sinker. It’s disturbing and awful enough that our secular leaders capitulate and fold like a house of cards in the face of this evil. But when our leaders in the Church do, then we got a serious failure to communicate! Where are the Fishers, the Sheens, the Dagger Johns, the Chrysostoms, the Polycarps?!?!?! What is going on here? How can anyone allow this to happen to a fine upstanding disciple like Sr. Jane? I don’t get it. We should just as soon allow a school to be shuttered then allow this sickening hyper-sexualized lobby to slither in like a cobra. So what if a school closes. So what! A temporary death is far better than an eternal evil. God, please save us from ourselves. God, please give me and all my brother priests the courage to be a true defenders of your Holy Church. Our Lady of Fatima and the North American Martyrs, pray for us. Amen.

  • Alex Hill

    “Give me justice, O God, and plead my cause against a nation that is faithless. From the deceitful and cunning rescue me, for you, O God, are my strength.” Ps. 43:1-2, Entrance Antiphon for 5th Sunday of Lent.

  • LlarryLLama

    Just as a fish rots from the head down, so it is with the Catholic Church. If it’s leaders don’t have the “balls” to stand up for what the Church believes in, then the Church ceases to be a Church, at least as an institution of religion. Maybe the current leaders, the Pope included, have become so corrupted with political ideals that they have forgotten what the Church is really about?

    • hamiltonr

      You’re new here, so I’ll just warn you. I don’t allow crude language on this blog. I also do not allow people to disrespect the pope.

    • FW Ken

      If I agreed with you about the pope, and I don’t, I would ask you to point out an example of heresy which he has preached. The concept of papal infallibility is very narrow, pertaining only to matters of faith and morals. His tastes in vestments and liturgy concern neither. As to the pope’s ideals, you might want to subscribe to Zenit, which posts most of his talks. Read what he says, not what people say he says.

      I will give you some ground on bishops, but it has always been this way: bad bishops, weak bishops, heretical bishops. The Church has survived all of them because it is the Grace of God, given in Jesus Christ, that is our life.

  • Donna Gunter

    I haven’t read all of the comments here, so forgive me if I am repeating observations of others. I know Fr. Kauth, and I sit under his homilies many Sundays, as he is the priest in residence at my parish. I have also had individual conversations with him, though not about the issue being discussed in this blog entry. He is one of the very brightest priests I have ever known, one of the most orthodox priests I have ever known, and I am beginning to believe he may be one of the most courageous priests I have ever known. I know, from reputable sources, that most of those students come from non Catholic families who are using this school as a discount private school. They know very little about Catholic doctrine and governance. Fr. Kauth walked into a monumental mess a couple years ago when he was assigned the chaplaincy of the school. He has experienced an uphill battle trying to restore a Catholic identity to the school. I do not take his apology as a capitulation or a retreat from his goals. I understand that Sr. went out of bounds from Catholic theology to some sociological or psychological data that is deemed controversial. He didn’t know she was going to include that information in her talk. That was the cause of his apology–that he didn’t vet her entire talk before the talk. That is how I understand it. I respect Father Kauth, and if I had children, I would trust their souls to him. I know his aim is that souls under his care achieve the beatific vision.

    I wonder if Bishop Jugis stayed away from the meeting because he sensed it would undermine Fr. Kauth’s authority. I would think those dissenting from Father would have a sense of agency and power if they thought they could get the Bishop to their meeting.

    There is so much more to this story that few of us know and just shows we are all sinners in need of prayer.

    • hamiltonr

      If the bishop thought he would undermine Father Kauth’s authority by showing up, he certainly should realize by now that he was wrong about that.

      I’m waiting for the bishop to step up and say something. His silence is deafening.

  • bonaventure

    Catholic speakers like Sister JDL should record all their lectures and post them online. If any clergy attacks them later, the burden will be on them (the cowardly clergy) to demonstrate where the speaker erred in matter of faith and morals. Of course, we all know that Sister JDL did NOT err, hence the hatred. Because the hatred is always directed against the Truth.

  • Katalina

    Rebecca I will tell you what is wrong with the Bishops and the Clergy not just in Charlotte and England but all over the world. They have become the victims of Modernism who St Pius X called the synthesis of all heresies, and sadly since Vatican II have basically been destroying our Church for the last half Century. I read the Encyclical of Pius and it predicted this would happen. BTW I am not some archconservative Reactionary Mark Shea calls out. I accept the Council and the Popes since than but let’s face it the Council left a lot of questions and I think we need a another Syllabus of Errors not on the Council itself but its error and the correct interpretation like Bishop Schneider called for a few years ago. When you can’t teach Catholic Moral truth in a Catholic School because it may offend a certain group than you are caving to the culture. Same with Mozilla . It’s RELATIVISM.

  • Mack

    The bishops and priest have condemned private enterprise while passing the plate, condemned public schools while closing Catholic schools, encouraged criminal behavior, denied 2,000 years of Catholic civilization in favor of lumpish art and music – no surprise here.

  • robert chacon

    What a perfect headline! I usually hate headlines, but I couldn’t agree more with this one! I do believe in a male clergy precisely because I believe Christ wanted his clergy to model manly courage and leadership. That is not to say it is better or of more value than that of women. But it is men who we rely on, even to this day, to stand up to real physical and societal threats. I think it is this strength that Christ wanted modeled in a male clergy. But when the all male clergy does NOT have the manhood to stand firm it the convictions of the Church, they definitely undermine the entire notion of an all male clergy and suggest that women, perhaps, could provide stronger leadership in the face of real attacks by the culture. If the male priests wont act like men, then I start thinking that perhaps it is time to consider female clergy! And I have always supported the concept of a male clergy before. But, when men wont be men, then maybe we should let women be men! Otherwise, an all male clergy is just another form of discrimination. I thank God for our strong clergy, who do stand firm in the face of attacks by the culture. I don’t really think the answer is a female ordination. But its time to all the clergy to start acting like men!

  • Lisa Julia

    i posted a couple comments but don’t see them….but…i just want to say to anyone who believes the Sisters are backing down, it’s simply not true. i am pretty certain that more than anything else, Sister Jane Dominic’s well-being and safety are their top priority, and the sooner this situation finally leaves the spotlight, the easier it will be for everyone to move forward. And while the Sisters are true defenders of the Faith and probably the best teaching Order in existence, we can’t expect them to put a very public member of their Congregation in harms way. Pretend Sister Jane Dominic is your daughter or Sister, and then imagine the lengths you would go to if an angry mob got out of control…

    • Fr. Denis Lemieux

      Yes! The Nashville Dominicans have a long track record of orthodoxy and sound teaching and spirituality. Those who are vehemently criticizing their actions in this matter need to reflect on what you are saying here, and on the good faith we really do owe this order, who have done much for Christ and His Church for many years.

  • James

    Does anyone have a copy of what Sister actually said? Not her course videos on Newman Connection but the actual words she spoke at that high school in NC? Where can we find this?

  • chrisinva

    We have to pray for fortitude, for our bishops and priests especially. They are confronted by a laity which, by and large, has unconsciously but indelibly absorbed the contraceptive mentality and its partner, the rejection of natural law.

    As we have seen since the 60s, that rejection becomes increasingly mean, then vicious, and eventually violent. So suddenly the Nashville Dominicans must move to protect a good sister, and employees everywhere, including CEO’s, must take care not to be Mozilla’d.

  • Dave

    Very sad. The bishop had a teaching moment and apparently decided to fold. When this bishop (and some other bishops) become more concerned about truth and faithfulness to Christ than money and human respect, maybe God will bless the Catholic Church in the West again.

    ==================

    After reading more about the situation, I want to withdraw my criticism of the Bishop. I still think he should say something, though.

    What I do think is that if those parents who threw a public tantrum can be identified, they should be punished by the school in some way. I don’t really buy that the real reason the parents were upset is because of the controversial data, and even if they were upset because of that, there is no excuse for their behavior. Even going to the point of expelling their kids from the school wouldn’t be too far in my opinion. Barring the parents from coming onto school property is the minimum they should do.

    • oregon nurse

      Even if those parents were lying in wait with a gun in their hands ready to shoot at the first sign of a politically-incorrect misstep on the part of the school, Sr. Jane handed them the bullets. That makes me angry. In this hostile climate, when one speaks for the Church, you should speak only the truth of the Church’s teaching without unproven personal embellishments. The good Lord knows the truth is hard enough to teach. I feel the same anger toward clergy who pander and minimize the truth or remain silent in order to be liked.

      • Dave

        Perhaps. I would need to know what exactly the Sister said that was so allegedly incendiary. I don’t think it is so terrible to bring up theories about certain things even if they are not proven, as long as there is solid research behind them.

        I mean, how long would the talk be if only the religious doctrine is allowed to be stated? Maybe 10 minutes?

        What I have noticed is that it is tolerated (for now) to express a purely religious objection to various perverse sexual activities, but once you bring up actual evidence that something is objectively unhealthy or disordered, THAT cannot be tolerated.

  • hamiltonr

    Note: I delete comments that disrespect the pope, use crude language or cursing, and that attack people. That includes comments that attack gay people.

    • jcbathtub

      Whose attacking?

      • hamiltonr

        They are deleted, so you don’t see them. :-)

  • Kay

    Has it occurred to any of you that you simply do not, and will not, have all the facts? That SJD perhaps really did step over the theological line causing some legitimate confusion, even offense, regardless of how uncharitable the reaction has been? That SJD’s sabbatical is not entirely related to this incident? That a sabbatical is not always a form of punishment? And that the order and the President of Aquinas does not owe you an explanation on internal matters? Did these parents step over the line? Seems so, and quite severely! Whatever SJD said is NO excuse for their behavior. Should the Bishop of that diocese make a statement? Seems so and maybe he still will; but he doesn’t owe a swift, sharp reaction to prove his orthodoxy. Don’t we value temperance? Can we claim to be orthodox and remind others of the Magisterium, and then question the same authority when they exercise it? Let’s respect the Order of Dominicans here that we have previously held in such high regard; they are not ‘caving’ but that doesn’t mean they owe you any more explanation than has been given! So many comments I have seen come close to bearing false witness on another if not actually committing so; it is so heartbreaking to see. Very few were actually there and those with the harshest comments most certainly do not have inside knowledge. Catholic bloggers everywhere should ‘stop the madness’ of speculating in the name of defending Holy Mother Church. Ironic that those claiming to defend the faith are in turn attacking those of us who sacrifice much to live out a serious Christian commitment by Church teaching. Things are not as always charged as they appear and we should avoid exaggeration on our part or we fail just as much as those who are truly opposed to Truth.

  • oregon nurse

    Do you know who I would like to hear from? Sister Jane herself.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      absolutely

  • Siwash

    I’m confused by the quisling response by Catholic leadership, too. This would have been a good teaching-moment for the school and the nation. . . in other words, yes, we need leadership not banana spines.

    It’s still clear that homosexuality is a disorder and unnatural behavior, and that there are growing negative consequences to society (and, sure, the health of individuals and public health) of this activity.

    Why on earth can’t Catholics just tell the truth?

    • Dale

      Presenting and defending Catholic teaching is necessary and vital. However, we need to rely on what is objectively true. We do not know what Sr. actually said, however her detractors accuse her of making dubious sociological claims. If so, that is lamentable and may have undermined her message. It would also greatly complicate the discussion we are having.

  • joxxer

    Just today we hear that Sister has been shown the door. What a dirty deal. Do we wonder that the Faith has been untaught for so many years, and how watered down it has become??? Each day the true Faith established by Christ is undefended and certainly exchanged in order to kneel at the altar of Politically Correct. St. Peter declared that he must serve God over man– but our clergy isn’t in that frame of mind these days. They sit on the sidelines ready and anxious to throw in the towel, lest they offend with the TRUTH!!

    • Dale

      Was she shown the door? My understanding is that her order has supported her, as have the bishop and priest. So who told her to go away?

      Personally, I think this entire controversy should have been handled in private. I think that, egos and emotions aside, a resolution could have been reached which all parties would be comfortable. Instead, we are treated to a culture wars debate, with all the shallowness that entails.

      • joxxer

        “The Silencing Of Sister Jane” is the article in the “American Catholic” written by Donald McClarey on April 6–, it should bring you up to date. Yes she has been silenced, shuffled out of sight, hidden away now. Tossed to the wolves and apologized for by the diocese AND HER ORDER. Check it out for yourself…

        • FW Ken

          I’m sorry to be blunt, but you don’t seem to know how religious life works. Sr. Jane took a vow of obedience to God, to St. Dominic, and to her religious superiors; her soul will be saved not by giving speeches, but by fulfilling that vow. At this time, her superiors (religious and academic) have sent heft into a time of retreat and reflection. You are speaking like she is a lay American, who does whatever she pleases. Frankly, this is the same spiritual malady demonstrated by the people who demonstrate whenever Catholic moral doctrine is presented.

          The truth is, we don’t know what she said and we are not the ones with authority to judge it if we did know. This isn’t the TV news. We aren’t privy to the details, so it’s nothing more than gossip.

          • joxxer

            I did not know you were the EXPERT.Most people view this as a teaching sister (her job) being SILENCED—because the LAITY did not like her explanation of CATHOLIC MORALITY (which her Bishop said was correct). So the judgement came due to pressure by the disgruntled laity–then her superiors took action, sided with the laity and she was removed. So to be BLUNT–the laity (students and parents) not catholic teaching won by having her dismissed.

            • hamiltonr

              Joxxer, don’t be rude to Ken.

  • jcbathtub

    The persecution begins.

  • Stefanie Diez Huguet

    Time to close a “Catholic” school.

  • Rosemary58

    Not only where are the men of the Church; where are the gentlemen of the Church? Fr. Kauth’s lengthy statement of just how hard he as worked to express Catholic dogma… – but, wait! He was blind-sided by bad Sr. Jane! Now there’s a gentlemen for ya. Oh, if only he’d known!

  • Kay

    OH, look. Here’s an update: ”

    “Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church teaching,” Diocese of
    Charlotte Communications Director David Hains told LifeSiteNews in an
    email. “Sister would be welcomed to speak in the diocese in the
    future.”

    Hains said Bishop Peter Jugis is expected to make further public comment on the situation soon.” From LifeSiteNews 4/7/14 So could commenters here and everywhere learn a lesson and refrain from attacking, assuming, and doomsday prophesying when these moments occur in the future? Don’t believe the first (or fourth) thing you read or hear in the news. There is plenty of difficulty in the days ahead for Catholics; let’s not discourage one another in our faith with our speech.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      And yet the Vicar and Chaplain apologized for the last 20 minutes of the Sister’s talk that deviated from church teachings and should not have been included (their words). So, were they wrong to have apologized?

      I have yet to meet a parent at CCHS that said the Church is wrong. Equally so, I have yet to meet a parent at CCHS that was happy about those last 20 minutes.

      People that were not at the April 2 parent meeting or have children at CCHS really should not be commenting. CCHS, MACS and the Diocese are working with parents regarding better communication and better vetting of speakers.

      We wish the rest of the world well but it is upsetting that so many with no direct knowledge wish to condemn the parents.

  • Stringtickler

    LK 21:10 ff…(NAB)

  • Kieran Troy

    Hi Rebecca. I fully agree that men should should stand up and and act like men in all things, including the defence of the truth and in solidarity with people like Sister Jane. Well said, and may you continue to challenge us! However it is a little unfair on Fr Kauth to say that he was cowardly. His official statement is itself an eloquent witness to the beauty of Catholic moral doctrine when it is understood in its fullness. He doesn’t blame Sr Jane in any way during that statement. All he does is explain the circumstances in which he and Sr Jane had a genuine misunderstanding, and this led to the presentation of difficult material in an inappropriate context. At no time does Fr Kauth deny the truth or validity of what Sr Jane was saying. And you know, his point is valid. There is a time and a place for certain things to be said. We must defend traditional marriage and the right to life in all contexts, but the way we do it must be suited to the context. As Jesus himself says in the Gospel, you do not pour new wine into old skins or the skins will be destroyed. The beautiful new wine that Sr Jane was teaching was perhaps poured into skins that were not ready, with destructive consequences. Whatever the outcome of this is, let us be fair to Sr Jane, to Fr Kauth, and to everyone involved in this controversy.

    • hamiltonr

      I’ve read a bit about Father Kauth and I agree with you. Thanks for this comment.

      • LeticiaVelasquez

        The only thing I might have done differently is to divide the sexes before discussing such intimate acts. Some parents are upset because their children’s modesty was offended, not by the actual content of the teaching. See Deacon Kandra’s blog.

  • Matthew

    In addition to having priests with backbones, we also need laypeople who will not take the first possible opportunity to trample upon the priests and bishops of the Church. It seems that you were quite wrong in regards to your article. The parish priest has come out with an official remark and the bishop’s remark is forthcoming.

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/charlotte-bishop-backs-nun-who-gave-school-talk-promoting-church-teaching-o

    • hamiltonr

      I’m glad the bishop has finally used his communications director to issue a statement of support for Sister Jane. It’s a rather weak statement, but at least it’s there.

      I have no regrets about anything I’ve written concerning this. I honestly believe that the statement you’ve linked to is a response to public outcry. Nothing in our faith requires us to lie or to support lies. Nothing in our faith requires us to support a public lynching of an innocent person.

      I think my moral responsibility was to stand by Sister Jane, which is what I did.

      • Chip

        From this very traditional Catholic, I think you are being very unfair. Bishop Jugis has demonstrated great courage time and time again to publically oppose threats to our faith from both inside and outside the Church.

    • oregon nurse

      This statement just seems to muddy the waters further. She didn’t present anything contrary to Catholic teaching but she has withdrawn herself from teaching it and still no one has listed the data she cited or how she cited it.

      Just one person’s opinion but I think Sr. Jane needs to speak/write on this matter herself and clear up the remaining questions. It is not fair to leave it to other people to defend her or the portion of her presentation that’s at issue. I’m not interested in either a defense or an apology, just the facts on what was said and the data she used. I’m sure she has talking points or notes.

  • Chip

    With respect, I think you your criticism of Bisop Jugis is very unfair. Your analysis lacks some of the important facts. I am a member of the Charlotte diocese. I signed the counter petition in support of Sr. Jane’s presentation of authentic Catholic doctrine. This matter became problematic mostly because of secular material included in the program taken from studies of sexuality. Some material may have been age-inappropriate for some students. School officials failed to notify parents in advance. Bishop Jugis supported the program’s content related to doctrine. I suggest that a followup article to correct your inaccuracies would be a very good idea! Michael Vorhis did a fair critique of this matter with the diocesan communication director that you might find enlightening.

    • hamiltonr

      I don’t agree with you. Bishop Jugis statement is his statement. If he has more to say, then he should say it.

      This isn’t just happening in North Carolina. It’s occurring all over the country. Bishops who run away encourage and feed it.

      • Chip

        I must say, I’m not following your logic. You make a bold indictment of cowardice against my bishop based on limited knowledge. Now you suggest he needs to say more to satisfy you. Sorry, this does not compute.

        Sent from Samsung tablet

        ——– Original message ——–
        From Disqus
        Date: 04/15/2014 18:13 (GMT-05:00)
        To imchip50@northstate.net
        Subject Re: New comment posted on Sister Jane, Cowardly Clergy and Martin Niemoller Moments
        Settings

        A new comment was posted on Public Catholic

        hamiltonr
        I don’t agree with you. Bishop Jugis statement is his statement. If he has more to say, then he should say it. 6:13 p.m., Tuesday April 15

        Reply to hamiltonr

        hamiltonr’s comment is in reply to Chip:

        With respect, I think you your criticism of Bisop Jugis is very unfair. Your analysis lacks some of the important facts. I am a member … Read more
        You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to disqus_SFtZHBaWmC.
        You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to disqus_SFtZHBaWmC by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings.

        • hamiltonr

          If you support Bishop Jugis’ handling of this situation, that’s fine with me. But I’m not changing my opinion just because you disagree with it.

          I think the bishop handled the situation like a corporate CEO, and that his statement was clerical-speak nothing. I think he threw Sister Jane under the bus.

          I also think that if the bishops don’t start standing by faithful Catholics when those faithful Catholics try to stand for the Church, it won’t be long before the bishops are heads of empty churches. I had an Anglican bishop’s wife from Nigeria tell me once, “If the bishop doesn’t stand, the people will all run away.”

          As I said in the post, this was a Martin Niemoller moment. It was also an incredible opportunity for Bishop Jugis to lead. He failed.

          You are entitled to your opinions about this and I respect that.

          But so am I.

          Don’t try to harangue me again.

          • Chip

            If defending my bishop against an
            indictment of cowardice without sufficient cause is “haranguement,” so be it …
            it will be my last, I promise. The curious thing is, it’s very likely that you
            and I would agree on most anything “Catholic.” I totally agree with your third
            paragraph below. We see many examples of cowardly shepherds these days who are
            leading their flocks astray.

            My point is this. You don’t know Bishop
            Jugis and your article was void of some highly relevant facts. I could make you
            a long list of excellent (and quite courageous) initiatives he has brought about
            that would impress any faithful Catholic, but you could find those out for
            yourself if interested. I would ask only that before publishing a piece
            attacking another’s faith that reached across so many computer screens, facts
            and all of them must be included. You nor I know specifically what Sister Jane
            presented that many considered objectionable.

            Once again, I signed the counter-petition
            in support of Sister Jane’s presentation of Catholic social doctrine on
            homosexuality. The student petition objected to that part of her presentation.
            I have no connection to Charlotte Catholic High School.

            I’m done … haranguement complete …
            thanks.

            • hamiltonr

              I was too harsh when I answered your comment, and I apologize.

              I allowed myself to get down about a long series of really bad legislation that has passed here in Oklahoma which I think will ultimately impoverish the people of the state. I also had my session headache going.

              None of this is your fault. Again, I apologize.

              • Chip

                Thanks so much! I share your concerns for our Church, and understand how frustrating it can be at times. God bless you … hope you headache has passed … got one myself today from this crazy, changing weather.

                Sent from Samsung tablet

                ——– Original message ——–
                From Disqus
                Date: 04/16/2014 09:16 (GMT-05:00)
                To imchip50@northstate.net
                Subject Re: New comment posted on Sister Jane, Cowardly Clergy and Martin Niemoller Moments
                Settings

                A new comment was posted on Public Catholic

                hamiltonr
                I was too harsh when I answered your comment, and I apologize.
                I allowed myself to get down about a long series of really bad legislation that has passed here in Oklahoma which I think will ultimately impoverish the people of the state. I also had my session headache going. None of this is your fault. Again, I apologize.
                9:16 a.m., Wednesday April 16

                Reply to hamiltonr

                hamiltonr’s comment is in reply to Chip:

                If defending my bishop against an
                indictment of cowardice without sufficient cause is “haranguement,” so be it … it will be my last, I promise. The …
                Read more
                You’re receiving this message because you’re signed up to receive notifications about replies to disqus_SFtZHBaWmC.
                You can unsubscribe from emails about replies to disqus_SFtZHBaWmC by replying to this email with “unsubscribe” or reduce the rate with which these emails are sent by adjusting your notification settings.

                • hamiltonr

                  Thank you. :-)

  • Chip

    Isn’t there an abundance of half-truths from outside the Church that create divisiveness? Must we do it among ourselves as well? Students and parents who do not share Church teaching on active homosexual behavior should look elsewhere … I see nothing from the diocese that contradicts doctrinal truth or suggests that we avoid issues that are poltically incorrect.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X