The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexual tendencies or same sex
attractions are “disordered” in the sense of desiring sex with a person of the
same sex (not same sex intimate friendships that exclude sex, that is
non-sexual love) we do not teach that merely having same sex attractions are
sinful. It is sex outside of God’s recognized lawful marriage that is sinful. This
applies equally to those who are heterosexual as well as homosexual. There is
no double standard.
But with that said, when a person who is married commits adultery or when a single person, homosexual or heterosexual sins sexually, these sins can be forgiven and are forgiven in the Sacrament of Penance when one is truly sorry, repents, confesses and does penance. It isn't too difficult to receive God's Divine Mercy. In fact he places his grace in our hearts that leads us to Confession.
Most of our Catholic schools hire both Catholic and non Catholic teachers,but we expect them not to publicly in
any way call into question or demonstrate a lifestyle opposed to the Church
teaching on chastity. So for example if a teacher at at a Catholic School who is
heterosexual desires to move in with her boyfriend and that becomes widely
known, that would jeopardize that person’s job. It has nothing to do with her
being a heterosexual, but it does have everything to do with her ability to
model a chaste life to our students where Catholic education promotes chastity.
As a single person how can you teach chastity in a Catholic Schools whose mission of course is to teach Catholic sexual morality if you are publicly living with
another person in a sexual relationship?
Of course God
teaches and the Church hands His teaching on that marriage is
between one man and one woman and for a lifetime. That will never change in the
Catholic Church. The gay lobby hates the Catholic Church for this and wants to
do everything in its power to challenge and change the Catholic Church. Even
the court system has ideologues that want to change the Catholic Church. Even the President of the United States wants to change the Catholic Church's teaching on the sanctity of life and marriage. I’m
willing to be a martyr in opposing the gay lobby in this. Tell them to butt
out! They hate the Catholic Church! They call her archaic (which of course our
teachings are, they go back to God and eternity! These go back before Moses!)
For someone
teaching in our schools they should understand and know that the bishop of our
diocese who is the ultimate authority in protecting and promoting Catholic
identity of Catholic institutions in our diocese has the final say and gives
the ultimate direction to those who work in our diocese and even administrators.
If a Catholic school opposed the bishop in this, the Bishop would have to take away that Catholic school's Catholic mission and identity. They would become a non-sectarian
school or affiliate with another religious institution. They could not even have a Catholic chapel in that school.
A Catholic bishop must not allow any of the Sacraments of the Church to be mocked by anyone
working in our schools. Marriage in one of the Catholic Church 's 7 sacraments and
the one that is under siege by those who hate the Catholic Church’s teaching on
sex and marriage. Same sex marriage is a mockery of the Church’s Sacrament of
Marriage, pure and simple.
For example, I am
sure that most of the non-Catholic teachers in our Catholic schools more than likely do
not believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Sacrament of the Most
Holy Eucharist. That is fine as long as they keep it to themselves. In fact non-Catholics are not allowed by Church law
to receive Holy Communion. If the administration of a Catholic school said, yes, you
can receive Holy Communion at our school's Masses, no matter what the
administration said, a Catholic bishop and local priests would have to say, no you can’t!
But let’s say that on their own a non-Catholic feels she has a right in our
Catholic school and Church to receive Holy Communion, and does so in a very
public way, that would be grounds for dismissing that faculty person, no
matter what their personal beliefs are. Or let’s say that the non-Catholic
makes known to her students in our school that her belief about Holy Communion
which differs greatly from the Catholic Church’s belief is just as good as the Catholic
Church’s belief and if students in that Catholic school agree with him, they should stand up for what they
believe in contradiction of the Catholic Church even on school property,
I would say that person should be fired on the spot.
Now let’s talk
about proselytizing which can be
defined as recruiting someone to join one's party,
institution, or cause. This can be done actively or passively. It can be done
intentionally or unintentionally. When someone who works in a Catholic school
publicly supports same sex marriage and publicly gets married in a state that allows same sex marriage and makes it known they are gay, support the gay political agenda
concerning marriage and want to propagate that by their own lifestyle and do so
in a Catholic institution—that is called proselytizing pure and simple. Then
when that person tells our students in our Catholic Church School to stand up
for what they believe (even if it goes against the Catholic Church and to do it
at a Catholic school) then Houston, we have major, major, major problems.
All of us are called to chastity.
For the married person, lawfully married in the eyes of God as the Catholic
Church teaches what lawful marriage is, chastity is fidelity to one’s spouse.
For those who are not married, it means abstaining from sexual
relationships, no matter if you are homosexual or heterosexual. There is no
double standard. Ultimately as Catholics we must follow God’s law and oppose
anyone trying to force the Catholic Church to follow laws that are contrary to
God’s laws in the areas of sex and marriage. Pope Francis, oddly enough, on
Thursday said that today Catholics must be willing to die as martyrs for the
Catholic Church. He said we should go to our martyrdom as to a wedding banquet!
Are you ready to stand up for the Catholic Church and to go to your martyrdom as to a wedding feast?
17 comments:
I heard an account of a 1980s seminary where the liturgy course, taken by the seminarians in their final term before ordination, was taught by a bitter ex-nun, using a paperback textbook written by a Methodist laywoman. She forcefully and repeatedly assured the seminarians that the rite of ordination would confer on them no powers not shared by her as a laywoman, would not impart any sign upon their character, etc. How could such a seminary teacher have not been dismissed immediately?
In your honest opinion, do you believe parents send their children to catholic school so their children can learn the values of the Catholic Church through education (note that MDS is more Protestant than Catholic in population), or do parents want the best education (religion not included) for their children? I think it boils down to how challenging is the school and how they can help their sons or daughters get into college. Math, science, reading and writing are core factors that can determine one's life outside of high school. I feel this is the more practical application in the 21st century and would choose a school that could provide such for my children.
This deserves very serious contemplation. What is the purpose of a Catholic school and how does it (should it) operate as a reflection of our understanding of our direction from Christ? Is the knowledge presented in math, science, literature and philosophy only list OS potential answers to a quiz? Are the body, mind, and spirit severable after Baptism? No, they are not. In fact learn these things so we can manage our earthly existence for the Glory of God and manifest his Kingdom on this earth. We fail by our nature, but we assess, confess, and try again.
We would not accept a teacher living as if 2+2 is not four. Why would we accept a teacher living as if the vastly more important Truth did not matter?
I believe it is in error to equate all marriage to the Catholic Sacrament of Marriage. Other cultures form unions known as marriage, and indeed this practice existed long before the Catholic Church existed and in cultures never before exposed to the Jewish traditions that predate Christianity. In other belief systems there exist real and legitimate reasons for marriage to occur, be them legal, financial, or otherwise. If a person does not claim to be participating in the Catholic Sacrament of Marriage and the Catholic Church does not acknowledge their marriage, is the person still mocking the Sacrament simply for having different beliefs? Extending this line of reasoning, one would expect that members of other faiths, be they teachers at Mount de Sales or otherwise, were baptized according to their own traditions - not the Catholic Sacrament of Baptism. Are these people not as plainly mocking the Church and her teachings?
The Catholic Church acknowledges the marriages of a
Anyone when it is their first marriage and between one man and one woman. We do not recognize polygamy. If a polygamist wants to be Catholic he would have to renounce all except his first. If a homosexual in a state marriage wanted to become Catholic he would have to separate sexually and live brotherly love.
Given the legal door that is opened by the state redefining what God created as marriage, I can see incestuous marriage protected by law. Two brothers, or two sisters or a mother and son or beastiality. These are all theoretically possible in the realm of law if there is a powerful lobby for it and the discrimination card is used to manipulate liberal sensibilities.
By your logic, rgc, if a Catholic School teaches philosophy and has their students study Kaant, Neitchze, and Freud are we straying away from the "Truth?" Is it not the job of higher education to make students think, question, and analyze? To me, that is a "whole education"-if we stick with teaching and holding "Truth" as the basis to how and why we teach different subjects, are we not limiting our children's ability to think outside the box? Why waste private school tuition if your son or daughter are subjected to such rigid values set in motion by, say, a church? How are we to tell our children that it's this way, and only this way when that is not true. Should we lie and shelter our children?
This is a compelling post. Thanks!
@ Anonymous 5/25 5:07PM": "Is it not the job of higher education to make students think, question, and analyze?"
If that was what many of the dissenters wanted, in the broad sense, it would be hard to disagree with you in principle.
The problem is, that's not what many of them want. They explicitly do not want to expose the young to a broad education in the truest sense, but to primarily expose students only to the dissenting elements, virtually ignoring what the Church traditional has taught.
I have talked with numerous young people in recent years who, literally, have little or no knowledge of what the Church teaches and possess no curiosity or interest in learning it. They do not possess, or have not read, for example, the 1994 Catechism. They already know the right way, the dissenting way as they have been almost exclusively exposed to it, and that is the end of it. Regrettably, too many of them have very little motivation or interest, and insufficient intellectual skills, to "think, question and analyze."
Tom, THANK YOU for proving my point. Your rhetoric speaks to the history of the Catholic Church discouraging science, free thinking, and thus persecuting those who decide to think outside of the box and broaden their horizons. In a real world situation, how applicable is the 1994 catechism, say over the ability to argue and reason effectively from the studying of various philosophers who do just that? How are our children to know better if they only read Catholic doctrine? God forbid we decide to "dissent" from a hierarchy who's history has constantly proven to be incorrect in the ways of science. I applaud those children who "you've talked with and know little about Catholic doctrine.." Those students do not shut themselves off.
Anon, both of those posts are tiresome regurgitations of factually incorrect second hand propaganda. The Church participated fully in the advance of science and it has been wrong on science no more than science itself. I will save electrons for most of the rest of the regular participants by pointing out that "Kaant" was a Catholic priest.
@Anonymous May 25 6:15PM: "Tom, THANK YOU for proving my point. Your rhetoric speaks to the history of the Catholic Church discouraging science, free thinking, and thus persecuting those who decide to think outside of the box and broaden their horizons."
What I wrote does no such thing. And "my rhetoric" is derived from my personal free thinking over a prolonged period of time, as I moved from an unchurched upbringing to baptism into the faith at the age of 53.
I am an engineer and do not wish to discourage "free thinking" on science or other matters. What I, and many others, expect from educators is that they expose students to the full breadth of an issue, and teach what the Church teaches in a balanced way.
Students today are woefully unable, in too many instances, to articulate what the Church teaches . . . they are not "free thinkers" in the true sense . . . many of them are not fully exposed to or knowledgeable of the breadth of what the Churches teaches. This is NOT free thinking, it is a form of a narrow-minded ideology, that virtually ignores, or openly denigrates, key aspects of important issues related to faith.
rcg, Kant also was a proponent of reason, even though he was a priest. My "second hand propaganda" frightens right wingers like yourself who are too afraid to accept the changing world we live in today. It's time to emerge from under the rock. Science is wrong at times because it's a fundamental attribution to itself. How much had science brought us as opposed to catholic doctrine? That doesn't not mean those who participate should be persecuted and excommunicated...Tom, how am I to interpret "dissenters" as you call them? Your rhetoric is biasedI whole heartily agree with you. Fair and balance exposure does lead to free thinking a a more whole understanding. The institutions I attended did the same. Sure we were exposed to the philosophers I mentioned above, but we also discussed Aquinas and even read O'Connor. My point is this, do today's students necessarily need to articulate church doctrine? How applicable is it in the working world? It's fun to have philosophic discussions with friends, but Catholic doctrine didn't help me get a job, or further my education. Is there not a separation of church and state? How valid is it to use Catholic Doctrine in higher education? He live in a more and more secular country. What are the "real world "applications?
Check your Kant references. If you are going to carry all those parts in a bag you will find them more manageable if you can link them right side up. Philosophy is notoriously poor at putting bread on the table. Even Kafka thought it was more suited to hunger as an art than a living. Perhaps a trade school would be the best choice. Yet the spirit burns and the soul hungers. We are frustrated by our natures because we can know the questions yet cannot know the answers. The Catechism is as a table of derivatives and functions we can chose to pursue and test or use and consider their utility. Compare the usefulness of the Catechism in the context of Geordel's Theorem and you can glimpse a bit of itS usefulness as a calculus for working broader answers to life.
Kant also understood the limits of reason...
The problem with higher education in the 21st century is that it is primarily concerned with narrow vocational training, and the majority of those who are processed by the system probably lack the intellectual capacity 'to think and to reason and to compare and to discriminate and to analyse' which was to Bl. John Henry Newman the definition of a liberal education (The Idea of a University, 1854). The anonymous contributor above acknowledges this ideal while at the same time veering towards a utilitarian concept which would perforce negate it.
Newman wrote: 'Religious truth is not only a portion, but a condition of general knowledge. To blot it out is nothing short ... of unravelling the web of university teaching'. Even in the 21st century knowledge of Catholic doctrine (regardless of whether one subscribes to it or is formed by its precepts) as well as classical learning is essential to the understanding of Western culture in terms of history, philosophy, literature, art, architecture, music, and last but by no means least, theology.
In Newman's day as in ours, we have many examples of a man with a narrow specialized education who is not reticent about airing his views publicly on subjects of which he is largely ignorant; according to Newman he is worse than a bigot, since the bigot at least attributes his views to a supposed divine authority.
"Anyone who doesn't understand what is wrong with our schools never (slept with) an education major.' Lee Atwater
Post a Comment