What Really Happened at Charlotte Catholic HS

The angry Tweets started before the nun’s talk ended.

“My dad doesn’t love me because I’m gay?” followed by a supportive amen chorus, “We got you, man.”

Such was the level of debate that began even before the end of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel’s talk to an all-school assembly at Charlotte Catholic High School last month.

The nun’s talked roiled the school, her religious congregation and the college where she teaches for weeks, became an internet sensation and a national scandal, and it appears to have started with students only half listening followed by a cacophony on social media, all the while egged on by faculty and a group of divorced parents.

Using material from the Catholic Medical Association and the prestigious if conservative Linacre Center in Great Britain, Sister Laurel talked about the causes of later homosexuality saying that a distant or absent father can cause a boy to seek masculine affirmation in a sexual attraction to other males. This theory is now rejected by the psychological establishment but still held by a stalwart yet rump group of psychologists like Rick Fitzgibbons and Joseph Nicolosi.

On Twitter, Facebook and other social media this theory became something like “I’m gay because my dad was mean” or “I’m gay because I have a single mom” and “my mom’s divorce made me gay.”

The kids also fastened onto the Sister’s assertion that gays have an inordinate number of sex partners. It’s disputed what she really said. Some say she put lifetime gay sex partners at 500-1,000. Other said she put that number yearly. Either time period with that number is shocking but survey data tends to back her up on this. In fact, men who have sex with men are fairly open about the rather open relationships they have, even among the “married.” Sex columnist Dan Savage even coined a term for it. He called it “monogamish.” A “married” couple of MSMs will go out to the clubs and deliberately end up with other men. Do this enough and it adds up pretty fast, as do the diseases.

One student, who insisted on anonymity because she fears retribution from fellow students and also from teachers, said the students were barely listening to the nun’s talk. “Where I was sitting, lots of them were asleep. There was this nun blabbing on and on and talking really fast.” The student said some students might have perked up during the gay part of the talk and then started tweeting.

The immediate result is that at least some teachers became enraged. One math teacher, Catherine Bischoff, walked out of the talk because she was so upset, and announced that her class would have an open day, no teaching, because she was so angry.

According to this student, Bischoff told her class, “The God I believe in loves you all. Don’t let anyone bring you down. I’m telling you I love you. The God I believe in wouldn’t say those things about you.” According to my source, the students “were like, yeah!” The student said the controversy got bigger and bigger and “it became all that anyone talked about” but that “the faculty made it that much worse. It would have passed much more quickly except for the faculty and a few students. And the parents took it much too far. It was the parents who were so angry.”

Emma Winters, daughter of math teacher Joanne Winters, went so far as to put up a petition on Change.org, a laundry list of liberal talking points about homosexuality and parenting that some observers believe had to have been written in part by adults. Before it was taken down altogether it garnered more than 1,000 signatures.

The petition found the “ideas expressed to be both offensive and unnecessarily derogatory. We are incensed that you knew the content of this speech and allowed these ideas to be expressed in a school that should be preaching love and acceptance.”

Specifically the petition said children can thrive even if their parents are divorced, same-sex couples can raise successful children, homosexuality does not occur because of a parent’s shortcoming, masturbation or pornography. The petitioners reject the phrase “homosexual lifestyle,” believe “homosexual couples are capable of monogamy” and that “homosexual people lead healthy, normal and productive lives.”

They “resent the fact that a school wide assembly became a stage to blast the issue of homosexuality after Pope Francis said … ‘we cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage, and the use of contraceptive methods.’”

The petition closed with a call for condemnation of “world hunger, gun violence, the death penalty, unjust care of the elderly, human trafficking, genocide, discrimination etc.; OR been promoting: love, prayer, the Beatitudes, practical ways to serve Christ, patience, just war theory etc.” Lefty folks now routinely use their misunderstanding of Pope Francis as a battering ram against those who uphold and espouse Church teaching.

Besides agitation by faculty and students, parents joined in.

Shelley Earnhardt, a divorced mother of a Charlotte Catholic student, sent out an email asking people to write to the Pope, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops.  “In my home, there was outrage, embarrassment, sadness, disbelief, and further reason for my 16 year-old to move as far away from her religion as possible and as soon as she can.” She said, “the overall flavor and tone of the talk was that of overt sexism, the near bullying attitude toward gay men and women, facts and figures thrown out with no scientific basis whatsoever, grossly overstated generalizations regarding both the roles of men and women in relationships and in society, the sad state of children raised in one-parent homes, the perversion of the gay community in general.” One assumes Ms. Earnhardt is fine with her daughter leaving such an unenlightened Church.

A group of Charlotte Catholic mothers told me that the parents were so angry because the nun’s talk highlighted their own personal shortcomings. “Their sins are coming to light; divorce, promiscuity, contraception, abortion, even homosexuality.”

Another told me Earnhardt is part of a dissenting Catholic parish called St. Luke’s and is under the tutelage of a nun there named Sister Veronica who trains laymen to protest Church teaching, even to picket the Bishop.

All of this led to perhaps the most acrimonious part of this story, the intense and vexatious school assembly where Father Matthew Kauth, school chaplain and the one who is blamed for all of this was—in the words of several witnesses—crucified. And this is where the real story of the nun’s lecture comes to light.

The story was never really about the nun. She was collateral damage for those who wanted the scalp of Father Kauth and even more want to stem encroaching orthodoxy from this otherwise Catholic-light enclave. The larger story is about how the dissenting Church is dying in Charlotte, North Carolina and this is perhaps its dying gasps.

So quickly did the poison build up in the school—what with teachers fanning the flames, parents in irregular relationships stoking the fire, dissenting nuns and perhaps a few grey-haired priests lending a hand, and all the largely unformed students wanting to be “fair” and “loving” and “non-judgmental”—the diocese decided to have an all-parents meeting to let off some steam.

The meeting started with general statements by the diocesan representatives and then a prepared apology from Father Kauth. When I first read his statement, it seemed to me he was throwing Sister to the wolves. He said she did not give the talk he asked for. But here’s the problem. According to sources close to the situation, when Kauth asked for the talk he heard previously that talk did not have the homosexual part in it.

Sister had been to the school last fall and spoken to smaller groups segregated by sex and in the company of parents. That talk had the gay stuff in it and it was received positively. When Father asked for a talk, Sister thought he meant that talk. She went to him twice to ask, “Are you sure you want that talk?” Father twice said yes, but they were talking about two different lectures. Sister knew in her bones the talk with the gay stuff would not fly in an all-school assembly.

Kauth apologized for that and that makes sense. He did not back away from the material, only from the venue and he blamed himself.

Did that stop the wolf-pack come to pick at his innards and suck on his bones?

The angry parents yelled and screamed and demanded for what was supposed to be an hour and a half but stretched into two and a half hours. Their cries were like cries of pain from deep within their souls. They were smart not to challenge Church teaching. Very few are willing to come right out and say they disagree with Church teaching, to announce they contracept, or believe in a woman’s right to abort, or that men who have sex with men can marry each other.

One mother shared with me a text message she received from a dissenting mother. I quote it in full so as not to be charged with cherry picking:

Parents’ objections were never about the churches official teaching on adultery as it pertains to homosexuals having sex. Or about the church’s teaching about any kind of sex for that matter. Contraception never came up? The objection was to the statement of non doctrine “scientific facts” made, the manner in which the facts were presented, the age range and co-gender audience it was presented to, the fact that parents were not notified of the program like EVERY OTHER program at the school, etc. No one is afraid to talk. We just want to stick to the facts of what happened and not defend ourselves against baseless claims that we are “dissenting” simply because protocol in partnering with parents was violated on purpose and non scientific, non doctrine facts were dumped on kids as young as 13. In a co-gendered audience. [Austin Ruse’s] message back to you indicates he may just be part of that crowd insinuating heterodoxy where it simply doesn’t apply just to cause more division. The division in the school is because of the way it was handled. And in so doing children were marginalized and the saddest point of all of it, not once was God’s love for all his children ever, ever mentioned. And that last part? Came straight from my daughter’s mouth. They accomplished nothing if that is what my amazing, wholesome, smart and faithful girl walked away with.

Note this mother thinks that men who have sex with men is simply a matter of adultery as if they could have sex if they were married, yet she is at pains to say she does not disagree with Church teaching.

She is upset that “non-doctrinal” facts were presented though if you go to the catechism you find the only reason for homosexual attraction is “psychological.” The church is silent on genetic factors. Note also her insistence in using the word “gender” even in the clumsy formulation “co-gendered” rather than something simple as “co-ed” or even “boys and girls.”

Their insistence on process masks their deep problem with Church teaching and a lack of courage to express it.

So, at the meeting they did not yell and scream about Church teaching but about process, and yell and scream they did. “Why weren’t we told?” “Why didn’t you stop her?” After each emotional outburst, a crowd of parents, at least one gay couple included, would stand and cheer and it all came out like the stomping of little feet among those who have not gotten their way.

Any parent who rose to defend the Priest and the school, were shouted down. Parents who tried to defend the priest and the school are now frightened, frightened physically and frightened for their children. That is why none of them wanted to go on the record.

As the meeting progressed, Father Kauth tried to answer their questions but the questions became all the same and the angry mob was not listening. Someone told me it reminded them of why Christ did not answer some of his questioners; the questioners simply were not interested in listening, only venting and getting a pound of flesh. Sympathetic parents said they had never seen such a display of anger and hatred directed at a priest.

And this gets to the slightly larger question. Prior to Father Kauth’s arrival two years ago, the school only had visiting priests, no regular confession, never regularly daily Mass. Kauth arrived and insisted on a daily presence, an open door, regularly scheduled confession, daily Mass. Mass attendance began to spike. Now half the chapel may be filled for the twenty minute Mass he gives each morning before lunch. If he runs late, there is a stack of “Mass Passes” that get them back into class without problems.

He outraged the lefty faculty not long ago when on a weekend day, not during school hours, he blessed the school, the whole school, all the classrooms, and then presided over the Traditional Latin Mass in the chapel. At least one teacher was outraged. “He blessed my room? He did this without MY permission?”

The left is dying in Charlotte and this is at least one of their last gasps. The small seminary has twenty-two young men, all orthodox. As they are graduated and ordained they come to run parishes that hitherto had been run by the pungency of dissent. One source told me, “When a new orthodox priest takes over a parish, the dissenters up and leave and have to go somewhere else and they are running out of places to go.”

At least a few old lefty priests were sitting among the angry parents at the meeting with Father Kauth and though none of them stood and cheered one source told me, “I am sure they wanted to.”

Charlotte is a remarkable place, stunningly beautiful, clean, and charming. It is home to vibrant orthodoxy. Saint Benedict Press is there, run by the Gallagher family whose children are now grown attended Charlotte Catholic High School battling for orthodoxy all the way through. Saint Benedict Press just bought Tan Publishers and Newman Press and is run out of an impressive facility only a few miles from Charlotte Catholic. Father Kauth’s mother works the front desk there.

Just down the road is Belmont Abbey College run by the remarkable Bill Thierfelder, former Olympic athlete and sports trainer and psychologist who has trained one hundred top-level athletes, amateur and professional. And he has put the orthodoxy back into what is now an amazing school that, by the way, has been fighting the federal government over contraceptive coverage since 2007, long before any of us had ever heard of such a thing.

The contracepting Catholics of Charlotte, and the dissenting priests and nuns who egg them on, have only themselves to blame for their project slipping from their grasp. Demography— coupled with authentic catechesis—is destiny. Thierfelder has ten children. Robert Gallagher of Saint Benedict Press has almost that many. The contraceptors and divorcees don’t have a chance and they know it, hence their outrage.

And what of the nun? Sadly, she immediately cancelled all of her upcoming speaking engagements. Reliable sources tell me she received too many threats of violence to proceed. Such is the tolerance of the sexual left. She has gone on a sabbatical from her teaching job at Aquinas College in Nashville, which is run by her congregation. And sadder still, the head of that college criticized Sister for going beyond her scholarly expertise, as if scholars are only ever allowed to speak in their area of specialty.  There is no doubt she will be back.

What about Charlotte? Death and birth can both be wrenchingly painful. Both are happening right now in Charlotte and none too soon.

Austin Ruse

By

Austin Ruse is president of C-FAM (Center for Family & Human Rights), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute focusing on international legal and social policy. The views expressed here are not necessarily those of C-FAM.

  • John Byde

    A very sad saga. As a stunned outsider from Europe I thought as I read this: “A nun tells catholic beliefs to catholic kids at a catholic school – what’s the problem?” Then I remember how the faith has been distorted over the last 50 years and the shock wears of. This kind of thing is only going to get worse and we are really going to see who has the courage of their convictions and the strength to speak the truth with love.

    • tom

      We can thank Saint John XXlll for most of it. What a screwball.

      • fredx2

        Nonsense.

      • Athelstane

        John XXIII was more traditional than many give him credit for. This is a pope who dedicated an entire apostolic constitution to reinvigorating the use of Latin in the liturgy and the Church’s daily life, affirmed that gay men have no place in seminary due to their “evil tendencies,” and dismissed Annibale Bugnini from his position as secretary of the Conciliar Commission on the Sacred Liturgy. All of the Council documents were issued after his death.

        Now, if you want to take a shot at Paul VI, be my guest…

        • Guest

          What…that he absolutely hit the nail on the head with Humanae Vitae?

        • musicacre

          Bugnini did irreparable damage to the Catholic church…you never hear his name.

  • ForChristAlone

    Here are a few things that should immediately happen if the Bishop of Charlotte is going to be faithful to his episcopal responsibilities to teach, administer, and sanctify the faithful in his diocese.

    First, he should declare that all teaching positions in the Catholic schools in his diocese share in his teaching ministry. That means that all teachers are ministers of the Gospel and the teachings of the Catholic Church, as he is.

    Second, because all teachers are ministers of the Gospel and the teachings of the Catholic Church, they will be required to sign a statement that they will uphold all that the Church teaches – in what they say and what they do as public acts since they represent him.

    Third, any teachers or staff at Catholics schools in his diocese who refuse to sign such a statement should be immediately terminated. Catholic schools are meant to be Catholic first and schools second. It is preferable for a Catholic school to go out of existence than for it to falsely represent itself as “Catholic.” That would be nothing less than giving false witness to the Gospel and teachings of the Catholic church.

    Bishop Jugis, we watching what you will choose to do with your episcopal ministry.

    • Kathy

      I totally agree with you about teachers in the Catholic schools being ministers of the Gospel and upholding Catholic teaching. I find in Chicago that, while many Catholic teachers do just that, many teach in the Catholic schools because they are afraid to teach in the public school domain. Period.

      • John O’Neill

        I had the experience of teaching in a Catholic High School for girls in the 1980s and can truly say that the majority of the teachers in that particular school including the nuns rejected the magisterium of the Church. They even appointed an openly gay religion teacher to teach the Christian marriage course to senior girls. Parents should really consider what they are paying for before sending their children to a “catholic” school. Most of the children in Catholic schools in the large urban areas are there because their parents fear the public schools and are fortunate to be earning large salaries so that they can afford the outrageous tuition.

        • robert chacon

          Well if you dont agree with the teachings of the Church you can take your large tuition checks and go somewhere else! Its better to have NO schools if they are going to teach heresy and only what these rich spoiled parents want!

        • WSquared

          This is a scandal, and you and I are in agreement. It really is too high a price to pay to send one’s children to a Catholic school that teaches dissent, essentially misrepresenting, if not lying, in public about what the Catholic Church teaches and what it means to be Catholic.

          At the time I was a college freshman, straight out of Catholic high school, I became friends with a rather smart lad who fervently self-identified as Catholic who had graduated from a public school. The unfortunate joke back then was that if you want your kids to remain Catholic, don’t send them to a Catholic school.

          We have our work cut out for us, and we’ll have to get creative about how to ensure that our kids receive a Catholic education.

          • agadofive.leti

            My mom worked hard cleaning houses and schools to send my brothers to Univ of San Diego High School (Now called Cathedral Catholic) putting her trust in them, and now my brothers no longer practice their faith. My kids go to public school, and are strong in their faith because I teach them. I love learning from Catholic Answers and EWTN.

    • robert chacon

      Amen!

  • James

    Great article. I find it extremely frustrating how much venom has been directed at Bishop Jugis and Fr. Kauth by other self-proclaimed “orthodox” Catholics who are not aware of what is really happening in the Diocese of Charlotte.

    I’m glad I’m not a bishop.

    But we should not be surprised that Catholic schools are full of dissenters—if a couple is not “contracepting Catholics”, how in the world can they afford to send all their children to Catholic school? The cost of a Catholic education is a disgrace and a source of scandal. And no, homeschooling is not the answer.

    • ForChristAlone

      “how in the world can they afford to send all their children to Catholic school?” That’s an easy enough question to answer. Don’t drive the SUV, give up your iphone, cancel your cable TV, take modest family vacations, eat out less, etc etc. And, pray tell, why is homeschooling not an answer (I am not suggesting that it is THE answer, but why not AN answer?)

      • Gail Finke

        That is not a helpful response. I don’t know what Catholic schools cost in Charlotte but in many areas of the country tuition is astronomical, and the few Catholic schools that exist are only for the elite. It is fine to say, “Don’t have any luxuries” but many people DON”T have any luxuries and can’t come close to being able to afford Catholic schools — again, depending on the area. One real answer would be for dioceses to help families plan for school expenses through workshops, arrangements with banks, etc., to build a strong Catholic identity for schools and parishes so that people think there is a reason to go to Catholic school in the first place, and to experiment with innovative ideas like hybrid homeschool coops — where parents teach but there is also a school. Catholic schools came from parishes, because parishioners wanted them. You have to build a reason for parishioners to want them now.

        • lifeknight

          True, each area is different. One must give up time in order to homeschool. It is certainly affordable in the financial sense, but it requires a lifestyle change.

        • Bill

          Catholic schools are expensive for one reason only; they must pay for teachers who are secular and not religious sisters. I serious doubt that many of our schools have religious teachers. My own school had one and she was the principal. The answer, in my opinion, to the awaking of the Catholic faith is more vocations–priestly and religious. Without them, the Church is doomed to have few orthodox members.

          • Gail Finke

            How many Catholic sisters do you know, and are they remotely interested in teaching school? Right now it’s a Catch 22. Most women’s congregations have imploded and gave up teaching school long ago. There aren’t nearly enough who DO take teaching seriously to staff all the schools. So the schools are going to have to come first, or else close. That’s just reality. Exposure to people with religious vocations helps foster new ones, but when there aren’t any sisters of brothers to teach, there aren’t any sisters or brothers to teach. You can’t pull them out of the air. When it comes to schools one often hears a lot of wishful thinking and uninformed suggestions. What is needed are new and creative solutions. If the old ones worked they would still be in use. Schools of all kinds — public, private, parochial, etc. — are in trouble. They cost too much to run, there are too few students, and way too many single parents are raising troubled kids. That’s reality.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            I just checked the current fees for the English Benedictine school I attended – £15,747 or $26,457 per annum for day pupils and £28,374 or $47,671 per annum for boarders (39 weeks a year)

        • jacobhalo

          Check other private schools’ tuition and you will see that they are much higher than Catholic schools.

        • Ford Oxaal

          All Catholic schools have to do is join the Christian Classical movement. The Christian Classical movement should be spearheaded by Catholics (as stewards of the entirety of Christian culture and heritage), but tellingly, it is not. No, when the windows of the Church were opened by John XXIII, the laity jumped out of them, and a whole bunch of wolves came in through them. Perhaps it is all part of God’s plan to divide the wheat from the weeds, but in the meantime, we had to find a non-denominational Christian Classical school with a Christian culture and which dives deeply into the classics. This should be the project of Catholics — build fantastic Christian schools which attract all kinds of Christians, and reunite the Church. None of this require ‘money’. Just the will. For example, our rowing team has a budget of zero, and a willpower that has propelled our tiny little rag tag school into gold medal categories in major national rowing events. The same can be said for SAT scores, Latin exam scores, Mock trial teams, Math counts competitions, you name it.

      • lifeknight

        As a homeschooling parent (23 years and counting) I will tell you that it IS the only answer. I would love to have found a truly Catholic school, but they are like hen’s teeth. Don’t delude yourself into thinking your children are being well formed in Catholic schools.

        • James

          As for us, we are quite well satisfied with our own Catholic school.

          Furthermore, we are humble enough to know that the education and formation they are getting there is far better than what they could get from us.

          • lifeknight

            Great! Good for you. God bless.

          • TheAbaum

            “As for us, we are quite well satisfied with our own Catholic school.”

            “The cost of a Catholic education is a disgrace and a source of scandal. ”

            So which is it?

            • jacobhalo

              Check other private schools’ tuition and you will see how much higher they are than Catholics schools.

              • TheAbaum

                I’m not making the claim, I’m pointing out that the same poster made two mutually exclusive assertions.

                • James

                  I don’t think you know what “mutually exclusive” means.

                  We send our children to Catholic school. We are fortunate to be able to have the money to do so due to an inheritance. Had we not had the inheritance, it would not be an option.

                  • TheAbaum

                    If you think think one can be well satisfied with something that has a cost that is scandalous, YOU don’t understand the meaning.

          • LT

            FWIW we have been homeschooling for three years for various reasons. While our religious materials surpass what the parochial school uses, we also send our children to CCD. Although they don’t teach anything we don’t already cover, it shows that we are accountable to our pastor and that we are not an island apart from our parish community. We are also highly active in parish life. Homeschooling is not THE answer, but it is a viable option for some.

          • Constance

            That is great for you. Many of us have been called to homeschool by God. So it is not the answer for you. It is the answer for the million plus families who do it. I would watch your use of humble. It sounds like pride in response to those who do homeschool. You generalized way too much.

      • James

        Do you have any idea how much Catholic school costs? Here are the Diocese of Charlotte’s numbers.

        http://schools.charlottediocese.net/macs/admissions/tuition

        The annual cost for four or more children in at Catholic elementary school tuition rates is $18,267.
        If a child is in middle or high school, it is even more.

        I don’t know many large Catholic families who have $18,267/year lying around, do you? Many can barely make ends meet. As for luxuries, canceling an expensive cable ($100/mo) and phone plan ($150/mo) only saves $3000/year.

        The reason why homeschooling is not an answer is because many parents are not qualified to teach all subjects. My wife was homeschooled and suffers from considerable gaps in her education—the same subjects her parents were weak in—as a result. Second, homeschooling groups are often even more socially insular than private schools. Finally, homeschooling simply isn’t a solution for every Catholic student. What about the children of single parents, including widows/widowers? How are they to be educated?

        It used to be that Catholics built schools for these children. Now, apparently the “orthodox” Catholic response is “screw ’em!”

        Homeschooling comes from the Protestant world and is based on a very Protestant view of the family and the Church community. While there is nothing wrong with a Catholic family choosing to homeschool, the traditional “Catholic” solution has always been parochial or religious education.

        • Michael Blase

          In many instances, parents send their children to Catholic schools, especially high schools to escape the public school system. They tend to be successful financially and, in my experience, used to a high degree of control in their lives, many owning their own businesses, or middle to upper management in industry, etc. . . Did I mention highly competitive? While many truly practice the Catholic Faith, there is, at times, many exhibiting an arrogance and condescending attitude toward other people; a very un-Jesus-like quality lacking humbleness and humility. My four children went to Catholic school through the 8th. grade and while i could afford to send them to Catholic high school, I did not want them exposed to this elitist mindset. While I concur completely that teachers in the employ of a Catholic High School should be “Catholic” in every sense of the word, I think a pastoral leader of the school should challenge parents to examine themselves, practice the faith as proscribed by our new Pope with humbleness, dignity, and humility. Anything else flies in the face of who we are as Catholics.

          • tamsin

            practice the faith as proscribed by our new Pope with humbleness

            I think you meant prescribed, but maybe not. 😉

            • Michael Blase

              Ah….maybe a Freudian slip, but really a typo. Thanks for pointing it out! Yes, prescribed!

        • Natalie

          The “traditional” Catholic solution has always been single sex schools run by religious who are obedient to the church … not mixed sex schools where the kids are “dating” in grade 10 and the lay teachers are either not following their faith or have no faith to begin with. The kids aren’t learning their faith in the Catholic schools and they are “socially” no better off than the rest of our ill formed society…valuing money, popularity and vanity. I have seen far better formed young adults coming out of the homeschool community. They know their faith and aspire to adulthood ….not just acceptance in their peer group.

          • TheAbaum

            The “traditional” Catholic solution has always been single sex schools run by religious who are obedient to the church … not mixed sex schools where the kids are “dating” in grade 10 and the lay teachers are either not following their faith or have no faith to begin with.

            She swings and it’s a souvenir in deep center field. Excellent.

            • James

              The solution isn’t to abandon the Catholic schools, it is to fix them.

              Abandoning the Church because you disagree with how it is run is … wait for it … PROTESTANT.

              • TheAbaum

                Abandoning the Church because you disagree with how it is run is … wait for it … PROTESTANT.

                Nobody is “abandoning the Church”. Just because something puts a sign of the door that says “Catholic”, doesn’t mean it is Catholic. Was it Catholic when the the Archdiocese of Chicago sent Barack Obama to Alinsky training in 1986? No.

                Nor is with this without precedence. The Church had to stop placing adoptions in Massachusetts because of state mandates. If you can’t run a school viably without apostate teachers and administrators, the answer is to shut it down, rather than to offer a debased product.

              • Natalie

                James, attending the local Catholic school is not a doctrine. You throw the word protestant around easily. The schools are there to support the parents in THEIR job of raising children. Families aren’t there to support the schools. In the end God will ask us about our duties as parents, whether we taught them their Faith. We will be held accountable by God if we let them be misled knowingly. If you can be involved and be sure that Truth is taught, that is great. But in many schools the Faith is not taught and parents can’t do much to change it because they are up against very liberal clergy and school parent groups (read the article…this isn’t rare ) Our children are not fodder to be used in the attempt fix the schools.

        • Natalie

          I also laugh at the idea that parents aren’t qualified to teach, but teachers are. I went to school and my French teacher did not speak French and my Socials teacher did not know History. Many of the homeschool curriculums are superior to the schools…Mother of Divine Grace and Seton are two such programs. The only school I have seen an equivalent in is a Benedictine school for boys run by monks. I homeschool and my son is entering an Engineering program at a local university in September. Many of his online homeschooled friends are also attending post-secondary in the fall. I am always impressed when I check in on their conversations online. Many of them are high level musicians and they are discussing getting together to play something great….or even talking about different approaches on proving the existence of God to those they know who do not know God. My friends and I did not have conversations like that at that age.

          • James

            My wife was homeschooled and her experience being homeschooled is a big reason why we do not.

            • Natalie

              That is too bad that your wife’s experience was bad, but the experience is not universal. I live in a Canadian province where homeschooling is mainstream, popular, and funded by the province. All the parishes have a homeschooling element, often homechooling groups that are well established. So the idea that cannot be an involved and committed to one’s parish AND homeschool is false.
              Also with technology and online opportunities there is no reason why there should be any gaps in one’s education. In fact, with online possibilities homeschooling is much more flexible and economical that regular schools. My kids are registered in province wide charter homeschool(one of a number) that allows us to use Catholic materials…go on field trips, be part of online discussions…do AP college courses….and graduate with all credentials necessary for any post-secondary institution.
              This has been noticed by our provincial government and they are starting to model some of the public school with the online and home options.
              Our local communities offer homeschool lessons and activities at the local rec. centers and even the museums and science centres have homeschool programs.
              It works well.

        • TheAbaum

          “Homeschooling comes from the Protestant world and is based on a very Protestant view of the family and the Church community. While there is nothing wrong with a Catholic family choosing to homeschool, the traditional “Catholic” solution has always been parochial or religious education.”

          What we are seeing here is not traditional or Catholic.

          Is has always been CATHOLIC doctrine that parents are the primary educators.

          If this is what we are going to get, shut every last one down.

          • Tony

            Pope Leo XIII is adamant about it: the parents are the primary teachers of their children; and teachers are at best the delegates of the parents.

            • Thomas

              I agree with Pope Leo’s thinking; and that is how it should be if we assume the family unit is healthy. Therein lies the problem, and therein lies the reason why schools almost everywhere are failing. Now, some want to blame teachers; and as a teacher I share that sentiment. But it’s funny how the education reformers sidestep the truth about dysfunctional families, and how this reality plays out in education. Add to the decline of the family the progressive educational ideas about what children should be taught, and how, and you have the recipe for a vicious circle: poor families produce uneducated people and uneducated people make poor parents and citizens. Are today’s parents, as a whole, better equipped at parenting than past generations?

              • Thomas

                change “poor” to “weak” in both instances above.

            • James

              So why were so many Catholic schools founded during Pope Leo’s reign and not a homeschool movement?

              In the US, there was a mandate that every parish have a school in the 1880s. The Church saw it as its job to help the parents educate the children. This individualistic “homeschooling” movement is far more Evangelical than Catholic.

              • ForChristAlone

                Chaque a son gout!

              • Tony

                If you hang around homeschoolers for more than ten minutes, you’ll realize that it’s seldom “individualistic” but rather cooperative. Back in Pope Leo’s day, there were teaching orders and there were dependable and faithful teachers. Now there are neither. Many Catholic parents decide to teach their children at home because they despair of the parochial schools, which resemble nothing more than public schools with a cross on the wall.
                And Pope Leo is adamant about it, and in many letters, too. Parents are the primary educators. That is so because of the nature of man….

              • Natalie

                Well…hmmm… the social agenda of marriage and sexuality redefinition within the schools wasn’t a problem then…like it is now. I don’t wish to be condescending, but isn’t that obvious? Was there any question about teaching sexual morality, morality of divorce…gay and lesbian student alliances AT ALL in the 1880’s in any school….public or Catholic. I am pretty sure you would have been hard pressed to find a priest at the time that questioned church authority on such matters publicly either. Times have changed…so must our method.

                • James

                  I’m sure they had problems in the 1880s, too.

                  I’m also pretty sure that you would have been hard pressed to find laypersons questioning the fidelity of their priests and bishops too.

                  • Natalie

                    I grew up in a parish where we had to fight the bishop to get an actual crucifix in our church. He also allowed women to act as “priests” in the cathedral and decided to get rid of confession. One of our priests ran off with a man…and the other was charged with abuse of a minor. I don’t think questioning the fidelity of priests and bishops is misplaced.

                    • Art Deco

                      I seem to recall seeing some survey research a dozen years ago indicating that about two-thirds of the Catholic priests responded rejected a signature doctrine and about 30% adhered to a portfolio of views which marked them of a type referred to by Fr. Joseph Wilson: “Jungians, Unitarians, and goofies”. And, of course, we do not have the pathologies we do (parody schooling, Ocrap Press, and lavender cliques) because we have conscientious bishops.

                      With most clergy, they’re there to make sure the rites are regular. Otherwise, you have to be very careful with them.

                    • James

                      That’s horrible, but not surprising. The pastor of the parish I grew up in was gay and not celibate. He died of AIDS. His supposed boyfriend designed a crucifix-free new parish. There are plenty of similar stories, and worse.

                      I see a lot of similarly “wounded” Catholics on these traditionalist boards. And I think a lot of what is really Evangelical Protestant culture appeals to them because of the moral certainty and the discipline. While this may be preferable to the chaos of the 1970s and 1980s, it’s not really Catholic either—even with all the smells and bells and Latin. It’s way too individualistic, “me ‘n’ Jesus” oriented at the expense of community and puts an inordinate emphasis on doctrine at the expense of action. Because many Catholics who grew up in that age were badly catechized and divorced from Catholic culture, there is little sense that it isn’t Catholic.

                    • Art Deco

                      It’s way too individualistic, “me ‘n’ Jesus” oriented at the expense of
                      community and puts an inordinate emphasis on doctrine at the expense of
                      action.

                      Oh, rubbish. Listen to what people say, not the voices in your head.

                    • James

                      So why has nobody answered my question about how Catholic children for whom homeschooling is not possible are to be educated?

                    • Art Deco

                      You do not have a six figure population of working-aged religious to teach your young. You do the best you can with the resources you have on hand. Operating a ‘Catholic’ school by and for the twit-parents responsible for the Charlotte debacle is a wretched misallocation of everyone’s time and funds, as well as the Church’s imprimateur. Enroll your youngsters in the district schools and catechize them best you can. That’s all you can do.

                    • Natalie

                      I disagree. In knowing and valuing the traditions of the faith that have been shared by the Communion of the Saints before me that is the truly “Catholic Culture”. The funny thing is that I am using the actual Catholic books and curriculum and you are not. The Catholic schools tend to use the secular ones recommended by the state. So on one hand you quote Pope Leo …. but then see nothing wrong with throwing out the education he intended. You make no sense. I would say that diverging from the Faith taught for centuries would be the “Protestant” position. I think that we may as well end the discussion here. But I would recommend that you check out the beautiful books that were published during the 1880’s to the 1930’s. You may want to buy them yourself just to see how education used to be. God Bless

                    • James

                      Umm, no. Our school uses different textbooks than the public schools.

                      For religion, our school is using the Faith & Life series recommended by Pope Benedict himself. Is he Catholic enough for you?

                      There is plenty wrong with many Catholic schools. But the solution is to fix them, not abandon them. If Pope Leo did not intend for Catholic children to be educated in Catholic schools, then what is your explanation of the Plenary Council of Baltimore?

                    • Natalie

                      Here is the deal. If tomorrow the Catholic schools are run JUST LIKE Pope Leo intended…..check out the books and then you will see the difference. Then we are in! Faith and Life is a good start. I love Pope Benedict 🙂 He loved the Latin Mass, too. And he made it even more widely available for all those like myself who are amazed at the opportunity to pray the Mass like hundreds and thousands of saints from centuries before. God Bless.

                  • Art Deco

                    Better priests and bishops. The Church goes through cycles of corruption and reform, as do particular dioceses and religious orders.

              • Natalie

                Actually, I did not realise that Pope Leo had mandated that every parish have a school in the 1880’s. In my research into texts and books to use for homeschooling I had noticed that there had been a absolute blossoming of beautiful literature from 1880 to about the 1930’s for schools in general and especially Catholic schools. These beautiful books were used until the 1960’s and then ….THROWN OUT…..travesty. The homeschoolers in the 70’s and 80’s found them in basements….boxes….used book stores and asked Catholic publishers to republish them … Seton Press….TAN ….Neumann….(now St. Benedict Press) Ignatius.. Angelus…happily did so. Now….Voyages in English…Cardinal Readers… Poetry and Prose of England…etc.. are standard fare in the homeschool curriculums. Online (mainlesson.com for one featuring the history texts of James Baldwin) one can find whole collections dedicated to rediscovering and savouring those works of literature…..In schools they aren’t used at all. My sister-in-law, who has her 7 children in Catholic schools has bought some of them….to fill in the gaps in her children’s education in regards to History, Literature and Phonics.

                • James

                  It was the US Bishops in the 3rd Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1884. See Title VI.

                  Title vi, Of the Education of Catholic Youth, treats of (i)
                  Catholic schools, especially parochial, viz., of their absolute
                  necessity and the obligation of pastors to establish them. Parents must
                  send their children to such schools unless the bishop should judge the
                  reason for sending them elsewhere to be sufficient.
                  Ways and means are
                  also considered for making the parochial schools more efficient. It is
                  desirable that these schools be free. (ii) Every effort must be made to
                  have suitable schools of higher education for Catholic youth.

                  Pope Leo XIII approved the titles of the council.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_Councils_of_Baltimore#Third_Plenary_Council_of_Baltimore_.281884.29

                  • Natalie

                    Parents are the primary educators of their children. I have never heard of any Catholic parent having to ask permission from the Bishop in regards to education. In this day and age it is not done….I think my local bishop would laugh if I did.

                    • James

                      …and Catholic schools aren’t free either. I think that went away with Vatican II or “the spirit of Vatican II” or something like that.

                      Still, the Plenary Council provides insight into what Pope Leo XIII was thinking with regards to education.

                    • Natalie

                      I don’t doubt that Pope Leo had wonderful insights into education…my books from that time period can attest to that. If only the Catholic schools still aspired to his goals. They unfortunately don’t.

      • TheAbaum

        “Don’t drive the SUV”

        I agree with you, but have you experienced a Pocono ice or snowstorm?

        (Subaru driver).

      • Stacy Peterson

        As the mother of 12 children, it was a blessing that we couldn’t afford Catholic Schools, regardless of how I pared down our budget. My kids received/are receiving an authentic Catholic education in the School of Love: the family, through homeschooling (K-8th grade).

        Tuition is about 5K per child, even after discounts. High school is closer to 10K per child (before uniform fees, etc…) I have had 2 kids in college for 6 continuous years; and, I will continue to have 2 college students simultaneously for the next 14 years. A lot of people in a family costs a lot regardless of how much you pare down expenses. (I guess we could live in a one room dung house, with no A/C of course)

        • TheAbaum

          You are a wealthy woman. It must be quite an experience to be in your house on Christmas morning, both for you and your children.

          • Stacy Peterson

            Ha! Ha! A wonderful, energetic time is Christmas! After we bless the gifts, the “Running of the Bulls”, a description coined by my mom, occurs. All the kids dash down the stairs, while we flatten ourselves against the walls!

            We open stockings, then have a wonderful breakfast (homemade sticky buns, egg casserole, etc..) Then back to gifts. It takes all morning, as the kids run to see their siblings’ gifts. I continuously crush wrapping paper so no gifts go missing! It’s joyful and fun! (And yes, I spend too much, because I love the entertainment! The kids expect little. Truly!)

            This year we had a cookie competition. Teams of three people baked a dozen Christmas cookies of the same variety. They were judged on taste, presentation, and creativity! Believe me, it was COMPETITIVE. I got plenty of cookies for ME to eat as well!

            Regarding Charlotte Catholic HS, the year my 12th child was a newborn, half the family went to our Church to reserve seats. By the time I got there, with all the little ones, the ushers wouldn’t let anymore people in. SOOOOO, half of us had to celebrate Christmas Eve mass in the Charlotte Catholic HS (several miles away)! From then on, we’ve attended the midnight mass (10 PM) which has been a blessing to us…truly a Silent Night!

            Easter Joy to You!

            • Natalie

              God’s Blessings to you, Stacey. I have 10 kids and I count my blessings everyday, being able to love and live with such a wonderful crowd. It truly is a joy.

            • fredx2

              People today don’t know what they are missing by having small families. Like someone said up above, People today are becoming ‘dull” as a result.

            • TheAbaum

              Sounds wonderful. I wonder if any carefully orchestrated broods of 1 or 2 that are crushed by an avalanche of transient baubles know what they are missing.

              Same to you.

    • FernieV

      Catholic schools are expensive because President Obama will not subsidize them. And the Church may not have enough money to pay all the cost of running them… So parents will have to pay for the cost. The good news is that there is no “profit” shared by anyone. Many parents sacrifice a lot to give the children the best treasure they can bestow on them: the Faith. That is the simple answer

      • James

        Would you WANT the Federal government to subsidize them? What strings do you think would be attached to that mone?

        Catholic schools once flourished without any federal money.

        • ForChristAlone

          There is no such thing as “federal money.” The government is not a producer – it simply confiscates other people’s money to advance it ill-conceived power grabs.

          • TheAbaum

            What? This is heresy!!! Don’t you know the government is the source of life itself?

        • Kathy

          Amen, James. Take money from the government and I can guarantee you, in time, you will not be allowed to teach that marriage is between a man and a woman!

          • Guest

            You cannot do that now. I assume it will be a crime to hold such a view in the near future.

        • FernieV

          I would wish the Federal or State Government to give taxpaying parents a voucher which would enable them to pay for the school of their choice, be it Federal, State or private. But I wouldn’t be naive to expect Obama to subsidize schools without imposing its own agenda (gay marriage, contraception …). As you correctly imply, it is just wishful thinking…

          • TheAbaum

            Be sure that the money will come with strings.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          Whether it subsidises them or not, the government will always more or less control what is taught in independent schools.

          The schools can teach what they like, but (as Frédéric Bastiat pointed out) if it is not what the government likes, its pupils will never become physicians, or advocates, or magistrates, or consuls, or diplomats, or teachers or public functionaries.

          • Art Deco

            the government will always more or less control what is taught in independent schools.

            No, the government will influence what the professional subcultures which make up the civil service take an interest in influencing. State agencies can be remarkably ineffectual and otiose when the spirit does not move them.

  • Hegesippus

    Excellent article. After the bread and circuses of the last few decades, the mob thinks it rules. But it is merely the birth pangs of the renewed and hermenetically-continuous Church. Thank you, Lord!

    • jem

      Amen

  • lifeknight

    Glad for the inside “skinny” on this mess. Nothing surprises me now, however. Giving talks about contraception and the spiritual evils involved with it, plays better with Protestants now rather than Catholics. We have diluted the true Church teachings to the point of becoming obsolete.

    • jacobhalo

      Yes, not only diluted the teachings, but don’t even teach some of the teachings. That is why parents and students are stunned when they hear the true teachings. Secondly, the author is correct when he says that many of the parents felt as if the teaching points referred to them, which, they probably did.

      • fredx2

        True story. An aquaintence of mine started cheating on his wife with another woman. A child was born out of wedlock. They kept it secret from everyone.
        3 years later, the aquaintence decides to get divorced from his original wife. He then marries the other woman.
        A year later, My brother invited the aquaintence to go to his megachurch with him. That day, the preacher decided to preach on how divorce is evil.
        The aquaintence was furious, and left the service along with his kids. “To give such a sermon is totally irresponsible! ” he shouted.
        Why? Presumably because there would be divorced people in the crowd.
        This is the inside out version of modern thinking: I am not evil for cheating on my wife, or getting divorced. The preacher is evil for telling me it was wrong!

    • fredx2

      And people wonder why priests don’t talk about this stuff in their sermons! If they did, we would have nonstop controversies like this, and nothing else would get done.

      • jacobhalo

        My pastor at the EF has no problem having sermons on homosexuality, divorce, abortion. No one is furious, because we don’t have any cafeteria Catholics in our church. According to the catechism, a person who denies one teaching of the church is a heretic. Do you think you will ever hear a Novus Ordo cleric utter those words? You will hear it at our parish. If you deny the teachings of the church, you are denying the teaching of Jesus who gave the church the authority to” what you bind on earth will be bound in heaven. What you loose on earth will be loose in heaven.”
        Don’t forget, the Catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ (God). All the other Christian denominations were founded by men

  • AcceptingReality

    I’m recalling John the Baptist’s reward for criticizing Herod’s marriage to Herodias…….his head ended up on a platter. In a sense, that’s what happened here. The sins of many were laid bare and they wanted the heads of both Kauth and Sister Jane.

    • jacobhalo

      Don’t forget Thomas More who lost his life for protesting Henry VIII’s divorce.

    • jem

      right on and am in total agreement. But we can also blame clergy who are afraid to speak out. It is happening where I live.

    • CRS

      There’s a pattern here…. It seems many saints lose their heads when opposing false marriages…… That should tell us something both about marriage (the devil is threatened by authentic marriage) and about cultures that try to destroy it.

    • Vianee

      Amen! John 3:19-21 And this is the verdict,n that the light came into the world, but people preferred darkness to light, because their works were evil.20For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come toward the light, so that his works might not be exposed.o21But whoever lives the truth comes to the light, so that his works may be clearly seen as done in God.

  • Angela Stiens

    I do not want the government in my Catholic school in anyway, no thanks!! Parents will truly sacrifice when an authentic Catholic curriculum is being taught. Many parents would like a return of the classical curriculum. The secular standards along with poorly catechized adults whom are teaching our children with secular materials is part of the problem; which is another reason many parents are choosing homeschooling. We are leaving our parish school after 14 years because of the latest fad we have adopted called ‘Common Core’. I applaud Father Kauth for what he is trying to do, sad that we are at this point but after 50 years of silence and not forming the lay people properly and priests and bishops who have an ‘anything goes’ mentality why should anyone be surprised. I wish we had more orthodox priest who would take their authority back, I would stand up 100 percent behind them!!! As are wise soon to be saint John Paul II said “Be not afraid”.

    • Hank Kaczmarek

      Angela—I graduated from a Christian brothers Prep School, known as the top Prep HS in Western NY. The year I graduated the tuition was 845.00 (1975) Adjusted for inflation, that price should now be 3711.00 But tuition is now over 10,000.00/yr. My mother worked an extra job to get me through HS, as even with my fathers’ income they couldn’t make it. And I was the last student to pay tuition quarterly. at that time about 10% of the students were on financial aid of some kind, now it’s 90%. There’s only so much sacrifice that people can make.

      • jacobhalo

        I attended Catholics schools from 1952-1964 and I didn’t pay 1 dime for tuition. The parish paid for it.

        • Hank Kaczmarek

          Been to Church Lately? There aren’t enough people GOING to church to financially support even grade schools. The Parish I grew up in had a K-8 school, which closed in the 90’s. It also was a Parish of over four THOUSAND Families. Masses on Sunday (before Sat PM Masses) were at 5:30, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 5:30 PM. Now there’s one Mass on Saturday, 2 on Sunday (1 Spanish) and the church is never more than half full. You cannot support a school when nobody is in Church. BTW in that Diocese 11 Catholic Elementary Schools are closing at the end of the year. 5 High Schools have closed in the last 10. Take a look around, it’s not 1952 anymore.

          • AnthonyMa

            On Long Island, in my Parish, OLPH, there is a Saturday evening mass and 6 Sunday masses and the pews are mostly full. I’ve also occasionally attended mass in the neighboring Parish, OLG, and they also have close to full pews and 5 masses. The reason Catholic schools are closing here is solely due to the high cost of tuition.

          • jacobhalo

            Yes, I know. Vatican II had much to do with the decline of the church. I’ve been attending the Latin Mass for the past 10 years, and our attendance rate is over 95%, with a ton of young people.

            • musicacre

              Maybe the new schools will be Latin Mass schools! Start from scratch again. Alot of Latin Mass people in Vancouver, BC go to Traditional Learning Academy in Vancouver. We attend via internet, (“distance learning”, homeschooling) since we don’t live on the mainland.

          • fredx2

            I have been to church lately. In my town, the catholics churches are full to the brim at every mass on Sunday. It depends whether you are in a city, which are getting smaller and losing population, or in the suburbs,

        • Anonymous

          BECAUSE the teachers were nuns (virtual slaves) who worked for a stipend of $1. per day!

          • Art Deco

            No, that’s called a religious vocation. Take it somewhere else.

          • jacobhalo

            Yes they did. They were slaves because they had plenty of time to discern their vocation.

          • ForChristAlone

            Just consider that Christ gave his life for us all and no one even paid him a dime for his act of sacrifice. We trivialize the sacrifice made by these religious teaching sisters who gave their lives for Christ and His church when we reduce their gift of sacrifice to a paid job. Theirs is no more a paid job than Christ’s dying on the cross was. But Catholics today, reflecting the ethos of our society, do not know how to spell the word sacrifice because it is not in their lexicon.

          • PalaceGuard

            Due, no doubt, to those maleficent hordes of albino monks slurking (“slinking+lurinking”) about with burlap bags to cast over the heads of unsuspecting young ladies. “To the convent with you, slave!” Feh.

          • Slave to Christ

            Have you spoken to any nuns lately? I went to Catholic elementary & high school where we had missionary nuns teaching. I, to this day thank God for their dedication and love for all the students. None of us thought of them as slaves, other than slaves to God, doing what He wants us to do. Public school teachers have certainly proved themselves wanting for any kind of faith. They take offense at the name of Jesus, much more His teachings. God bless all parents who want their children to grow up learning the faith, and leading faithful Catholic lives.

      • fredx2

        The problem is that they used to have nuns to teach the schools. Now they have to hire lay teachers and that costs infinitely more – there are no nuns, thanks to the LWCR etc

    • Arriero

      – «I do not want the government in my Catholic school in anyway, no thanks!!»

      You should better define «government». Or maybe you should change it for «federal state with an anti-Catholic as president».

      Of course, there are no possible successful Catholic schools without the government of the successful Catholic Church behind them.

      The anti-government-per-se rhetoric is harmful, especially when people don’t specify what they understand by government. It certainly sounds like the old french physiocrats, who affirmed the existence of a natural law by which the proper functioning of the economic system would be secured without government intervention. Of course, the Catholic Church does not function like this.

      So that’s why we must love good government; that is to say, Catholic government. Because without government there is only one probable thing: anarchy; and atheism is the root of anarchy.

      Maybe then we should try to do like the jesuits tried in China: converting the head of government to Catholicism or putting there a real Catholic. Would not you like more that kind of government?

      • CRS

        Eh. Usually when people say “government” today, it is clear they are speaking of the federal and/or state governments that are heavily left-leaning. When they want to specify “good governance,” they will.

        • Arriero

          One has to be very careful about that.

          There are too many pseudo-calvinist anarchists out there who hate too much government – above all the Church’s government -, as good heirs of the Reformation as many of they are.

          PD- The American left – those from the Ivy League who wear expensive suits and like Thai food -, and that is well-known by any old leftist, is a joking insult to the old traditional left, which certainly has the same things to share with the American left, than any old (Catholic) conservatist shares with the protestant (sometimes harmfully anti-government) right.

          • TheAbaum

            Until you can discuss America, its culture and politics with more depth, don’t. Arrogance and ignorance is a bad mix.

          • Anonymous

            Thai food? YUM!

            • TheAbaum

              It’s not bitter enough for Arrerio. It would be good if he was required to live on Thai chilies, peanut chicken and lemongrass for a while.

            • Arriero

              When one has already tasted a lot of the exquisite french and spanish meals, one can only snigger when someone mentions Thai food.

              We already know where is the great cuisine, don’t we? I sincerely let the experiments to others…

              PS- Actually, while I’ve tasted hindi (horrible), chinese (good if you choose a good restaurant), japanese (incredibly thin and delicate) and korean (too elaborate and sometimes foolishly edgy) food, I’ve not tasted Thai food yet. Of course, and unlike the envious haters of Western culture (especially its Roman branch), I very well know where is the «qualité par excellence».

              • redfish

                Actually, I really love Vietnamese food. And its influenced a lot by French culture, due to the colonial presence there. I love French food too, especially baking — a lot of good desserts — but there’s something to like about the simplicity of Vietnamese cooking.

                • Arriero

                  I agree. And that’s certainly a very good example of the influence of French gastronomic culture outside its frontiers. Asian foods have usually a very admirable sense for simplicity and elegance, despite some strange experiments and odd traditions they do have. The japanese traditional cuisine is such an example too («the search for perfection»).

                  You must taste Spanish food. Not mexican, not colombian, not argentinian, but Spanish food.

                  In fact, I think french food is somewhat overvalued in relation with the Spanish one. Personally, I prefer the Spanish food as I regard it to be richer in nuances, more elaborate – which does not mean more «vanguardist» – but also very conceptually simple and the foremost expression of the Mediterranean diet (ergo extremely healthy and light), gathering elements from other very good gastronomic traditions as are the Portuguese, the italian and the greek ones (the greek cuisine is also great).

                  • redfish

                    Have you had Hungarian cuisine?

                    • Valentin

                      My Grandma and mother often cook really good Goulach suppe even though they are both from Germany.

                  • Tony

                    Italian food — especially from Tuscany and farther south — is the best, to my mind, in all things other than pastries, which the Italians never really developed. You can taste the meat and the vegetables — they aren’t drowned out by rich sauces or transmogrified into pastes.

              • Valentin

                Well I grew up with hardy German food as well as some French and eastern European food and I for one really enjoy both western food as well as that greasy Vietnamese lemongrass pork and that amazing iced coffee they have.

          • Watosh

            Good comment, but one has to be informed and intelligent to comprehend your comment, otherwise they may make a faulty interpretation and then take exception to it. Example below.

          • Valentin

            The first time I met one of these calvinists she was in the same drivers ed class as I was and she was frail, jittery, constantly nervous and thank god that the drivers ed teacher cared enough about religion to argue against the Calvinist notion of being predestined to go either to hell or heaven. Your definitely right that we should watch ourselves around protestants in modern politics because they are the reason there are so many secularists these days.

    • jem

      Common Core is so stupid that when I tried to show a child how I learned math her comment was that is simple to what we do now. Yes, Catholic parents would like an authentic Catholic curriculum but when non-Catholic teachers are hired there is a problem because they don’t accept Catholic teaching. Yes “be not afraid” our faith and values will rise again and if the left doesn’t like it then tough cookies.

      • Anonymous

        Yes, our math was SIMPLE because it involved only memorization and NO understanding of mathematical principles.

        • AngelaT

          in all honesty, I don’t think you need to resort to the Common Core to get an understanding of mathematical principles. Memorization is necessary because it allows you to do more complicated problems with ease. Routine problem solving is important particularly because it’s a form of mental exercise, which I think indirectly will help them in the long term with more complicated math. Kids have to be able to solve these problems to the point of ease, but the common core worksheets I have seen ( I work as a math tutor) don’t do that at all. Furthermore, the multitude of problems are a way of enabling kids to find patterns for better solving them (that’s how I ultimately understood the principles behind the problems… I just played around with the numbers and solved boatloads of them). Teach kids how and why a problem solving method works. Give them riddle type problems and teach them general ways of solving a problem. But for goodness sake, give them efficient methods, not instructions involving tallies and drawings. OK rant over.

          • Tony

            Mental math used to be a staple of school life. Not now. The fact is that small children are actually very good at committing things to memory, and it gives them a real sense of mastery. It also makes it easy for them to go on to understand more difficult problems, and to solve them efficiently. The old methods for teaching math rewarded speed and accuracy, and you cannot have either one if you do not understand what you are doing — not if the problem is beyond the level of a simple arithmetical fact.
            I am unutterably weary of hearing this slander of the old methods. I have about 200 old school texts, in a wide array of subjects, published between 1850 and 1950. They give the lie to any charge that students of old were stuffed full of things to memorize and not understand.

        • Joan

          No, Anonymous, you’re confusing real math with the “new math” that was forced upon public schools in the late 60’s. My father, a PhD mathematician and early computer programmer, went to my grade school to discuss it with the teacher and principal, and explain to them why this would not help kids learn principles of math, which become essential when they later get to long division, algebra and trig. The teacher scoffed at him and the principal was sympathetic but basically said it was out of his hands.

      • jacobhalo

        The problem is that there are PhD’s who sit in their ivory towers changing curricula in order to justify their jobs. 1+1= 2 no matter the era.

    • Babagranny

      Apparently you and many others do not understand what the “common core” is meant to be.

      • Rob B.

        As a teacher myself, I can assure you that Ms. Stiens has an excellent grasp of what Common Core is “meant to be.” 🙂

      • Ford Oxaal

        I’m pretty sure the real goal is to replace Huckleberry Finn with a Windows 8 Manual for literature class. “You-must-be-com-pu-ter-lit-er-ate. You-must-be-pro-fi-cient-in-cor-por-ate-serf-dom. You-must-work-sleep-buy-our-pro-ducts-and-re-peat-the-cy-cle-un-til-we-de-ter-mine-you-are-ex-pend-able.”

        • Valentin

          Most kids in my generation (17 to 20) are too illiterate to even understand a windows 8 manual.

    • CRS

      It’s becoming impossible to find any authentic Catholic curriculum in any classroom setting. The last bastion of hope for an authentic Catholic education is the home, which is also the place where authentic Catholic education ought to begin. It’s our job as parents to raise properly catechized adults. We can’t blindly trust the schools, not even the parishes, to do it for us. In other words, I completely agree with you. 🙂

      • Shadowfax

        My husband and I along with some other faithful Catholic families got together and signed up our children as homeschoolers. Then we purchased an accredited Catholic classical curriculum, rented classrooms at a local church (protestant, because the Catholic bishop wouldn’t let us in), and hired solid, orthodox teachers. It works beautifully. Our children learn from a challenging curriculum which is faithful to the teachings of the Church in a classroom setting, with teachers who can handle the material. This is something any small group of committed parents can do, but it requires thinking and acting out of the box. Sadly, we run into far too many orthodox Catholic parents who still won’t do something different from what everyone else expects them to do (send them to diocesan schools), or else they succumb to pressure from their children for all the bells and whistles of school sports, dances, clubs, etc…At some point, their children’s souls need to trump all other considerations. God gives us unusual options such as these, but they won’t survive if parents won’t support them.

        • Tim

          Dear Shadowfax,
          I am a parent and my wife and I have considered something similar. I’d love to hear more about this initiative you’ve mentioned. Is there an email address where I might be able to reach you to learn about it?

          • Shadowfax

            Tim,
            There is a little bit here:
            http://www.divinitylutheran.com/education/holyfam
            You can also contact one of us from the email given at this page to ask more questions. This could be the Holy Spirit prompting you–pray much, and God be with you! I’ll say a prayer for you, too. This really does work!

            • Tim

              Thanks very much – I’ll certainly check it out and will keep your initiative in my prayers!

          • tom

            The bishops ought to do their jobs or have the decency to quit. Perhaps they should have been a grounds keeper or store clerk?

        • MHB

          MHB
          I applaud parents, like Shadowfox but not everyone can do this.

          We sent our three kids to public school since we didn’t find authentic Catholic teaching and our family members who attended Catholic schools were not practicing Catholicism. I think Catholic schools do more harm than good these days, so we tried to teach them the faith ourselves.

          We need to teach kids how to live in this anti Catholic culture. If anyone has kids heading to college, find a campus with FOCUS. My daughter was rescued from campus culture by FOCUS missionaries.

        • Kim D.

          Begging prayers for our 10-year-old independent classical, Catholic school in Madison, Wisconsin!
          St. Ambrose Academy: http://www.ambroseacademy.org We welcome your prayers and support!

        • ForChristAlone

          You are a model for ALL Catholic parents. I for one would recommend that ALL Catholic parishes be required by their bishops to DONATE space at the parish for homeschoolng parents, that is, if bishops are truly interested in children being taught the faith. What we need is a little bit of imagination on the part of the episcopacy.

        • WSquared

          Nice!!

        • musicacre

          That’s great, and over time the bells and whistles can be added by creative and researching parents. Our homeschooling group had a choir which came about gradually, by the kids all taking voice lessons, and we ended up winning at Music Festival several times! Not to mention a Scottish dancing group; good enough to go into competitions, etc. Lots of stuff can be done in a modest way (meaning that by both meanings,) and the kids have a ball, besides their school. We’ve homeschooled our 6 and the four that have gone to university so far, are all very attached to their faith. None of them have gone to Catholic universities, by the way.

          • CRS

            Attending a “Catholic” university may prove more dangerous to the health of their souls, anyway! Finding an authentically Catholic university is becoming difficult. I know of exactly 1 in my area.

        • MikePeriu

          Shadowfax, can you send me more information about the program you are running? you can email me at mperiu@gmail.com thank you.

        • CRS

          That is a very creative solution! I like it. I am more hands-on, so I wouldn’t go this route, but I would definitely support something like this in any way I can! Let me reiterate, I love this idea! Wonderful!

        • Tim Winters

          Are you using Seton as the accredited Catholic curriculum?

      • Famijoly

        And for further affirmation on the rights of parents, read “Designed to Fail” by Steven Kellmeyer and published by Bridegroom Press.

      • jacobhalo

        If you can find a traditional Catholic school, such as Pius X schools, you get the old time religion.

        • CRS

          That’s “if” and if it isn’t in the area, there is the hassle of uprooting. *Sigh*

  • Hank Kaczmarek

    I reverted to my faith 4 years ago after having been turned off by the “Bad Old Days” and liberalism in the Church in the 70’s. I thank God for being in the Charlotte Diocese instead of the Buffalo NY diocese I grew up in, where the Church is still very liberal.
    I’ve met Fr. Kauth several times, and he has preached as a guest Priest in my Parish. (He grew up about 20 miles away). He is well described as orthodox and traditional, as all of the Priests in the Diocese that I have met are. For the first time in my life I know Priests who I respect, admire, and truly love. They are amazing men, and they are very well educated, devoted to their vocation, and set a fine example. Quite a difference from my childhood, where both of my parish Pastors were alcoholics, one assistant Pastor was a pedophile (I witnessed his perversion myself once) and the other spent every spare minute chasing fire trucks and ambulances.
    My Pastor is the same age as my son. I have no issue calling him Father, as he is a wonderful Shepherd to his assigned flock. Our Priests in Charlotte Diocese are truly a blessing to us from God, and they teach us the traditions and doctrine of the Church.

    • jacobhalo

      I thank God that I attended Catholic schools in the 50’s and early 60’s when the faith was taught the way it should be taught.

      • newguy40

        me too….

      • BostonNative

        Oh, ME TOO!!!! 🙂

      • robert chacon

        Thank God! I just pray you were able to successfully transmit the faith to your children, and from them to theirs!

        • jacobhalo

          I have, thank you and God Bless!

    • robert chacon

      Great to hear some good news regarding at least some of the players in this ridiculous scene in Charlotte.

    • Hugh Lunn

      I had the same experience growing up in Boston, right down to the abuser priest(one of the most notorius in the USA) and the alcholic pastor, as well as another priest who ended up running away with one of the nuns from the parish school. The post-Conciliar Church on the ground has sure been a trip!!!!

  • prolife

    “For without the Creator, the creature will disappear. When God is forgotten, the creature itself becomes unintelligible.” ~ Gaudium et spes, 36

  • elarga

    No mention here of the bishop. Has he shown any leadership in this matter? I’d like to know.

    • fredx2

      Not really. He issued a statement, but it wasnt much

  • Guest

    Thanks for another fine article. Good work.

    It is consistent with what most thought here in the com boxes.

    The issue is not about content of the talk. The issue is about rejection of truth. The silly season is back and strong.

  • Ford Oxaal

    The reason Catholic education is dismal in our area (Northeastern USA) is that the families that send their children to Catholic schools are no longer well-formed Christian families, let alone Catholic Christian families. We fit in better with a Christian Classical “non-denominational” school where the families are all on the same page as regards cultural issues such as feminine modesty, worldview, excessive media, marriage and family life, etc., not to mention academics which in our view need to include Latin grammar and English grammar. Can you even imagine a Catholic school which does not teach Latin grammar? The parents are simply not on board with anything of the sort. They would rather embrace “common core”. They are a dull people, deadened by contraception and pursuit of “mammon”. And the Catholic schools just sink further into the cultural quicksand without a whimper. I’m not sure they know they are slated for extinction on their present course of accommodation of immorality and complacency in the face of demographic disaster. I’m afraid the wolf is in the fold, and many shepherds are sleepy-eyed, so-called ‘liberals’. It’s come down to whether you would rather have freedom from enslavement to bad morals, or have freedom to piggishly engage in a material/media extravaganza primarily focused on appetite. Which kind of freedom do parents want for their children?

    • Boston Gal

      Wonderful, astute post….Sincere and hearty kudos to you!!

  • TheAbaum

    As usual from Austin, a lot to consider. One thing that stands out.

    “The immediate result is that at least some teachers became enraged. One math teacher, Catherine Bischoff, walked out of the talk because she was so upset, and announced that her class would have an open day, no teaching, because she was so angry.”

    What planet is this woman-chiild on? She gets to cheat her students so she can have a self indulgent snit?

    In what other line of work to you get to conduct a personal strike because you can’t control your emotions?

    In many lines of work, that would be cause for termination. She should be fired, for insubordination and dereliction of duty. Let her learn to say “you want fries with that” for far less money but always with a smile.

    • EndOfTheCatholicChurch

      First, the teacher was very smart for not allowing her anger show in class. So to call of class was a very good choice. No one is perfect and in today’s world the Catholic Church is falling. And this is a good example of why. That nun who talked about why men and women are gay?!. What a bunch of poppy cock.. No one is gay because there dad was not there or because there mom was separated from the dad. I would have been angry to. Teaching these kids that being born gay means that there is a way to cure you is wrong. I’m not catholic and I’m very happy I’m not. The teachings is way wrong. And disowning a child because of “x” “y” or “z” reason is not what god would want. He is a loving god and he knows better than anyone of us how we are ALL sinners. And that is why Jesus died and went to hell for 3 days. My god is the same god that Catholics pray to and follow we all just have our own way of doing it. But what this nun said “Is Wrong”

      • TheAbaum

        First, the teacher was very smart for not allowing her anger show in class.

        She didn’t conduct a class, because she has none. It’s not an exhibit of deficient intelligence, it’s failure to perform her duties. The rest of the world shows up and smiles, no matter how their panties are in a not.

        As for your diagnosis about the etiology of homosexuality, your incredulity is not a refutation.

        Take your bigotry elsewhere, troll, and learn to to use proper punctuation.

        I guarantee your end will come before the Church’s.

      • jacobhalo

        The nun is not wrong. Read Cor. about homosexuality. That is why the Catholic teaches that it is a disorder.

      • jacobhalo

        Actually, the Catholic pop. in the US. is stable. The Protestant pop. dropped down to 48%.

        • robert chacon

          True, but much of that is due to immigration. We need to have more children and do a much better job at evangelism. The sad fact if this story indicates that we are not even evangelizing within our own communities such as this school! This story is an outrage, but so is our failure to properly teach the faith. Lets take this as a big lesson and teach and evangelize the truth without fear of the screaming , yelling opposition like those in this story.

          • TheAbaum

            “True, but much of that is due to immigration.”

            I’m not sure immigrants are any great source of zeal and fidelity.

            I’d rather have 4% that welcomed children gladly in life-long wedlock, darkened a church door every Sunday and Holy Day, went to confession frequently than the the scads we have cohabitating, divorcing, contracepting and being members in good standing of the holly-lily club.

            • fredx2

              No, you want everyone. End of story. Even those who sin. (Like you and me)

              • TheAbaum

                You don’t have somebody who shows up twice per year.

          • fredx2

            Not really – raw numbers are growing because of immigration, but even without immigration, there is a small amount of growth. See the latest CARA report. The percentage of the population is stable. it would not be without immigration, since the small increase in raw numbers that occurs without immigration is not enough to keep up with the growth in overall population (so the percentage of US population would have gone down, while raw numbers still continue to grow)

      • publiusnj

        Sorry, but the Catholic Church is not “falling.” No more so than when Attila was the Scourge of God or when Henry VIII (as well as a bunch of other European kings) “reformed the Church” so he could take over ownership of it. Nor when Voltaire confidently proclaimed the need to “ecrasez l’infame” nor when the French Revolution abolished the Church, declared the Cult of Reason (and when that didn’t work a Constitutional Church) and imprisoned two Popes in a row (killing one off in jail). Nor when the Communists did their best to destroy the Church in Eastern Europe only to find Communism destroyed instead.

        You sound like a Mainline Protestant. Just remember this: US Catholicism is now larger than the next fifteen US denominations (primarily Protestant and actually falling into desuetude) combined. Could it be that even Protestants are starting to realize that Jesus did NOT found hundreds of denominations and say “pick the one that fits your taste; be it your psycho-sexual agenda if that is important to you, or maybe you like a certain style of music, or want pews that feel more like movie theater seating or whatever else moves you”? Probably not, but much of the decline may result from their at least realizing that none of the fifteen was founded by Christ in the First Century AD, as the Catholic Church was.

      • ForChristAlone

        I am always curious why someone who is not Catholic and not at all open to what the Catholic Church teaches would waste his or her time on a site whose stated identity if that of orthodox Catholic teaching. You are either a consummate imbecile, have nothing going on in your life or so filled with hatred as needing to find a place to dump it. Why not try somewhere else to work out whatever it is you need to work out?

        • CRS

          I love your replies. You have a classy way of insulting people who truly deserve it. Tough love without lowering yourself. Effective.

        • mikidiki

          Oh dear, oh dear. You are soooooh judgmental. Reflect that Papa Francisco is not in the business of judging people and concentrate on love rather than truth!

        • Janie Wright Kearns

          My vote is for “consummate imbecile”. 🙂

        • fredx2

          That’s what comment boxes are for. Anyone can comment. It would be a pathetic magazine and a pathetic commbox if only one viewpoint were allowed.

          • TheAbaum

            He didn’t suggest exclusion, just questioned motivation.

          • ForChristAlone

            To come to this site to condemn Catholicism is not a “viewpoint.” It is going to your neighbor’s house, being cordially invited in and then pulling down your pants to defecate on their carpet. But who am i to judge?

      • Tony

        You must be a woman. You do not know what it is like to be a boy who is doubtful about his manhood, and whose doubts are exacerbated by the fact that his father has rejected him, or is not around, or belittles him.
        Nobody says anything about disowning anyone. We are talking about what is good and evil with regard to the sexual powers. Fornication is evil, yes? If that is so, then what on earth do you think the teenage boys are doing, if they call themselves “gay”?

      • Guest

        Who talked about disowning a child? See this is the real issue. Drama, emotionalism, and failure to accept the truth are not justifications for making things up.

        The absurd drama in cases like this should be met with disdain not enabling nonsense under guise of “compassion” or a false mercy.

        Bad behavior should be called out, corrected, and not tolerated. It is one thing to misunderstand and seek clarification with goodwill. It is another thing to act like immature children with minimal intellectual horsepower and demand all bow to your ego.

        • TheAbaum

          “Drama, emotionalism, and failure to accept the truth”

          The three-legged stool on which all of the modern left parks its ample posterior upon.

          • Ford Oxaal

            Even if I disagreed with this (which I don’t) I would give it high points for humor. There’s a comedy skit in here somewhere showing the trudging, grunting electorate reflexively reaching for that feed bar (the voting booth).

            • TheAbaum

              I’d classify it as tragedy but..

      • Arriero

        – «[…] and in today’s world the Catholic Church is falling.»

        What a pity that we left out that old educational system that was the Inquisition…

        – «I’m not catholic and I’m very happy I’m not.»

        I’m also very happy you’re not Catholic. Luckily Catholicism is too rational for you. Too important. Too great.

        – «The teachings is way wrong.»

        Which teachings? Dont talk hearsay. You have to read a lot more than you usually do to know which are these «teachings». But don’t waste your time, I don’t think you may understand them.

        – «And disowning a child because of “x” “y” or “z” reason is not what god would want.»

        How much arrogance! Now you know exactly what God certainly wants. Impressive. Protestants always know what God wants.

        – «My god is the same god that Catholics pray to and follow we all just have our own way of doing it.»

        Our God is written in capitals.

        • Watosh

          This reminds me of something Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen said in 1974, “We live in a sensate age. We are no longer governed by Faith. We are no longer governed by reason. We are governed by FEELINGS.”

      • Austin Ruse

        But she did show her anger in class.

        Also, the idea that anyone is “born gay” is an aspect of faith adn to reason. There is no scientific proof of a “gay gene” or anything like it. If there was a gay gene, then twins would both be gay when in fact they are not, by far. Your religion is showing!

      • Boston

        One of our employees, over 20 years ago, told me plainly DIRECTLY that he absolutely knew that the lack of a good relationship with his biological father caused him seek to the affirmation and affection of men…Right from his own mouth, and I I gave him a lot of credit for his forthrightness.

      • portlandCatholic

        I’m happy you’re not Catholic, too. That’s t-o-o, as in “also” or “as well.”

      • Objectivetruth

        What denomination are you?

      • Angel

        Hey genius. So tell me. In my life time, I have never come across an ex-Chinese nor an ex-African American person walking on the earth. YET, I have seen an EX-gay man walking on the earth. So how can you be an EX-gay????
        Check it out on YOUTUBE, folks! I think the whole thing with gays is really about – MENTAL ILLNESS.

        • Behavior

          Yeah, I agree with you. Someones have that tendency, most of them living in that situation for entertainment!

      • Janie Wright Kearns

        You are unequivocally wrong…. period.

      • fredx2

        The Catholic church continues to grow. It is not failing. Meanwhile, the very liberal protestant churches continue to implode. I am virtually certain that you do not understand why people become gay either, so you and the sister are on even ground there. And no one talked about disowning children.

      • Art Deco

        What a bunch of poppy cock.. No one is gay because there dad was not there or because there mom was separated from the dad.

        Somewhere along the line you were not instructed nor did you figure out that expressions of indignation are not an argument. (While we are at it, your indignation is misplaced and silly).

    • Ford Oxaal

      And there are plenty of good Catholics sitting on the sidelines who will make brilliant teachers once the deadwood is cleared out of the way.

      • TheAbaum

        The current regime of occupational licensing ensures cords and cords of indoctrinated dead wood.

        • msmischief

          Actually, you don’t need the certification to teach in non-public schools.

          • TheAbaum

            I’d have to check, but I think the teachers union had that passed through in my state.

    • Objectivetruth

      Agreed. She would have seen the door that day.

    • Art Deco

      In what other line of work to you get to conduct a personal strike because you can’t control your emotions?

      The content of her emotions is also at issue.

      • TheAbaum

        Good point. A couple years ago, I had to deal with such an individual. Quite an education.

  • Peter

    Just as when a business goes bankrupt and then reorganizes, perhaps some of our Catholic high school and colleges could do likewise? And when they re-establish into a new entity, they clearly require all staff, as a condition of employment to uphold true Church teaching via the Magisterium.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    “This theory is now rejected by the psychological establishment”
    The fact that homosexuality if a disorder is now rejected by the psychological establishment as well.

    • demathis

      The psychological establishment does not determine my eternity.

    • MarkRutledge

      The psychological establishment is ideologically driven, though they cover themselves in a veneer of science.

    • Tony

      The psychological establishment has a LOT to answer for, over the decades. But it is disingenuous to say that the “psychological establishment” has rejected that theory (or, rather, empirical consideration) of the cause of homosexual desires. That’s because the “psychological establishment” is utterly uninterested in considering ANY cause of homosexual desires.
      Check out the boyhood experiences of Rock Hudson, Montgomery Clift, Tab Hunter, Liberace, Anthony Perkins, Paul Lynde, Raymond Burr, Greg Louganis, Dan Savage, etc. Do a little bit of investigating.

      • Austin Ruse

        Of course! But, they did reject it. They did. No matter how disreputable the process, they did.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    ““In my home, there was outrage, embarrassment, sadness, disbelief, and further reason for my 16 year-old to move as far away from her religion as possible and as soon as she can.”
    Hey sweetheart, your child (and you) are already far from the Catholic Faith.

  • Aldo Elmnight

    “Parent’s who tried to defend the priest and the school are now frightened, frightened physically and frightened for their children. ”
    The homosexual culture is fascistic at its core (as is most sin). This is how the APA ceased to classify homosexuality as a disorder. It was not by reasoned, scientific discourse. It was by intimidation:
    http://www.rainbowhistory.org/html/apazap.htm

    • TheAbaum

      The entire left is fascist.

      • Ford Oxaal

        All the left really knows is what they “like”. And their preferred form of debate is the shout down — the temper tantrum. Essentially, the left is composed of people who never made it beyond adolescence.

        • TheAbaum
          • Ford Oxaal

            Pertty funny — did not know I was “channeling” Krauthammer, ha ha.

          • Ford Oxaal

            But I think Will gets it wrong — Obama is not the adolescent President — he is the demagogue who understands that the American electorate is composed of permanent adolescents — so he speaks their language to remain their leader. What a farce.

            • TheAbaum

              Interesting counterinterpretation, I’m going to have to consider that carefully.

            • Arriero

              There is a book writen by Sam Leith – who was the literary director in the Daily Telegraph and colaborator in the Spectator magazine and other – titled: «You Talkin’ To Me?: Rhetoric from Aristotle to Obama» (http://www.amazon.es/You-Talkin-To-Me-Aristotle/dp/1846683165 )

              Overall it’s a well-writen book, pretty interesting and easy to read. Yet, it’s indeed very interesting the thoughtful analysis the author does about rethoric in Obama, placing it in his context and the situation and history that has surrounded him.

              I think there is no doubt that as an orator – much more in the form than in the meaning, though -, Obama has not had any rival in the political right -being many of them absolute annulments -, and that explains, maybe, the failure for their part to «make an effective use of the art of persuassion» (that’s certainly the definition of rethoric the book gives) as Obama has correctly done.

              Apart from that, I’ve always assessed the American rethoric as formally beautiful and ellocuent but profoundly vacuous, Of course, Obama never convinced me, and too metaphisically cheap and pompous. For instance, the «yes, we can» was a stupid lema from a logic-philosophical point of view. You can say that you’ve been able to do something (that you have «can») only after doing such thing. So saying «yes, we can» is not only uselessly general, but it has no meaning because no objective was still reached when people repeated – like fools – the lema. That explains too why I think St. Tomás de Aquino, the Scholastics and the Old Roman poets and greek philosophers whould be much more read, especially in anglo-protestant countries.

              • Watosh

                So many on the right have identified Obama as the source of all current evils. Obama is simply a stooge. a front man for the real deep government. Again I recommend Robert Reilly’s book “Making Gay Okay,” as he recounts all the reasons advanced for the acceptance of homosexuality, and then provides hard evidence that discredits them completely. He cites all the Court decisions in detail and then cites hard evidence that demolishes the claims. He cites who the real villains are, some of whom were “good” Catholic military leaders,and some were members of the Republican party. Obama owes his election to George W. Bush’s disastrous administration. Our problems go beyond Obama, focussing on Obama distracts attention from the real problem, which few seem to recognize, but Arriero does, something which those of the ideological, rabid right invariably attack him for suggesting.

                • Art Deco

                  Obama is simply a stooge. a front man for the real deep government.

                  I see you’ve gone off your thioridizine again.

            • Art Deco

              I think you are attributing to him more insight than he has ever manifested.

              The President is the resultant of the vectors operating in the national Democratic Party, and adds no signature element. He’s on-air talent; someone who missed his true calling as a TV news reader.

              • TheAbaum

                “He’s on-air talent; someone who missed his true calling as a TV news reader.”

                I think you are attributing to him more insight than he has ever manifested.

    • jacobhalo

      The APA took a vote and by a small margin declassified homosexuality as a disorder. There are still shrinks who consider homosexuality a disorder and they are treating people with this disorder. The homosexual activists want doctors to stop treating patients with this disorder.

  • cestusdei

    The students have been indoctrinated. When confronted with the truth they reacted in confusion and horror. If a Catholic school isn’t faithful to Catholicism then it should be closed. If a teacher has a problem with Catholicism then they should not teach at one of our schools.

    • Guest

      Apparently we are a culture of effete crybabies. When we are faced with information with which we disagree our first reaction is emotionalism, not intellectual rigor.

      No intellectual defense of their position is given they simply whine, walk out, and rally the dissenting troops to spread the propaganda.

      This incident is a perfect example of how the “gay” lobby operates in this culture right now.

      All the catechesis in the world will not help if people are closed to the truth.

  • Don Campbell

    Austin, I want to believe you are right that we are seeing the last gasp of dissenting Catholics. But, the stats tell me otherwise. Reliable polling consistently shows that a large percentage – if not a majority – of self-identifying Catholics in the United States reject the Church’s teaching on contraception, marriage (gay and otherwise), divorce, and abortion. With respect to the gay marriage issue, Under Benedict XVI they seem to have felt their only option was to keep their mouths shut and their heads down. Under Pope Francis, they seem to have been greatly emboldened. I agree that it is wonderful to see the fabulous new generation of solid, orthodox priests. But, we have to take into account all the blatant dissenters in the theology departments of Catholic colleges, who hold great sway over their students. And the dissenting parents who encourage dissent by their children. And the incredible, overpowering influence of a culture driven by media, the entertainment industry, and academia that is rapidly convincing young people that to oppose the gay lifestyle and/or gaymarriage is to be a hateful bigot.

    • hombre111

      The Church is wasting her authority by arguing about birth control. If she were to drop her tunnel vision rational approach and begin to talk about the whole meaning of a sacramental life and how to live with the heart and mind of Christ, she might get a lot further. Pope John Paul fails to convince when he becomes a natural law nag. But his Theology of the Body, written within a soaring religious vision, is much more impressive.

      • Guest

        People only hear what the want to hear and disregard the rest. That is not a function of the speaker. It is an indictment of the hearer. Those with ears can hear if they so chose.

        Covering your ears with your hands and humming loudly does not make you right or justified.

        • hombre111

          Exactly. But what you hear is still effected by your personality (a highly logical person will not hear what a highly emotional person hears; a person absorbed in the concrete will not hear in the same way a person with high intuition and a search for possibilities). It is also effected by your environment (a person from a city suburb will not hear what a person from the inner city hears). By your past (A person who has never suffered poverty, physical or emotional stress, loss, defeat etc. will not hear what person who has always had everything going his way hears. By your expectations (If you expect only bad news, you might hear it). By your philosophical and theological perspective (an atheistic logical positivist would not know what to do with the Easter story except to mock it). And so on.
          Using the example of Commonweal, I say this respectfully: readers of Crisis will differ in many areas here.

          • michael susce

            So True. The Jew, because of his past, expectations and philosophical and theological perspective “will not hear” the Nazi who participated in exterminating six million Jews. In addition, those who are repulsed by the father who sexually abuses his six year old son “will not hear” the father because of the past, expectations etc. of the repulsed. [ruthless sarcasm] My God, man, do you realize the evil of your logic. Who said those with ears can hear? Who said you will know the truth and the truth will set you free? He implied we can overcome our past, expectations etc. Once one reads the Gulag Archipelago, one is compelled to speak out against this satanic crap!

            • hombre111

              I am not sure I quite sure I understand this rant, but I think you are proving my point.

        • Michael Paterson-Seymour

          St Augustine thought otherwise: “For they hear these things and do them to whom it is given; but they do them not, whether they hear or do not hear, to whom it is not given. Because, “To you,” said He, “it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.” [Matt. xiii. 11] Of these, the one refers to the mercy, the other to the judgment of Him to whom our soul cries, “I will sing of mercy and judgment unto Thee, O Lord.” [Ps. CI. 1]”

          He also says, “For the effectiveness of God’s mercy cannot be in the power of man to frustrate, if he will have none of it. If God wills to have mercy on men, he can call them in a way that is suited to them, so that they will be moved to understand and to follow… Since, then, people are brought to faith in such different ways, and the same thing spoken in one way has power to move and has no such power when spoken in another way, or may move one man and not another, who would dare to affirm that God has no method of calling whereby even Esau might have applied his mind and yoked his will to the faith in which Jacob was justified? But if the obstinacy of the will can be such that the mind’s aversion from all modes of calling becomes hardened, the question is whether that very hardening does not come from some divine penalty, as if God abandons a man by not calling him in the way in which he might be moved to faith. Who would dare to affirm that the Omnipotent lacked a method of persuading even Esau to believe?”

          This is why scripture says, “I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please Me” (Exod. 33:19)

          • Guest

            How does that contradict what I said? The old saying is embraced by Catholic philosophers for centuries. The truth will only be received to the degree one is open to the truth. Who would deny that?

      • TheAbaum

        Somehow I expect you to convulse violently this Sunday.

        • hombre111

          I will say three Masses next Sunday, including Divine Mercy Mass, preceded by an hour of confessions. And you?

          • TheAbaum

            I will go to one Mass, and perhaps confession on Saturday, and put coin in the plate, which based on a recent comment, is of great interest to you.

            • hombre111

              Not really. But it is to the pastor, who has to pay the bills.

              • TheAbaum

                Yeah really, you already disclosed your preoccupation with the collection plate.

      • Austin Ruse

        The Church never talks about birth control. Ever.

      • Austin Ruse

        Let’s see hands for the last time anyone ever heard the Church “argue about birth control”…anyone? anyone? the Church never never never even speaks about birth control let alone argues for it.

        • Art Deco

          Mentioned in a homily in March 2004.

      • HenryBowers

        Wait a minute, what exactly is the complaint about a “rational approach” to birth control? Wouldn’t only an irrational approach be criticized?

        • hombre111

          A rational approach should be humble, because it could be wrong. On the basis of her natural law argument about sex between husband and wife, the Church calls a couple to heroic sacrifice, with no room for a softer approach. I can see this kind of sacrifice for the sake of the Gospel. But natural law? In the past, the Church made natural law arguments in favor of slavery, to prove that women are inferior to men, and that blacks are inferior to white men. Etc.. Bite by bite, she has chewed on crow. But now a bunch of old celibates think that, by pure reason alone, they infallibly know how things should be between a husband and wife.
          Here is what is dangerous about a rational approach. 1) A better viewpoint. For the life of me, I cannot imagine how a celibate man alone in his bed can become the wise man about intimate marital issues. 2) Better logic. Catholics are schooled in Neo-Scholastic logic, which begins with a universal principle that can’t be questioned, and proceeds by deduction to other conclusions. But even the Greeks who started this approach admitted that the further you go down the deductive chain, the more likely you are to be wrong. Conclusions about artificial birth control are way down the chain. It is presumed that you can conduct the whole process inside your head. More modern, more adequate approaches to logic understand that conclusions have to be tested by consequences, and the discussion has to be conducted between competent people who know by shared experience what they are talking about. 3) New facts. Somewhere, I remember a pope saying that new facts cannot effect the validity of this abstract argument. But an abstraction leaves most of reality behind.

          • HenryBowers

            I would be interested to know where you see natural law linked to heroism, because I agree, the two are not intrinsically related.

            • hombre111

              Natural law, which I do not discard, leads to universal conclusions. At the self-evident level, they are truly universal. For instance, do the good, you cannot kill the innocent, or etc.. But as you begin to draw deductive conclusions from this unquestioned universal, other elements enter in, as I have explained above, and the picture is no longer black and white.
              In some hands, a conclusion from natural law becomes a cross people are nailed to. And so, a couple cannot practice artificial birth control. It will be wrong under all circumstances. I used the true example of a response Christopher West gave to a woman who was in the middle of a desperate problem connected with reproduction. “I guess you are called to be a martyr.” She had other children. I cannot imagine that her death was the best choice.

              • HenryBowers

                Thanks for re-explaining. I have only a beginner’s knowledge of the practical syllogism, and so I agree that deduction can take an agent only so far, but isn’t the point of practical deliberation to arrive at knowledge of an ‘intermediate’ instead of knowledge of a speculative, fixed, abstract, concept? For example, I can practically deduce that I should not have another drink, but that’s only because I know what drunkenness is with respect to me.

                On a larger scale, then, I think we can see that intermediates are only chosen for other ends, and if they happen to be chosen only for themselves, then a fortiori the intermediate should be respected.

                If the intermediate is not found by deduction, then, then I think we have found an escape from your critique, no?

                • hombre111

                  Hmm. As I understand it, the logical process described by Gelpi. David Platinga does something of the same thing. It goes this way: First, something happens to us, or we see, smell, or see something. This immediate sensation is followed almost instantly by a perception, that is, an “evaluative response” to what just touched us. eg, The color red is not just the color red, I have a vague emotional response to it. Or the color blue, or green, or a major note, or a minor note.

                  Second, this is followed by memories which trigger other emotions, our imagination comes into play, and then the reality is explored intuitively, which puts things together, senses connections, looks for the whole. A lot of this is right brain stuff, or subconscious, or even unconscious.

                  Third, intuition begins to grasp generalities, and the first step of logical inference begins. We form an “abduction,” or sense of a general rule. In regular logic, we call this “first principles.” But the word “abduction” is interesting because this conclusion to a law has to be proven. It is like a hypothesis. This is done, first of all, deductively. A deduction is a prediction. “If this is true, then this.” The deduction in turn is examined inductively. If the prediction reached through deduction works out, we have a truth. If not, a defeater.

                  My interest has been in the abduction, the statement of an hypothesis, first. We have to be more humble about this than we are. a) We talked about “evaluative feelings,” and saw that knowledge begins in the affect. If the affect is wounded, or twisted, or the memories are wounded, the whole beginning process is distorted. It is doubtful if inferences flowing from that bad beginning will be true. b) It is not a universal until it has been demonstrated to be a universal. Universal statements are really risky, for reasons I have explained over and over: better perspective, new facts, better logic.
                  This can distort the deductive process, which can be well crafted, or logically flawed. Another reason for a little humility. The inductive process can also be flawed. More reason for humility.

                  • HenryBowers

                    Okay, so the individual is in himself ineffable, I agree . . . but I don’t see how that justifies consequentialism.

                    • hombre111

                      ???? Not sure what you are talking about.

    • Austin Ruse

      True.

    • fredx2

      Since they are going to engage in namecalling, and call everyone that opposes gay marriage a “bigot”, I suppose then it is OK to start calling them “perverts” or whatever again. I thought we were over the name calling stage, but here we are.

  • Don Campbell

    People throw Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” comment in my face all the time. It’s no use trying to tell them they are taking him out of context. He was specifically referencing someone who is trying their best to do God’s will (i.e., someone with same-sex attraction who is trying to remain chaste) as opposed to someone who is flaunting their sin in his face by openly practicing homosexuality and seeking pulbic approval of their union is the form of “marriage” – indeed who refuses to even concede that homosexual conduct is sinful. They don’t want or like to hear that explanation. Politicians have actually cited his comment as their basis for voting in favor of gay marriage legislation. He could clear this whole thing up in one sentence simple, declarative sentance, but, he refuses. Surely he is aware of how his comment is being used.

    • jacobhalo

      Don, you are correct. I don’t care for this pope because he and the rest of the Post-Vatican popes have been to liberal for me, but no one ever adds to his quote if he is seeking God.

  • hombre111

    A perfect example why I never talk about this kind of explosive subject in public. The key to communication is listening. The article claims that most of the students were not really listening. But even if they were, there is the difference between what you say and what people hear you say. This will even happen when you put it to print, but at least you can refer to your real words. I wish Sister had written her words beforehand, or that there was some kind of recording, so she could defend herself. What you hear and understand is effected by your life’s experience and expectations, your level of emotional, moral, and intellectual maturity, your religious commitment, and what you understand when you say, “I follow Christ.”

    • TheAbaum

      Oh give me a break, you come on hear all the time with “explosive” topics. You have no problem demonizing “the rich” “Republicans” and a myriad of other groups.

      The reason you don’t address sexual morality is because you don’t believe in it. I still remember your fawning acquiescence to the two ex-priests who took up cohabitating.

      You and your ilk are why these topics are “explosive”, there’s a whole cadre of men like you who didn’t do their job. You might have been a serviceable county assistance officer, but if your commentary on here is any indicator, you are derelict in your duty.

      Except when you are preaching with the fire of envy masquerading as charity, I’m guessing your sermons are exercises in insipid, effete tedium,

      • hombre111

        I wasn’t the one who said, “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than it is for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” As the party of the rich men standing in that long line in front of the eye of the needle, the Republicans ought to worry.
        As for those two priests: They married their partners as soon as the law allowed them to.

        • TheAbaum

          He never said rich meant only materially wealthy, but you have a common and vulgar obsession with filthy lucre.

    • Neihan

      So it’s fair to assume that if you had a congregation full of rich bankers you would never speak about matters which might make them uncomfortable, yes?

      Just like our Lord and the Saints – never talked about explosive subjects in public for fear of being misunderstood.

      How droll.

      • hombre111

        I don’t hesitate to talk about the social justice subjects, especially around Easter, when we are talking about the Kingdom of God, along with Christian hope. I can ask the bankers how their deepest hopes reflect the presence of the Risen Christ in their lives. I can ask them to reflect on this thought: If you died in the next minute, what would your life really be about?
        But as for the crotch subjects: I cannot in good conscious lecture about birth control because I think the Church is wrong. But I do speak about the dignity of our bodies and the call to live chaste lives because we are Easter Christians. I tell people that we are called to follow Christ crucified in every part of our lives, and that couples who try to live without the cross are not following Christ. I leave it up to them to draw their own conclusions. I have quoted John Paul’s Theology of the Body a few times, and have sponsored workshops on Pope John Paul’s thinking when I was a campus minister. I also reminded the students a few times a year that, thanks to the “just do it” crowd, our sexuality has become a human sump, where those who choose to be promiscuous simply pass their venereal diseases around and endanger their ability to have children.
        I really don’t have a lot to say about homosexuals. Here again, I think the Church is simply wrong. Heterosexuals can get upset about homosexuals and condemn them, but it really costs them nothing but a rise in blood pressure. The homosexuals I know have caused me to see it is a many-layered subject…a mixture of good and evil. But that would describe you or me or anybody.

        • TheAbaum

          If your commentary is any indication here, your concept of social justice is constrained and distorted, little more unbridled faith in your counterfeit god, state.

        • Neihan

          Yet you can in “good conscience” be supported and cared for by the Church even as you reject her teachings and refuse to do your sacred duty to teach them. The veneer of integrity is tissue-paper thin.

          St. Chrysostom said something about the building material used for the road to Hell, so I suppose it’s nothing new. Still, it does seems the seminaries in the second half of the 20th century produced a bumper crop of cowards and careerists.

          • Rtort

            Rather harsh but true I am afraid.

        • fredx2

          First of all, although I disagree with you I am glad you come here to discuss things.
          But here is my question to you: Birth control has allowed large numbers of people to become promiscuous. Since you were a campus minister, you have some idea of the hook up culture, and other such examples of our culture becoming deeply promisuous.
          Birth control has allowed large numbers of people to engage in extra marital affairs. It has allowed women to “attract” men solely through sexual availability. It has led to the spread of diseases, to the point that one of four young women has an STI. No doubt all of this has had a hand in increasing the number of divorces, and the sourness in children that accompanies divorce. Women have been taught to demean themselves and think of themselves as “empowered” if they have many sexual partners. Women in college have much more depression than they used to, and women overall are unhappier than they used to be. (based on the largest longitudinal survey).
          In addition, almost every young women is now taking a drug instead of having a drug free body. This can have effects on her ability to conceive later. It can have effects on her emotional state. It may lead her, in a moment of weakness, to have sex with someone she otherwise would not.
          The populations of once-healthy nations are in decline, and all that contracepting has led to a more lonely and isolated life for nearly everyone.
          So, my question is, why do you disagree with the teaching of the church on this one?

          • hombre111

            Thanks fredx2. You make a series of really good points and I agree with most of them. Birth control has had allowed a lot of people to make stupid and immoral decisions. At this point I blush a bit, because I find myself about to make an argument the NRA would use about the access of every living citizen to a gun: The fact that something is put to immoral use does not mean it should go away.

            • TheAbaum

              “And so my mother moved out of the bedroom and slept with two of her kids. While undesirable, artificial birth control might have preserved the marriage.”

              I had a friend who married an alcoholic. She had full access to contraceptives and no compunction about their use. Her marriage ended in civil divorce and annulment, not for lack of contraception, but because of the unpleasantness of being intimate with a man who was physically repellent due to intoxication, odor, etc.

              As a married man, I can tell you female desire must be carefully attended to -it will not thrive or even survive when confronted by indignities like being awoken by the sound of urine hitting the mattress she’s sleeping on.

              I find it odd that you would think fear of pregnancy would be the only impediment to a healthy level of intimacy with an alcoholic or that you would commit your mother to enduring it.

              • hombre111

                Apples and oranges. Divorce was the last thing on my mother’s mind, and my dad was never that kind of sloppy drunk. He was a mild mannered guy who managed to work hard every day, but he drank the money away.

                • TheAbaum

                  And the pill would have helped how.

                  • hombre111

                    You want to wander away from the main line of discussion. The simple fact is: Many families are stretched past the limit by the thought of another child. Many lack the capacity to practice NFP. Way back then, the thing was so inaccurate it was called “Vatican Roulette.” Even today, it requires a maturity and level of cooperation many couples cannot muster.

                    It falsifies my position to say I am in favor of birth control for any selfish reason. But when a couple comes to a time when sex divides rather than unites them, it is time to pray together, seek council, listen to the Church as one voice, and follow their conscience.

                    • TheAbaum

                      What “mainline” of discussion? You meander like YOU are inebriated. You can’t even provide a consistent account of your life.

                      Money, money, money. It’s always money with you.

                      If you had ever been an earner, not just as ward of your parents and then the Church, you’d understand just how much you’ve elevated money into a talisman.

                      What you express here betrays an incredible immaturity and psychological tension, no doubt caused by dependency on what you despise.

                      I find it amusing however, how much you think you in the paucity of experience know about marriage, while complaining that the Church is wrong.

                    • hombre111

                      Get a psychology book and do some reading about projection.
                      “I find it amusing, how much you think you (in the paucity of your personal experience) know about marriage.” I have always said a celibate knows next to nothing about marriage. That is why it is laughable that an old celibate who spent his entire life in the Church bureaucracy can write an encyclical on Birth Control. At least a parish priest lives in the midst of the folks, and hears in counseling and confession, the personal anguish of people who are struggling with their problems. That is why I say they are the only ones who are qualified to make those kinds of decisions.

                    • TheAbaum

                      If I pick up a psych book, it’s going to something useful in dealing with you-something on abnormalities.

                      It’s amusing that you complain that

                      “It is laughable that an old celibate who spent his entire life in the Church bureaucracy can write an encyclical laying down the law for people who practice birth control.”

                      You are doing the same thing. Project much?

            • HenryBowers

              Who gets to decide which circumstances are too hard? What if it’s too hard for an alcoholic not to hit his wife? You’re allowing evil that good may come.

              • hombre111

                Good question, Henry. I would say the only ones who can decide are the husband and wife. But only if: 1) They are dedicated to a loving, growing marriage, which they accept as a charismatic sacrament conferring the Holy Spirit, who will give them enlightenment into their shared life. 2) They accept the Gospel proclaimed by the Church and are prepared to carry Christ’s cross. They accept children as part of that cross. Even NFP can be abused by people who simply don’t want children. 3) They are prayerful. 4) They listen to each other. 5) They approach the issue humbly, consulting wise voices including the authoritative voice of the Church on this matter. 6) They try prayerfully to understand their different choices. I do not hold the essentialist philosophy which would consider birth control evil in and of itself. In fact, birth control might be the only good choice in a given situation. 7) They talk to God and explain why they have made the choice they are making.

                • HenryBowers

                  I agree that the behavior known as ‘timed abstinence,’ which is employed in NFP, can likewise be employed in an act which is contraceptive in species, because I see 1st-person intentionality as necessary to act specification.
                  But your point #1 only pushes the question back one regression. Instead of asking about circumstances, we now have to ask who decides which couples are “loving.” So I see your approach as phenomenological, which is perhaps less compelling than a simply logical account. Can you elaborate your views on Greek abstraction, and how that’s led the moral analysis astray?

                  • hombre111

                    Interesting to see that you are not impressed by phenomenological analysis, because Pope John Paul was a prominent phenomenologist, and commentators tout the phenomenological, personalist approach in his Theology of the Body. But more later. The bass are biting and I’m going fishing.

                  • hombre111

                    Well, the wind came up and the bass stopped biting. Caught some bullheads. Still can’t believe that something that ugly can taste that good.
                    As I have noted, I follow Donald Gelpi, who has constructed an amazing philosophical and theological system on North American thinkers. I think he is a modern St. Thomas Aquinas. Gelpi notes, correctly I think, that our grasp of reality begins with intuitive, imaginative thinking, and this is the basic way we live our daily lives. This right brain activity acts through spontaneous association, a sense of the global whole, and our judgment of feelings about things that impinge upon our lives. So far, so good.
                    But in order to explore this world, the left brain has to take over. It does this through abstraction, definition, and logic. All this is a crucial part of the process. But it is like looking at reality through a microscope or telescope. Things are seen in amazing detail, but the larger picture vanishes. It is a case of tunnel vision.
                    The flaw with Greek abstraction is that its followers often assume they have captured reality. In fact, they have left most of reality out of the picture. That is why I abandoned substance/accident thinking a long time ago. The substance is a conclusion based on logic. You can’t see it, touch it, hear it, smell it. Everything that is good and nourishing about a good steak is an accident! Dismiss the accidents, and life has lost its zest.
                    When we have these kind of discussions, we should, as Gelpi would put it, practice a little humility. Our reason can be flawed. Even infallible statements are limited by their time and culture. A “contrite falliblism” is a better journey to truth than the left mind’s tendency to dismiss or ignore any evidence that challenges its conclusions. Abstract, inferential thinking imposes limits. We are using a narrowly focused way of thinking that is unable to totally grasp the larger experiences of ordinary life.

                    • HenryBowers

                      I appreciate your sharing. But is substance really a conclusion, and not a right-brain intuition? I see Aquinas recognizing substance as that which just is individuated by itself, or that which does not require individuation in an extrinsic subject. So the world loses its zest without accidents, but it doesn’t lose any of its things.

                      Perhaps this insight won’t change our meta-ethical disagreements. But could it? Would it be damaging if I said that all man’s accidents could be removed, but that he would still possess the actuality of a substance that could feel and know non-logical details?

                    • hombre111

                      Thanks. If I remember my Scholastic philosophy, a substance is “that which exists in itself and not in anything else as a subject of inhesion.” IE, unlike accidents, which only exist when they inhere to a subject–something we can see, hear, touch, feel . The idea of substance was proposed to explain continuity in the midst of change. The accidents adhere to the substance, so the substance is an inner reality which always remain invisible, but provides an unchangeable foundation for the existence of the accidents.
                      I rejected this kind of substance thinking because it cannot account for evolution across species. People who believe in an unchangeable substance have to reject evolution.

                    • HenryBowers

                      Well, we know that a substantial form can generate concomitantly with the passing away of another substantial form, so I don’t see how it would require a miracle for some accidental form to become an always-reproduced accidental form, and thus part of the new species. Christian revelation makes the rational accident a miraculous creation ex nihilo, on the other hand, because “before _I_ formed you in the womb, _I_ knew you.”

                    • hombre111

                      Interesting. Give me an example of what you mean by a substantial form generating concomitantly with the passing away of another substantial form, please.

                    • hombre111

                      Interesting. I have not heard the word “concomitant” since theology class, when we learned about Transubstantiation. Maybe an example of one substantial form generating comcomitantly with the passing away of another substantial form? The only examples I can think of is a corpse, or digestion.

                • Guest

                  How many Holy Spirits are there? One that guides the Church and one that guides married folks that contradicts the one that guides the Church? Too funny, as always. You are a hoot.

                  • hombre111

                    You put your finger on the problem. The hierarchy cannot trust the simple folks who merely live their own sacrament to listen to the Holy Spirit and live a good life. Instead, it wants to treat them like children. One of the ironies of Humanae Vitae was this unintended consequence: Adults who were expecting the holy father to tell them what to do suddenly discovered their own moral authority. Except, of course, for those who still want daddy to tell them exactly what to do.

  • mitch64

    Okay, lets all step into our time machines and go back to your high school days. Would any of you want to have a talk about sex, even when it concerns Church Doctrine, in a large group which includes the opposite sex? Why was a nun talking to teenage boys about this topic? Shouldn’t a priest or male teacher be the one doing the talking? At least when we were given sexual mis-information, it was by a priest, in a group of other guys, no girls present. It seems that someone in the administration did not think this out properly with the predictable results.

    Lets also imagine that you are a kid struggling with SSA..(I call it gay but I don’t want to start that debate) Its hard enough to be a straight kid coming to grips with your sexuality, but imagine if you were gay. Okay, your already uncomfortable, (along with the entire group) confused scared, weirded out maybe, and then a sister tells you the reasons for that is that you daddy didn’t love you, your family is screwed up and now you are. Oh and your going to become a major, major sex fiend. No the Sister did not say that, but I will bet that is what the kids head, because, they are kids!

    The issue is not the Sister teaching Catholic doctrine, that would have been fine. Once again, if she had left it at as Pope Francis says, we are for then what we are against she would have had a success, (i.e the Church views sexuality as a gift and you need to respect it and yourself, it produces life and it should be reserved inside a sacramental relationship, etc.) I would say that most of those kids know gay people, either in their family, neighborhood and community. Its not 1950 anymore. Throwing debatable stats at them when they see flesh and blood people is not going to work.

    • TheAbaum

      Lets also imagine that you are a kid struggling with a temptation to steal (I call it non-traditional shopping but I don’t want to start that debate) Its hard enough to be a straight-up kid coming to grips with your acquisitiveness.

      Sounds stupid, doesn’t it?

      • mitch64

        No THAT sounds stupid. Not all of us struggle with that temptation, but all of us have a sexuality and struggle with the proper use of that sexuality. It doesn’t help that society says “Go at it!” and ..in this instance the Church says, “FREAK!” There are different ways to get your point across, and using something called common sense goes a long way towards doing that.

        Just because a person may not be a hormonally driven teenager anymore, or perhaps their sex drive was never that strong to begin with (their are different levels) or that may not have bee their particular temptation, does not mean they cant talk about with intelligence and compassion. I truly believe the Sister did talk about it with both, the set up was all wrong and she went to far with the audience she was speaking to.

        • TheAbaum

          “Not all of us struggle with that temptation, but all of us have a sexuality and struggle with the proper use of that sexuality. ”

          So what?

          “in this instance the Church says, “FREAK!” ”

          Adding calumny to stupidity?

          • mitch64

            So what? So what? The Church (and you) must not think “So what,” when it spends so much time and energy in talking about sexual sin. All of humanity has a sex drive (of some kind, some not so much, some sublimate that drive into other negative things…) so that is a pretty big “So What!” Especially in the culture we live in. We need to teach that there is a REASON behind Church teaching and God’s plan..and finger waving. the threat of hell and “hands off,” doesnt work. Hasn’t worked in thousands of years

            “Adding calumny to stupidity?”

            Ah, you are quite the drama queen aren’t you? Its not called “calumny,” but exaggeration.

            • TheAbaum

              No person or no Church pronouncement calls people with homosexual attraction “Freak”, either literally or in any way that can be reasonably characterized that way.

              Calumny:

              a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something:

              False Yes.

              Malicious, arguably yes.

              injurious of the reputation of the Church? Yes.

              It’s calumny and your comment history indicates you are far more familiar with queens of all kinds than anybody else.

              • mitch64

                Ah A-Bomb…your history shows when you have no argument you try to insult a poster…I say try as it is not working..with me at least…though I seemed to have hit a touchy area with you and that queen comment (though you continue to prove me right with your post above.)

                But to get back on track instead of keeping this hissy fit going, answer me this, if the struggle with sexuality is such a “so what,” thing with you why do you get so riled up about it all? Why do you think the world has so much sexual sin, and has since the begging of time, if its such a “so what,” subject. And why would we continue to try to scold our children into sexual responsible and Catholic behaviors when it clearly isn’t and hasn’t worked. What would be your solution?

                • Guest

                  But, no one was scolding. That is exactly the point. The crybabies and their children threw a tantrum.

                  • Rtort

                    The pair of you sound like kids in a playground spat. More heat that light here methinks! Isn’t it time we all grew up and went back to Jesus Christ to get HIS point of view for once?

                    • Guest

                      We have His ” point of view”. The priest gave a talk. That explained it well.

                    • Rtort

                      Actually I addressed this comment to both of you. apologies if you thought it was only to you. This mud slinging gets us nowhere and grieves the Holy Spirit.

                    • Guest

                      Correcting error and defending truth is not mud slinging.

                    • Rtort

                      My apologies Guest I think I mistook you for the other two. Indeed correcting error and defending Truth is NOT mud slinging.

                    • TheAbaum

                      So why are you joining in?

                • TheAbaum

                  Ah A-Bomb…your history shows when you have no argument you try to insult a poster..

                  You mean like this?

                  “Ah, you are quite the drama queen aren’t you?”

                  Get the telephone pole out of your eye.

                  We get it, you are a dedicated homosexual and you just the latest in a long line of hit ad run trolls who emerge to the call of the other prairie dogs whenever Austin pens a column.

                  I don’t believe in solutions.

                  • mitch64

                    My friend, you threw the first punch, (“stupid and calumny,” ) I just blocked yours and jabbed you right back. Didn’t you learn that in the third grade?

                    • TheAbaum

                      I demonstrated analytically that you are engaging in calumny. and I called my rewrite of your text stupid.

                      Pay attention.

                    • mitch64

                      Funny, that anyone who has a slight difference of opinion is a troll. Kind of cuts down on the discussion doesn’t it?

                      “Your problem is you know you’ve subordinated your eternal soul to your temporal passions and no matter how you suppress your conscience, you want to drown it’s muffled voice out with external affirmation, because you just can’t completely suffocate it.”

                      You know the state of my soul? Are you being Canonized in Rome at this point and time? I love the paragraph and description…too funny that you continue to prove my comment above.

                    • TheAbaum

                      You know the state of my soul?

                      No, I don’t. But I can see from your comment history that you are dedicated to homosexuality and this is not a “slight difference of opinion”.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Troll….troll….trolling along……

            • Guest

              Your caricature of Church teaching and theology is cartoonish and silly.

            • Austin Ruse

              The Church never talks about sexual sin. You must not be a Catholic because if you were you would know that Catholics do not hear sermons about sexual sins…ever. What you always hear is love, help the poor etc etc. It is a silly talking point that the Church talks about sexaul sin. Wish the Church did but She doesn’t.

              • mitch64

                I am a Catholic and I go to Mass and yes, the Church does talk about sexual sin, and as well they should. My point is that the Church (and that includes all of us who have children,etc) should be smart about how they teach this. The Sister’s talk was not the best way to talk about a very explosive subject that each parent has a different idea on how and when it should be broached.

                • Austin Ruse

                  No. It doesn’t.

                • Art Deco

                  So, how long have you lived in the Diocese of Lincoln?

              • Michael Paterson-Seymour

                At the last retreat I made, the Carmelite retreat master spent the day in reflecting on Olier’s famous passage from “The Christian Day,” “It is necessary for the soul to be in fear and distrust of self; … It should make its pleasure and joy depend on sacrificing to Jesus all joy and pleasure which it may have apart from Himself. And when taking part in those things in which by Providence it is obliged to be occupied, such as eating, drinking, and conversation with creatures, it must be sparing in all, must discard what is superfluous, and must renounce, in the use of them, the joy and pleasure to be found therein, uniting and giving itself to Jesus as often as it feels itself tempted to enjoy something apart from Him and not Himself.”

                It was not necessary to spell out the implications for sexual sin, which are surely obvious enough. It encapsulates what should be the whole ethos of our earthly probation, to renounce the world, and differ in every temper and way of life, from the spirit and the way of the world: to renounce all its goods, to fear none of its evils, to reject its joys, and have no value for its happiness; something inculcated on almost every page of the New Testament.

    • Guest

      The problem is not false stats. No sir, the problem is people reason by emotion and not logic. Your logic here is very much like the homosexual lobby logic. As in… if you knew a “gay couple” you would see they are just like everyone else. That type of facile reasoning is exactly why the children and parents rebelled.

      • mitch64

        Okay, I am going to address all your comments in one com box.

        First, I see a lot of “crybabies” (our religious rights are being oppressed, and it wont be long before we are jailed for our faith,” etc, etc.) right here but that is beside the point. I wasn’t addressing the reaction of the students and their parents, I was addressing the Sister’s lecture and where it went off the tracks..which even Father admitted.

        Second..when did I caricature Church teaching but especially theology? You are telling me that the Church has ALWAYS been level head when it regards sexuality, especially in young people? And the Church has been successful in that teaching through out the years but its only been because of post Vatican II and modern permissive secular society that it has failed?

        I never said that if “people only knew a gay couple.” I am saying that most likely the kids in this school DO know gay people, in their class, and in their lives and in their families. Unlike you and I they have grown up with gay people out of the closet. Its hard to believe stats when you SEE the opposite of that.

    • Gary Adrian

      Are you serious? Kids learn all this stuff in ‘Sex Ed’ classes when they are in elementary school. They learn even more on the play ground and from friends. Yet even more from TV and movies. I remember talking about these things in junior high and high school. There was no problem. The problem is that they were being taught God’s view of sex. How shocking? As long as it is demented sex taught by the school system it is just fine, but when it is God’s view on sex it is suddenly shocking. What a joke.

    • Art Deco

      Would any of you want to have a talk about sex, even when it concerns
      Church Doctrine, in a large group which includes the opposite sex? Why
      was a nun talking to teenage boys about this topic?

      Waal, I was subject to sex talk in a mixed group of students offered by a lady gym teacher and including props such as an IUD. That was about 35 years ago. I gather she’s still alive and living out in Sacramento now, long retired. She’d be about 87 years old.

    • imabitterclinger2

      I taught this stuff in RE to 9th graders for 5 years. If we don’t talk about it in Catholic Schools, your kids will learn it from society. Which would you prefer: Catholic teaching or the teachings of Miley Cyrus, Lady Gaga, and Katy Parry?

  • Stacy Peterson

    The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways. We know not the hour of our passion. Sister did NOT give the talk Fr Kauth expected because of miscommunication. God’s Will allowed for the time and place of its delivery. Therefore, all parties are called to an exceptional level of love in response to this occurrence. Satan’s ways are known: deception and division. Fury and wrath the reponse. Christians respond with Truth spoken in love. Our wise Bishop and Fr Kauth live this.

    • TheAbaum

      I take in you are in or near “ground zero”.

      • Stacy Peterson

        Yes, I live in the area. The wounds of sin cause all of us to “lash out” in pain sometimes for we are all sinners. Responding to this situation requires a great deal of humility, wisdom, patience, and prudence. I know Fr Kauth, under the direction of Bishop Jugis, is precisely the priest to bring the balm of truth, clarity, and love to this situation. He is an energetic, zealous Lover of Christ! He loves these kids in his deepest recesses.

        Evil exists, as does the havoc it wreaks. God knows the good that will come from this sad experience. While we wait for the fruit to ripen, we must love each other, by entering the “other’s” pain, and gently binding their wounds. “All shall be well.”

        Rejoicing in Hope!

        • Ford Oxaal

          Very true. A greater good is coming! You can see it at the march for life in DC in the bitter cold. There is a *huge* ground swell that will breed its way to victory in three generations — filling in the multiple blanks left by the contraceptive / abortive families. This is under the radar of the media driven statisticians.

          • TheAbaum

            As long as their children aren’t seduced away.

            • Guest

              Yes, and I would think there must be two levels of response to this absurdity. One is to the families involved as the other poster spoke to. Yes, truth in love but not false compassion.

              But, we live in a connected world. The other level of response is to all those watching. We owe a serious obligation to those as well. They can easily stumble if they are led to think the nun or priest were in some way wrong in their convictions or loyal to the Church.

              Too often the “pastoral” approach leaves out too much.

  • Bill

    After reading this article, I still do not know what was presented. We need to hear or read the comments given by Sister Jane Dominic. Only then can a definitive answer be obtained, although what happened following her presentation was a travesty caused in large part by the failure of the Church to properly catechize us. Over the last year in my parish our new pastor’s homily have consistently been on love your neighbor. Now that is excellent, however, our faith is more than that.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      I attempted to locate a transcript. Couldn’t. Is it out there.

      Also, is NARTH that misguided in reviewing the place of the absent or disengaged father as contributing to the etiology of homosexuality? Ruse’s way of putting it wasn’t clarifying. The “condition” of homosexuality is the fallout of a multi-facet cause – disordered paternal relationships certainly contributes. I am testimony to that.

      Below, a commentor points out that the APA declassified homosexuality as a disorder with significant dissent among its ranks. This plays a major role in this debate, for that decision turned the issue into a purely one. I match it to the Supreme Court decision in “Griswold” when they upturned the notion of contraception.

      (The APA’s diagnostic manual has enormous political and legal influence. Quite seriously, this cultural war of ours must be taken to its pages. When the APA declassifies incest and pedophilia our society has dug its grave and planted a sign reading “No Flowers, Please”.)

      Dan Savage does describe the Gay “culture” well: there is NO notion of fidelity, even within their “marriages”; it is all about the piling on of bodies. That is a statement of direct observation, affirmed over and over. Why no fidelity? Because homosexuality is what it is – the all-absorbing, the ever confiscation of flesh for its orgasmic idolatry.

      I stand firm on this – and affirmed once I understood my father’s abdication of his duty of fatherly affection and guidance.

      • lifeknight

        My research regarding the APA and its declassification of homosexuality as a mental illness occurred in 1973. It was a vote of a panel of 7……Three active homosexuals and one sympathizer took it out of the diagnostic listing as a mental illness. Wondering what we find out about the year 1973?

      • Bill

        On SF’s gay parade–I certainly hope there is no Catholic presence there. Pray there will not be.

  • Pingback: What really happened at Charlotte Catholic High School... - Christian Forums()

  • Babagranny

    Thank you for this narrative of a very sad and disturbing event. However, I wish you could find a descriptive word other than “left” for the angry people. I consider myself a “liberal” and I believe in, support, and hopefully practice all that the Catholic Church teaches about sex, sin, and everything else. In fact, I believe that the Catholic Church, in its ecumenical work, it’s preaching of Christ’s love for all, and yes, in Pope Francis and all the Popes I have known going back to Pius XII, is one of the most “liberal” institutions in the world. But Satan is always trying to stir things up in favor of his deadly and disgusting causes. Sometimes “left” and “liberal” are badly misunderstood. Can we come up with some not-so-loaded words that seem to become fighting words for too many people?

    • Ford Oxaal

      Words are changeable things (which is why a dead language like Latin is where the Church archives Truth). Today’s liberals are totalitarians who will shout down a nun if she stands in the way of their voracious appetite to take offense and feign morality. The question is, whatever labels you want to apply: what is it you really want to be liberated from? Faithful Catholics want to be liberated from sin and the slavery of bad morals. Modern ‘liberals’ want to be free to satisfy their appetites.

    • fredx2

      You are right, the language should be more precise. Maybe we can come up with something.
      However, at the same time, there definitely is a split in the church, and it definitely runs along liberal – conservative lines. Those who back Obama for example, tend to disagree with church teaching and desperately want it to change. Those who back Republicans, tend to agree with church teaching.

  • kelso

    I noted that one of the main protesters said that active homosexuals can lead “healthy” lives. Need I say more. What a lie!

  • D. Morgan

    I am outraged at these self described catholics who feel they can pick and choose what parts of the Faith they will consent to. This is the true fruit of the destruction wrought by the spirit of Vatican Council II crowd. 40 years of lackluster catechesis has blinded many catholics about what the Church truly teaches. Holy Mary, ora pro nobis.

  • Guest
  • JoeThePimpernel

    Lots of students at Catholic high schools are non-Catholic refugees from the government-school gulags.

    That they don’t accept Catholic teaching is hardly surprising.

    • vfrtower

      JTP…you are absolutely correct.

      Not only do the parents look at “private” school as a status symbol…they also do not want their kids to go to school with the many black children that fill public schools.

      They’re not there for the Church’s teachings.

      • flourgiggy

        That’s exactly right. The Charlotte Catholic school system is subsidized by the diocese and, as a result, tuition is not as expensive as it is at secular private schools.

        There are numerous excellent secular private schools here in Charlotte, but the tuition at those schools is much greater than the Catholic schools. For this reason, families who have no interest in Catholic education, but don’t want to pay secular private school tuition, will send their children to the Charlotte Catholic schools.

        • ForChristAlone

          You’re absolutely accurate. In my diocese, where we have just built a new Catholic high school, the marketing is directed to those who want a private school education for their children (read this as ‘I don’t want my kids educated with Blacks and other low lifes). Because of this reality, the new “Catholic” school is really not all that Catholic.

  • Tony

    One of the protesters spoke more intelligently than she knew when she said she was outraged that the event was “co-gendered.” I’ll lay down a thousand bucks, even money, that she has never protested sex ed classes in the public schools, which go on interminably and are all “co-gendered.”
    But she unwittingly suggests one way to deal with these matters in the future. Divide the sexes, for ALL discussions regarding marriage, sex, the family, abortion, contraception, and so on. A man can speak frankly to boys and men. A woman can speak frankly to girls and women.
    It occurs to me that almost all the complainers in these cases are women. Now, a woman knows as much about a boy’s sexual feelings as I know about pregnant Martians. I am not going to listen to anything that anybody has to say about male sexuality, who has never been undressed in a boys’ locker room. Or, to put it conversely, any guy who has been undressed in a boys’ locker room knows a thousand times more about male sexuality than any woman will ever know, UNLESS she’s humble enough to listen to what we have to say. And we are quite reticent about these things.

  • elarga

    I do not believe it is appropriate to refer to those upset by Sr. Jane’s talk as part of “the left.” The protesters are people who are noteworthy, not for their doctrinal sophistication and commitment to revising doctrine, but for their ignorance and indifference to Church teaching. My friends, MOST Catholics in this country are in that category. They are Catholics out of sentimentality or habit, and don’t care what their bishops or priests say unless they happen to agree with it. They are not interested in learning what the Church teaches, or in living holy lives. I know many of them. They think I am a little crazy because I actually insist on attending Mass on Sundays. One was astounded when I said something about respecting the 1-hour fast before Mass: “Nobody does that,” he said — father of two “Catholic” boys. They attend Church when they feel like it. This is the biggest problem in the Church today and I think the only solution is for priests, bishops and religious to preach the truth to them and be prepared for a massive exodus.

    • TheAbaum

      Three outstanding characteristics of the left is that it reacts emotionally, it attempts to engineer reality through language and it seeks moral sanction in commonality, especially when its common ignore what’s inconvenient.

      These reactions are nothing but emotion and “co-gendered” is a neologism that has a distinctly left wing pedigree. Promoting the idea of gender has been a cornerstone in promoting the idea that gender is an identity that overrides the physical reality of sex. “nobody does that” is item 3.

      I have no doubt they are ignorant and indifferent to Church. They may not have even chosen their zeitgeist, they may have adopted in through cultural and social osmosis, but they are creatures of the left. It would be inappropriate not to identify them as part of the left.

      • fredx2

        The other aspect of the left is that they are good at pretending to be part of a much larger group than really exists. For example, the first thing they do when 2 or 3 gather in their name, is form an organization that claims to represent huge numbers of people, or at least sounds like it does. For example, the “National Catholic Reporter” sounds like it is the offical organ of the church, but in fact, it is a small offshoot of the church. “Voice of the Faithful” etc, are small offshoot groups , etc, but they have an organization, and the media cites them as if they were equal in size or worthy of serious consideration.
        Having an organization allows the media to pretend they are a legitimate, large organization of people rather than a small band of outliers.

        • TheAbaum

          They model their behavior on Karl Marx, who began one of his evil screeds (the manifesto?) with a citation about a “meeting of Communists”, which was apparently a relative handful of his acolytes, not quite the impressive congregation of credible and authoritative individuals who might infer.

        • imabitterclinger2

          Pax Christi and Nuns on the Bus are two more. We need to expose these peoples’ works to the light of day, and get them out of your Parish as quickly as possible if they are there. These are Marxist Liberation-Theology Organizations. Pope Francis has condemned Liberation Theology and has soundly condemned it. If your church has too much conversation about “plight of the poor” and not enough “salvation of souls through the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass”, you have problems.

      • ForChristAlone

        Excellent summary about who these people are.

        • TheAbaum

          Thanks.

          • P510N

            I applaud Austin for his creative writing and use of imaginative phrases, but the issue was never about Catholic teaching. The entire problem was about such a sensitive talk concerning sexuality being presented to the children without the parents knowledge. The reports by the children about what was presented is what caused concern.
            This never had anything to do with dissenters to the Church.

            • Augustus

              Mr. Ruse recorded these claims that the hostility directed at the nun and chaplain and school had nothing to do with the content of the talk but the suitability of the talk to a mixed gender high school audience. Yet conceding this mistake did not placate the student, parent and faculty protestors whose sustained and vitriolic reaction as well as the evidence provided by Mr. Ruse, supports his argument that opposition to the content of the speech was in fact what motivated them. You yourself admit that what the students heard caused the protest. The protest, ultimately, was against the content of the speech. If you disagree with the content of the speech, then you probably dissent from Church teaching on homosexuality, divorce, contraception, etc.

            • TheAbaum

              Geez, good thing that only two of the Ten Commandments are “sensitive”.

            • Guest

              In a Catholic high school what was so sensitive? I am really?

              Or, perhaps sensitivity is not the real issue? Perhaps rejection of the truth is the issue?

            • Guest

              Hear! Hear! Way to connect the dots there.

    • ForChristAlone

      I simply refer to it as the “protestant wing of the Catholic Church.”

  • rodlarocque1931

    diabolical disorientation

  • AugustineThomas

    This whole thing sounds crazy, but who am I to judge?

    • Guest

      We are allowed to judge right and wrong, just not the state of someone’s soul.

  • Quote in article: “homosexuality does not occur because of a parent’s shortcoming, masturbation or pornography”. I keep asking the following question but it appears no one wants to tackle it (fear?): What causes homosexuality?

    • TomD

      “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.” – from the American Psychological Association (APA) website.

      There is no scientifically valid answer to the question you ask as there is, as of now, no scientifically valid evidence of causation.

      The reality is that, most likely, there will never be found a single “cause,” or even a particular set of causes that explain sexual deviation from the norm in all instances. As with most human behavior, deviation from the norm in human sexuality is very likely the complex relationship of some biological factor(s) and some non-biological factor(s).

      • Thank you so much @TomD:disqus! May I engage you in a conversation? If the Church says it is an intrinsic disorder, then is it from G_d (I say not) or elsewhere, and if elsewhere from whence or from what? And your statement “sexual deviation from the norm” is homosexuality then natural or unnatural (i.e. occurs in nature, but not what nature intended)?
        At the end of our conversation, I will share my own thoughts.

        • TomD

          You’re welcome. A short conversation, certainly 🙂

          To be precise, the Church teaches specifically that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and that homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered.

          Disorder in human behavior and inclination comes from Man’s sinful nature and the Fall and, of course, is much broader than homosexuality, or sexuality in general.

          As to natural vs. unnatural, something that occurs in nature is not necessarily natural in the Christian sense, as in the distinction between Natural Law, for Catholics as developed by Saint Thomas Aquinas, and things that simply occur in nature.

          • I truly admire your forthrightness and courage. Let me put forth the following and then I will make my argument:

            The National Academy of Sciences also says:

            “Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science’s realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.”

            Jn 9:2-3: “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, for him to have been born blind?’
            Mt 19:12: “There are eunuchs born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs made so by men and there are eunuchs who made themselves that way for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. […]”
            Mk 7:21-23: “It is what comes out of a man that makes him unclean. For it is from within, from men’s hearts, that evil intentions emerge: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within and make a man unclean.’
            Mt. 5:37: “anything more than this comes from the evil one.”
            Jn 8:42 & 44: “If God were your father […] The devil is your father”
            Mt 13:27-28 “[…] If so, where does the darnel come from?” “Some enemy has done this” […]”
            Gn 6:2: “the sons of God, looking at the daughters of men, saw they were pleasing, so they married as many as they chose.”

            source; root cause

            • Michael Paterson-Seymour

              Having quoted Ps 134:6: “Whatsoever the Lord pleased He hath done, in heaven, in earth,” the Council of Toucy (PL, CXXVI, 123) adds: “For nothing is done in heaven or on earth, except what God either graciously does Himself or permits to be done, in His justice.” That is to say, no good, here and now, in this man rather than in another, comes about unless God Himself graciously wills and accomplishes it, and no evil, here and now, in this man rather than another, comes about unless God Himself justly permits it to be done. Nevertheless, God does not command the impossible, and grants even to those who do not actually observe His commandments the power of observing them.

              But those who observe His commandments are better than others and would not keep them in fact, had not God from eternity efficaciously decreed that they should observe these precepts. Thus, these good servants of God are more beloved and assisted by Him than others, although God does not command the impossible of the others.

              Furthermore, this very resistance to sufficient grace is an evil which would not occur, here and now, without the divine permission, and nonresistance itself is a good which would not come about here and now except for divine consequent will. Therefore, there is a real difference between sufficient grace, to which is attached the divine permission of sin and by reason of which the fulfillment of the commandments is really possible, and efficacious grace, on the other hand, which is a greater help whence follows not only the real possibility of observing the commandments, but their effective fulfillment.

          • My argument utilizing 5 bums on a bench: who/what/where/why/how/

  • unloup

    To Austin Ruse: the ‘rump group’ you dismiss is actually a 1500 strong, professional group of psychiatrists and other professionals who refuse to belong to the AMA [American Psychiatric Association] because of the complete politicization of the homosexual question and their group is known as NARTH, National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. Any familiarity with their web site should allow anyone to question what they think they know about homosexuality and its causes. NARTH has the clinical evidence to back up its beliefs, evidence accumulated after many of the the NARTH membership have spent their entire lives working with 10’s of thousands of people who came to them suffering from same sex attraction. NARTH publishes the results of the clinical studies their membership has produced. All are invited to do the homework on same sex attraction. NARTH information can not be so easily dismissed.

  • unloup

    To ‘but who am I to Judge: It seems a careful reading of scripture, particularly the new testament, should reveal the fact that our Lord commands us to make judgements, not the judgement of the person, but of a person’s action. After close to 2000 years of reflection, the Church has a pretty good idea of what is good and what is not good. If one is not an expert on morality and immorality, don’t you sort of have to rely on someone besides yourself. In those questions that I have not spent a significant part of my life studying, I defer to the orthodox Catholic experts, you know, all those thousands of holy people who have recorded the common sense of the church in the catechism of the Catholic Church. As I try to live out my life as an obedient son of Holy Mother Church, I simply can not dismiss that much inspiration.

  • cgb

    “One source told me, “When a new orthodox priest takes over a parish, the dissenters up and leave and have to go somewhere else and they are running out of places to go.”

    At least a few old lefty priests were sitting among the angry parents at the meeting with Father Kauth and though none of them stood and cheered one source told me, “I am sure they wanted to.”

    What a bunch of rotgut, as usual, from the faithful defender of everything that is ruinous about the Catholic church. The leader of your institution is one of those ‘old lefties’,in case no one’s noticed, and defending ‘orthodoxy’ means defending the orthodoxy of the CHURCH not of Christ’s teachings. Burke and Ruse are in love with the color scarlet, the tabernacle gold, and the patriarchy, NOT the essence of Christ’s love.

    “Charlotte is a remarkable place, stunningly beautiful, clean, and charming” Sure, YOUR Charlotte. Jesus would see the other side, and that’s where he’d be doing his work if he were to return tomorrow.

    • TomD

      cgb, you’ve created a false dichotomy. It is not a choice between “Christ’s love” and “the Church’s orthodoxy.”

      Christ did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets, he came to fulfill them. Love and orthodoxy, at least orthodoxy properly understood, must be practiced together . . . they are not in opposition to one another.

      The essence of Christ’s love is doing and living God’s will . . . and this is the fullest and truest understanding of orthodoxy.

    • Rtort

      Of course Jesus sees the clean and beautiful, the charming and the remarkable in the people of Charlotte but Love is not mere sentiment..it is much sterner than just that, much deeper than the externals. Christ’s love has a dimension of justice, He paid the price for our wrongdoing as laid down in the Suffering servant ,’ Ours were the sufferings He bore’ etc. This means that I, as a follower and lover of Christ must, sooner or later, get to grips with my sinfulness and when I do, I will find that at the heart of God’s justice is MERCY, Wonderful, delicious, cleansing, restoring, shinning MERCY. I am set free!
      All my gashes of life given and received then cry ALLELUIA!

      • cgb

        “but Love is not mere sentiment..it is much sterner than just that, much deeper than the externals”. Agreed, but that doesn’t account for why politicians like Ruse masquerade as spiritual leaders. His politics completely determines his interpretation of scripture. Since as you say, externals are not fundamental to Catholicism, shouldn’t it be the other way around?

        • Rtort

          Eyes on Jesus ONLY. Leave Austin Ruse to God for correction and pray for him. So many of us have very good motives behind the defence of our Faith even if our methods are not exactly as we or even God would have it. Motes and logs always come to mind during these conversations. Give no ground to our ancient enemy. Christ, first and last! Alleluia!

        • TheAbaum

          “His politics completely determines his interpretation of scripture. ”

          There’s no politics here or scriptural exegesis, and Catholics don’t engage in personal scriptural interpretation-that’s a Protestant exercise. This complaint is not relevant to this article.

    • Guest

      More propaganda.

    • imabitterclinger2

      It isn’t rotgut. It is your wishful thinking that Pope Francis will make changes to morality that are unchangeable. I can name names if necessary (a certain retired Monsignor who only shows his face at dissident Parishes). All of them are old as Methuselah. I can’t wait for the day the dissident Parishes, like St. Luke, are put to heel, and Barney the Dinosaur Jesus is replaced by the real, living Christ!

      • cgb

        Me either. Because so long as the Church doesn’t acknowledge real changes in the world affect morality, and fail to listen to the people, there will be a 2nd schism- the Catholics have already lost the battle to the evangelical Protestants, the churches will soon be empty and the high-mass-fetishist, sex-scandal deniers will be preaching only to their choirs.

        • imabitterclinger2

          Sure. Tell that to the Episcopalians who changed their morality, decided to ordain women, and allowed open homosexuality. Oh that’s right, their churches are being sold and their pews are empty.

          • cgb

            Perhaps that’s the case in your state; it isn’t here.

    • bonaventure

      What is “ruinous about the Catholic church” (as you write) is liberalism of the kind you represent. Thankfully, it is going away.

      Oh and btw, you should listen DIRECTLY to Pope Francis, rather than listening to the spin of liberal media about Francis — projecting their perversions on him. In fact, today (April 26th, 2014, the day before the canonization of John Paul II and John XXIII) he just reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage, and the institution of marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Wonder why the liberal media did not report that… I guess they want liberal Catholic ignoramuses to believe he never said it.

      • “Francis just reaffirmed the indissolubility of marriage, and the institution of marriage as solely between one man and one woman.”
        Me think a ploy …

  • Hank Kaczmarek

    At the Christian Brothers Prep school I attended in the 70’s, several of my classmates were homosexuals. But I didn’t know this until long after they graduated. They didn’t DARE show any sign of their same-sex attraction. Not because the administration would have done anything, but the other students in an all male student body would have run them straight out the door. They were more than aware of this.
    In talking with 2 of my homosexual ex-classmates, in addition to one of my father’s male cousins who is also homosexual, they all admitted to knowing of their attraction for the same sex before the age of reason, 5-6 years old. I also polled many homosexuals when working as a Deputy Sheriff while they were incarcerated.
    There may not be a “Gay Gene”, but it’s certainly possible that if they truly feel this attraction before they know what sex is, that it is innate. The Jury is out on that one. BUT—Part of our mission as Catholics is to “Hate the Sin, and love the Sinner”—so we should be trying to help homosexual Catholics to live a chaste life. That should be the focus.

    • Art Deco

      they all admitted to knowing of their attraction for the same sex before the age of reason, 5-6

      You need’t have taken them seriously. Camille Paglia’s take on this sort of talk is that the subjects have retrospectively confounded a feeling of being different with sexual attraction.

      • Guest

        It is called propaganda and it can even make the speaker believe his own confusion.

    • fredx2

      How come homosexuals are attracted to other boys when they are 5 or 6, but heterosexuals only become attracted to girls around 11-12-13?
      Or is this just a myth, designed to show that the attraction was always there??

      • Tony

        They may feel the attraction, but they don’t understand it. They are interpreting it ex post facto, and they do not realize that all boys admire other boys, make heroes out of them, want to be with other boys — and some of them go so far as to say that they “hate” girls. This is a normal and pretty much universal thing; but the homosexual man reads back into it his erotic desires.

  • Gnort

    I’ve noticed that some people think that the ends justify the means when teaching…

    As if the necessity of being compassionate is optional so long as you’re stating a fact.

    You can teach someone about the bible. You can also wrap passages around a brick and throw them through a window. One of these will spread your message, the other will ensure your message is never truly received.

    It is not sufficient merely to tell the truth. You must tell it in a Christian manner. That means showing respect and compassion in addition to stating facts.

    The way the message is told must be as Christian as the message itself, or the message will be lost or worse.

    • Rtort

      Jesus was THE teacher of ALL teachers and IS love…and he was also vilified, hated, rejected by those who find the Truth very hard to bear. Truth (especially about ourselves and our actions) IS hard to bear for all of us and often our initial response is to deny and (the classic one) REJECT it out of hand, work out sophisticated arguments against hearing it, and BLAME everyone else for exposing it to us etc.
      Even if you deliver the Truth with the utmost care and concern for the other, it WILL PUNCH you if you do no not wish to hear it. Many times in the Gospels we read that people were, like those good people of that school, ‘outraged’ and wanted to kill Jesus then and there whenever HE delivered anything that exposed something in themselves that they were not ready to accept. It is well that in the secret of their hearts that these people remember that Jesus condemned no-one but neither did he sanctioned sin. He NEVER told the woman caught in adultery..’That’s ok hon’ no need to worry, go off now and be happy in your life. He accepted that she was a sinner and FORGAVE her and set her free from her accusers both within and without. As sinners we MUST accept that we…sin. Do we trust Jesus at His word that he forgives and wills to restore all the messes we have made with our lives and with our children, that is really the question here. DO NOT WATER DOWN TRUTH (JESUS)…EVER! Trust Him!

      You will know the truth and the Truth (Jesus) will set you free.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        But St Augustine says, “We see that people are variously moved to believe when the same facts are shown or explained to them. For example, Simeon believed in our Lord Jesus Christ when he was still a little child, for the Spirit revealed the truth to him. Nathanael heard but one sentence from him, “Before Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree I saw thee” (John 1:48); and he replied, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.” Long after, Peter made the same confession, and for that merit heard himself pronounced blessed, and that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were to be given to him. His disciples believed on him when by a miracle in Cana of Galilee water was turned into wine, which the evangelist John records as the beginning of the signs of Jesus. He stirred many to believe by his words, but many did not believe though the dead were raised. Even his disciples were terrified and shattered by his cross and death, but the thief believed at the very moment when he saw him not highly exalted but his own equal in sharing in crucifixion. One of his disciples after his resurrection believed, not so much because his body was alive again, as because of his recent wounds. Many of those who crucified him, who had despised him while he was working his miracles, believed when his disciples preached him and did similar miracles in his name.”

        • Rtort

          Amen brother!

    • Guest

      Our culture thinks compassion means being effete or double talking to the point truth contradicts truth. The charge of uncharity is mostly false these days. What that means is if I do not like what I hear I tell you that you are a hater.

      • Gnort

        Doesn’t matter. If they’re oversensitive, that means we need to be even gentler if we want them to hear what we’re saying.
        If you tell the truth in a way people won’t hear, you may as well be saying nothing.

        The message of truth is corrupted when one uses immoral methods to tell it, and the Church clearly says we have to be respectful, compassionate, and sensitive to their emotions, experiences, and struggles.

  • Manuel

    Bishop Jugis: “Ex corde ecclesia!”

  • quimminator

    If they do not agree with the Catholic teachings then they should leave the school and the Church for that matter.Catholics should know what their religion entails and if they feel they cannot follow them then there are plenty of other religions to choose.I am sick of all these fake Catholics who complain about Church teachings.No one ever said it would be easy to be a Catholic,so if you cannot handle the commitments then leave.Jesus had a hard time,so do not expect it to be easy.Also never apologize for your faith!

  • I_M_Forman

    The protesting parents and teachers have a part of their world view that is not consistant with C

  • OttFatherofTwo

    Homosexuality and Hope by CMA is EXCELLENT!. Look at 100s of scientific references at the end! http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0039.html

    . I have not reviewed the following stats: http://carm.org/statistics-homosexual-promiscuity

  • Shelley

    I was with a guy for 3 years, he always told me he loved me and that we wouldn’t break up because if you love someone you make it work. We could never work out a time when we were both free and just a couple days ago he said we should just be friends. I know he don’t me love anymore. When we were dating he said to everyone that I was his girlfriend and introduced me, told his friends he really liked me and told me he loved me, I wanted to be with him again but I never knew what to do. I tried for a long time with other spell casters to get him back but greatzalilu@gmail.com was the ONLY spell caster that could do the love spell for me that worked, if you need help contact him today he will always come to your aid, Obviously great zalilu is the REAL DEAL!

    • fredx2

      Obviously.

    • Rtort

      Groan…….!

  • fredx2

    In this case, the target was Kauth. But note that when a similar incident happened at the Prout school (the Father Rocky incident) , people primarily went after the principal of the school for “allowing it to happen”. The message to Catholic school administrators is this: “If you allow orthodox Catholic teaching in your school, we are coming after you.” This is the message they want to get across.
    Bullying.

    • Austin Ruse

      That principal is an old friend of mine. A good man.

      • Art Deco

        He acquitted himself very badly by caving in to the mob.

        • Tony

          He does have a family …
          He is the only one whose criticism of the talk I would listen to, because he is the only one who wanted the talk to succeed; the protesters were glad that it did not.

          • Austin Ruse

            There are things about the story that I cannot report. The principal is a good and faithful Catholic. So is the Priest. Tough spot all around.

          • Art Deco

            If he’s in a cleft stick, the responsibility for this debacle goes right to the top. Another loser bishop for everyone’s edification.

  • markkrite

    Reading of this so very telling incident and what it portends for twenty-first century Catholics in the U.S. IN THIS AGE OF TURBULENT AND CHAOTIC CONFUSION ENGENDERED BY LUCIFER HIMSELF IN MANY WAYS, I’m once again firmly reiterating a truism I kind of discovered by myself, but others may have noticed as well: unless your children are home-schooled, despite your best parenting efforts fortified by your Catholic Faith, YOUR CHILDREN ARE IN LARGE PART NOT RAISED BY YOU AND YOUR FAMILY STANDARDS ANYMORE, THEY’RE BEING RAISED BY YOUR CHILDREN’S PEER GROUPS. These “others” mean more to your kids than you as parents do, and that’s true in both secular public schools AND in Catholic schools. Why do I assert this? I had seven children and my brother had six children; that’s thirteen children split between four parents, both very solid Catholic middle class, BTW. One parent out of the four who “raised” them (ha! if only) was mildly liberal. The other three were very conservative. All six of my brother’s kids went to Catholic school from 1st through 12th grades. Mine, the seven, went to public schools, except for the last two, who went to an ersatz Catholic school. for two years. (that’s for another story) And so, ta-da, out of the thirteen children above mentioned, ONLY TWO still attend Mass faithfully. ALL the ones who went to Catholic school will have NOTHING to do with the Catholic faith. Once again, we, my brother and I, including our wives, did ALL the things Catholic parents do to ensure they’d practice their faith, i.e., Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, etc., continual instruction for those not attending Catholic schools, the whole nine yards. So what happened? Once again, without my brother and I being aware of it, THEIR PEER GROUP and the group’s more’s, etc., meant MORE to them than the familial culture they grew up in, in terms of practicing the Faith they were given. There were a few other factors involved, but in the main, what happened in that North Carolina school re the whole “gay” contretemps emerging now in the U.S. as well as other evils rampant within the milieu of family life in America, I “get it” only too well. Holy Mary, co-Redemptrix of the human race, please pray for us.

  • Long-Skirts

    PILLARS

    OF

    SALT

    Our leaders don’t
    lead anymore

    Our heroes aren’t
    valiant anymore

    Our fathers
    aren’t home anymore

    Our mothers won’t
    birthe anymore

    Our churches
    don’t awe anymore

    Our futures
    aren’t safe anymore

    Our past no roots
    anymore

    Our present not
    ours anymore

    The truth glossed
    o’er anymore

    But hang a cross
    anymore

    They’ll all
    appear anymore

    Outraged at faith
    anymore

    They share their
    lusts and explore

    They’re seasoned
    whores to the core

    They’re salt of the earth they implore

    These Sodomed – souls at Hell’s door

    • Rtort

      BUT…JESUS CHRIST LIVES and He has overcome the world. Fear Not…Trust.

  • Athelstane

    “One assumes Ms. Earnhardt is fine with her daughter leaving such an unenlightened Church.”

    One assumes Ms. Earnhardt hasn’t been raising her in the Church in the first place, from the way she talks.

    Apsotasy almost always begins in the home.

  • Philip Clingerman

    Sister was spot on and has nothing to regret for being faithful to the Magisterium or the fullness of truth regarding Catholic sexual ethics. She has now become martyred in the media, like so many others. Hopefully many will pray for her, as I will. This exposes how pathetic Catholic pedagogy has been, embodied by a firestorm of erroneous dissent.

  • imabitterclinger2

    Mr. Ruse- I am a parent of a child who goes to Charlotte Catholic High School and I have others that attend MACS Schools. I am a supporter of Father Kauth. Your article hits the nail on the head sir. Very well researched! You are correct that at the end of the day, we, the Orthodox will win the battle. The gray hairs are going away. All of the newer Priests know the Mass in both forms. This is the dying gasps of poor teaching, and a lack of scholasticism amongst clergy.

  • ds

    What’s the problem here? My four HS and college children hear “non scientific” data at their Catholic schools when it comes to population control, global warming, contraception and abortion all the time. I’ll bet Sister’s talk was a lot more academic than the typical Catholic HS light drivel curriculum.

    • Guest

      Amen!!!

  • cpsho

    Mr Ruse the fact Catholic lay intellectuals need to face is that even the Cathechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality, as published under the watches of Wojtyla and Ratzinger, are at best highly problematic. Is it any wonder the confusion at grass-roots in the western world?
    .
    “The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2357 states:
    “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. They close the sexual act to the
    gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
    complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

    -Here again is (another) problematic section, to be discussed with the Priests and Bishops. What does this sentence mean? “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”.
    .
    Really what does this statement mean? Is it asserting that
    homosexuality has biologic origins? Is it speculating about its
    psychological origins? Is it implying that God makes some people to
    specifically have homosexual temptations? Is it opening a door to the
    possibility of scientific advancement in future, that may show that
    people with homosexual temptations are created that way, and therefore
    the temptations might not be temptations after all? Is it speculating
    that if the psychological origins of homosexual temptations are
    adequately explained, then homosexual feelings, relationships and acts
    may become legitimate?-
    Read more:http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/04/02/category-archive-message-board-24/

    • TheAbaum

      Pope PHO the first speaks.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      I think you are splitting hairs here. “Psychological genesis” does not imply a natural, God-intended, biological origin. There are many psychological conditions whose precise cause may be undetermined. That does not mean we view them as “normal.” Moreover, regardless of what legitimate discoveries may be made about the true origin of the homosexual orientation, they would not imply “normalization” of the condition from a Catholic perspective. Even if it is ultimately determined that homosexuality has in fact a biological origin, that does not make it “normal” and part of God’s plan for a person. People are born with all kinds of physical defects every day. Nature makes dramatic mistakes all the time. I have suffered all my life from congenital glaucoma. I was born – and thus created – that way. And we know precisely what causes this problem. That does not make glaucoma a “normal” condition, nor does it imply that treatment to counteract the condition is not warranted. I think the Church’s official pronouncements on homosexuality are orthodox, accurate, charitable, and truthful… and nothing to be feared.

      • cpsho

        What about the psychological genesis of bestiality, or adultery, or kleptomania, or voyeurism, or pedophilia, or necrophilia?
        Why does the catechism not talk about the psychological genesis of all these other sins? Why is it only about homosexuality that the CDF feels it is necessary to speculate about psychological genesis thereof?

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          Catechisms are a response to the age for which they are written. (And there were NONE before the Protestant revolt.) It is the attitudes towards homosexuality that have to be addressed, not the condition itself. When we reach the point that serious numbers of people actually believe that bestiality (et al.) is “normal,” that will have to be addressed too, I suppose.

          • cpsho

            But the slack nature of this part of the catechism is a major reason why serious number of people actually believe that homosexuality is normal.
            On the other hand this is what Pope Pius V says
            “That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.”
            (cf Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568)
            Where is the zeal in #2357-2359 ?
            It is a pity but many souls are headed the wrong way because the CDF is trying to please men and not God.
            P.S In many parts of the world Kleptomania is a serious problem among the ruling elite. So can someone tell us about the psychological genesis? this would impact 100s of millions no doubt.

      • Älter und weiser

        Well said Doc.

  • cpsho

    As a follow up, Mr Ruse:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) #2359 states as follows:
    “Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of
    self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of
    disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and
    should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.”

    The question that really needs to be answered is: who is a Homosexual person?

    Is he the person having homosexual sex (engaging in sodomy)? Or the
    person fantasizing about homosexual sex (sodomy in the thoughts)? Or the
    person tempted to have homosexual sex? Or the person coerced to have
    homosexual sex? Or the person tricked to believe he cannot live without
    homosexual sex? Or the person who believes he was born to engage in
    homosexual sex (Sodomy)? Or the person who believes God created him to
    be tempted to engage in Sodomy? Or the person who accepts the ‘Gay
    agenda’ and the’ Gay lifestyle’?

    Who really is a ‘Homosexual person’ as defined by this Catechism (CCC #2357-2359)?

    It will be obvious on reflection and deep meditation that the
    definition of ‘Homosexual persons’ in this Catechism of the Catholic
    Church (second Edition) is at best problematic and quite capable of
    misleading the unwary Christian. Because the term ‘Homosexual person’
    does not distinguish between the person who is struggling with
    Same-Sex-Attraction (SSA) , and the person who accepts homosexual
    (Sodomy) acts as normal or God- sent or another way of expressing human
    love.

    This term ‘Homosexual persons’ fails to distinguish between persons
    struggling with temptation and trying to do God’s will, as opposed to
    persons wallowing in homosexual sin and promoting homosexual acts. This
    terminology puts the same label on different sets of persons. It is a
    disservice to the historic stand of the Catholic Church against the sin
    of Sodomy and its many manifestations.
    http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/03/23/category-archive-message-board-21/#more-220

    • Tony

      I agree. The catechism should read, “Persons who call themselves homosexual, or persons who feel erotic desires for members of their own sex.” I do not believe in the objective existence of the category, unless we understand that it is a moral and psychological disorder.

      • Michael Paterson-Seymour

        Michel Foucault summed it up nicely : “Sodomy, that of the old civil or canon laws, was a category of forbidden acts. Their perpetrator was nothing more than the juridical subject of them. The nineteenth-century homosexual became a personage: a past, a case history, and a childhood, in addition to being a character, a life-style and a morphology, with an over-inquisitive anatomy and, possibly, a mysterious physiology. Nothing that he was, escaped his sexuality… It was consubstantial with him, less as a habitual sin than as a singular nature…. The sodomite had been a lapse; the homosexual was now a species.” [« Le Volonté de Savoir » (Gallimard 1976 p 59) – My translation]

        • Tony

          The wicked AIDS-spreading fellow got that right. Whenever I find references to sodomy in early English literature, it’s in a political context, and not personal. That is, sodomites are to be found at court, for the same reason that toadies and flatterers and jobbers are to be found at court. The sodomite was a peculiarly gross form of prostitute.
          In Kristin Lavransdatter, Sigrid Undset includes a scene that might well pass for what ordinary people who did not live at court would have known about the sodomite, in days before widespread pornography and the ease of broadcasting strange ideas by means of radio. Kristin’s handsome son Naakve has been invited to be the page of a nobleman at court. She thinks it is a fine chance for the boy, but her husband Erlend must take her aside and explain what this particular nobleman wants. She is stunned — she did not know that such wickedness had existed on earth.
          I’ll wager that until a few decades ago, even in the United States, there were many people, especially women, living in any place other than a large city, who had no idea that there were men who did such things.

          • Michael Paterson-Seymour

            Traditionally, sodomy had been regarded as a crime specifically against religion. It is no coincidence that the three crimes of blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft were abolished by the same resolution, proposed by Louis Michel le Peletier, Marquis de Saint-Fargeau and passed, without a debate, by the National Constituent Assembly on 25 September 1791 on the principle deorum iniuria diis cura [Injuries to the gods are the gods’ business]

            • Art Deco

              Traditionally, sodomy had been regarded as a crime specifically against religion.

              That’s in France, a country famous for it louche disposition and indifference to hygiene.

  • cpsho

    In my humble opinion the Catechism on homosexuality needs a new edition more in keeping with the ancient traditions of the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic church.

  • Faithful to the Church

    It sounds like parents and teachers need some serious prayers and catechism. The math teacher needs to be reprimanded and perhaps go through some catechism herself. What a shame that students didn’t take away the truth and beauty that the church teaches in sexuality. Patents are failing their children. How sad.

  • fRED

    This is a dangerously subversive piece. ‘Move along folks…no need to worry…nothing to get excited about…rest easy.’ It appears to be designed to temper the outrage of the faithful against the pitiful response of the church to the protests.

    It is a subversive piece because it is trying to tell you that this incident was nothing but one of the last gasps of the dying left. You’ve got to be kidding Mr Ruse. Where have you been? The Left is destroying the USA and the Catholic Church. Friends, we are under a savage attack and we need to fight back. Mr. Ruse would have you roll over and continue business as usual. This article is a moral Trojan Horse from a person who supports making birth control free. No Way!

    Time to put on the armor of God in order to stand firm against the tactics of the devil (Eph 6:10-18).

    • Austin Ruse

      Hilarious. First, i have dedicated my life to fighting the left. Second, i do not support making contraceptives free. My point was it is not something that should be made a political litmus test. If you are going to attack me, why not get your facts right? It would much more effective and harder to dismiss.

      • fRED

        Ruse-to deceive, trick.
        In the article, “Is Contraception the Hill We Want to Die On?” (Feb 14, 2014 issue of Crisis Magazine), Mr. RUSE reveals that he supports the candidacy of Barbara Comstock, who proposed to allow women to purchase contraception without the need for a prescription (i.e., over the counter). The gist of that article was an attempt to dissuade readers not to fight on “Contraceptive Hill.”

        And now in this article, Mr. Ruse is trying to tell readers that everything is really okay in NC just because there are some reportedly conservatives in the area. Get real! The supposed orthodox have rolled over and licked the feet of the Left. The house is burning down and Mr Ruse has an (empty?) extinguisher and is trying to tell us to stay put and no need to worry. The Korean ferry boat captain tried that recently with great loss of life.

        “Many will be led into sin; they will betray and hate one another. Many false prophets will arise and deceive many.’ [Mt 24:10-11]. “False messiahs and false prophets will arise, and they will perform signs and wonders so great as to deceive, if that were possible, even the elect.” [Mt 24:24] Watch (out) and pray. Beware the deceivers.

  • Susan Fox

    Excellent Austin, excellent. Thank you for your investigative reporting skills. May God bless you. And let’s pray the dissidents convert or get booted out of the church. We need house cleaning. Susan Fox http://www.christsfaithfulwitness.com

  • 1776Mariner

    This piece has hit the situation in Charlotte right on the head. And be encouraged. One wonderful elderly and orthodox priest told me several years ago to be encouraged as all the dissenting clergy and nuns are graying, retiring and dying. But in the meantime, it is awful what Fr. Kauth and this sister have been subjected to. It is awful what faithful non-dissenting parents have been subjected to. Parents make great sacrifices to send their children to Catholic schools. To have dissenting families is bad enough but to have dissenting teachers is disgusting but unfortunately not surprising. But good will come of this as we now know who the dissenting teachers are. Perhaps they can be replaced. One can only hope. God bless Fr. Kauth. He is a wonderful priest. The students are blessed to have him as their chaplain.

  • clintoncps

    the saddest part of this whole story is that catholics – even clergy and religious – are now fearful to speak the truth about the sinfulness of homosexual behaviour. do any of us have the love and courage of a st. peter, a st. paul, or a st. stephen, let alone of our lord Jesus? we are supposed to be part of him; but i think we’ve got a long way to go… pray for faith,hope, and charity.

  • bonaventure

    Unfortunately, there is another problem in all this homosexuality-obsessed situation, which is so prevalent in western countries. And I am sorry to point that Mr. Ruse represents part of the problem.

    It is indeed problematic when otherwise intelligent and orthodox Christians allow the voices of homosexuals to monopolize the “dialogue” (which should never have happened in the first place), rather than strongly and uncompromisingly refute them with the best tools available. I am referring to Mr. Ruse’s own series of articles in Crisis Magazine on the “New Homophiles” (started in December 2013).

    If an informed and educated Catholic like Mr. Ruse cannot answers his own questions as to whether or not the Church should accept the “new homophiles”* on their own terms** how can anyone expect un- or under-catechized parents and youth to understand an iota about the truth on the issue, as taught by the Church — and as probably very well presented by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel?

    Rather than wondering about the “new homophiles” and opening them the pages of Crisis Magazine to voices their lies, Mr. Ruse should have perhaps written about those people who have real courage — the courage to speak the truth about homosexuality like the psychologists he mentions in this article, such as Rick Fitzgibbons and Joseph Nicolosi, and maybe research some more, like Tony Anatrella.

    Otherwise, I am afraid that Mr. Ruse’s (rightful) outrage at this whole “Catholic” Charlotte High School “controversy” will fall on deaf ears.
    ________________________

    * The “new homophiles” are homosexuals who claim to be both openly (and proudly) homosexual and “conservative” Christians – something which is theologically impossible;

    ** Writing on the new homophiles from January 3rd, 2014 (“The New Homophiles: A Closer Look”), Mr. Ruse finished his article with the following deplorable and, in my opinion, totally irresponsible question and answer: “Can we accept them [i.e., the new homophiles] on their terms? I do not know.”

    • Austin Ruse

      You misrepresent their position. They are out and proud and chaste and supportive of church teaching on marriage and the proper use of sex. And you obviously have not followed the debate if you think I have not “decided.” Brush up and come back.

      • bonaventure

        As with all sin, homosexuality is not limited to physical behavior. Sin includes thoughts and feelings as well.

        If a man or a woman defines him/herself as “homosexual” even though they refrain from sexual acts, then we have a very serious problem. The fact remains that homosexuality is an abomination, whether a person yields to it physically, or in various degrees mentally.

        As for some of the new homophiles’ support of Church teaching on marriage, it is irrelevant and not redeeming in the least: clearly, the new homophiles are not sanctifying other homosexual sinners — as indeed they can’t, since sin cannot sanctify. Anyway, it is a characteristic of our times to “believe” different doctrines for the sheer esoteric satisfaction that such theories give to a person, and are used as just another card in the “identity” game. To use your expression from one of your New Homophiles articles, that is just an “ivory tower.”

        And yes, I have followed the debate. I’ve read all six articles (and “brushed up” on them too), and I still believe that your answer is, at best, inadequate.

        Your strongest ally seems to be Daniel Mattson, but even your conclusion at the end of your third article (“The New Homophiles and their Critics,” January 17th, 2014) is wrong: for absolutely no one should want their 14 years old confused son to come any close to even Daniel Mattson, while they should do everything in their power to rather seek therapy for their son with one of the psychologists you mention is this article, even if it meant going to the ends of the world to find one (which would be unnecessary anyway, since such therapists are available in the U.S.)

        As for the continuous “debate” and “discussion” on homosexuality among Christians and in the Church, it increasingly smacks of Ostpolitiks. And we all know how that ended.

        • Austin Ruse

          I am not really interested in reengaging this debate and put in a position to defend the New Homophiles with whom I have and have expressed profound disagreements. Suffice to say, 1) thoughts are feelings are not sinful unless they are engaged, 2) you will see if you have followed the debate that I have come to oppose someone even identifying as homosexual even if all they do is identify and nothing more, 3) you should not be so dismissive of someone as heroic as Daniel Mattson, a man in Courage who has availed himself of the helps of the Church and who works mightily to live heroic virtues, 4) I do believe it is laudable that the New Homophiles accept and even defend the teachings of the Church, 5) where they get things wrong is a) in self-idenitfying as “gay” (highly problematic), b) thinking that their sexual inclinations have given them special gifts and c) that the Church needs to development doctrine to recognize their inclinations and their supposed gifts that have come from it.

          I am not sure what else you would want, for me to call for their jailing? They have aggressive attacked me (by following the debate, I mean in the comment boxes and on other sites) even though, when you read the pieces I mostly describe and ask questions. I use my name in pubic and criticize the same-sex movement and i have been labeled a hater by the southern Poverty law center. Ain’t that good enough for you?

          • bonaventure

            (1) Any literary text takes a life of its own after publication. You do not want to re-engage in a debate that you’ve been through once already, and which conclusions you believe are solid? Fair enough, but what’s written is written, and your past writings have implications on everything you write in the future.

            (2) Thoughts and feelings can be sinful, even if not acted upon: “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28, RSV). “I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault” (The Confiteor in the Roman Missal).

            (3) Indeed, you have opposed some of the new homophiles, especially in your third article. This does not negate the weakness of your overall lukewarm conclusions (especially the two I have pointed out – all while proposing a constructive resolution, based on your own reference to Drs. Rick Fitzgibbons and Joseph Nicolosi, and the Lincare Center; I even suggested that you investigate the work of Tony Anatrella [unfortunately, I believe that Anatrella’s work is not available in English]).

            (4) I have not dismissed Daniel Mattson – in fact, I believe I had good words for him. But the problem hinges on the very fact that he identifies with homosexuality, even if to a much lesser degree. If he did not, we would never have heard of him in the context of such a discussion. As for Courage International, I doubt it’s efficacy, just as I doubt the overall teaching efforts of priests and bishops on the issue of homosexuality, which is lacking to say the least.

            (5) All in all, even your detractors appreciate your
            work. But I sense – as I wrote – that too many Christians are going the way of the old failed Ostpolitiks: which was a futile attempt (and here’s the key: that it was futile) to find “some common ground” with the then main ideology of evil (to use St. John Paul II’s description of communism).

            Today’s ideology of evil is the culture of death, including homosexuality. I believe that intelligent commentators like you (with influence and therefore responsibility) should now close the chapter of the New Homophiles, admit that it’s not
            going anywhere, and open a new one: not calling for the jailing of homosexuals,* but for an uncompromised teaching about what homosexuality really is: “another ideology of evil” (again, that’s from John Paul II), with which there could no longer be any dialogue since it is futile. As for individual homosexual sinners who repent, give them all the best available tools to overcome their sinfulness.

            __________________________

            *About calling for the jailing homosexuals: it is interesting to notice that some nations in Africa are actually calling for it as we speak. Maybe they have seen firsthand the evil that homosexuality brings about, and are now trying to protect their culture against this abomination?

            • Austin Ruse

              Responses:

              1) I stand by what I write but the complete body and not just a few.

              2) These passages imply engagement. One cannot sin with engagement.

              3) I have opposed their proposition in the ways I laid out for you in the previous post. I do not oppose the individuals but their ideas.

              4) Daniel Mattson does not “identify” with homosexuality. He takes pains not to. That is a part of his mission and the mission of Courage.

              5) No comment.

              6) Get into the public debate with your name, if you dare.

              • bonaventure

                Too bad you chose not to comment on # 5. Because there may be the crux of the matter: it is futile to discuss homosexuality with the new homophiles and the old homofascists.

                In fact, it is as futile to discuss homosexuality with homosexuals today as it was pointless in the past to have a “dialogue” with communists and Nazis. One does not discuss with an ideology of evil.

                But I am glad that you have the resources to challenge them, all while using your own name, from behind the shield of a lobby organization like C-FAM (which I respect immensely), with the support of a staff of PhDs and lawyers. I guess not everyone has the same luxury.

                Have a great Feast Day of Ss. John Paul II and John XXIII.

                Bonaventure

                • Austin Ruse

                  Ok 5). Agree!

                  Thanks for your shift in tone ! Stuff can get some that way ! I know, I can Gabriele the same tone!

                  • bonaventure

                    Thanks and good luck … or shall I say God Bless, for you & C-FAM, and the work you do… And I say that in spite of some differences (mostly in strategy) that came up between us in the exchanges above.

            • TheAbaum

              “Thoughts and feelings can be sinful, even if not acted upon: “But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart””

              The act is looking. That passage describes active thoughts, not the transient thought that often enters our head and is disposed of -and certainly not feelings.

              You need to learn the difference between sin and temptation.

          • CadaveraVeroInnumero

            Bonventure is well spoken – and I tend to side – yet he should take *profoundly* your “profound disagreements with the New Homophiles”. Though, maybe as with him, I had wished the article series to have ended with a review of the work, of yes Courage”, but even more so with that of the likes of NARTH.

            I am not one who disputes the New Homophiles’ defense of the teaching of the Church regarding marriage and the call for all to lead a chaste Christian life. But I remain suspicious. If the forces within the Church reach a critical mass point where homosexuality (by stages, such as, at first, a ceremonial blessing of “friendships”) is given a certain theological acceptance, will the New Homophiles begin moving their line-in-the-sand? Homosexuality is a powerful drive within one who suffers from it, it demands allegiance.

            With you, Ii am not asking for this New Homophile business to be reignited here on the pages of Crisis. That will come in time, especially now that Robert Reilly has published his new book. His point that this debate over the acceptance of homosexuality has cirrupted the cultural discussion over everything – even items not sexual -is bulls-eye right on. This New Homophile conversation is not about the *feelings* of this New Homophile or that New Homophile.

            NOTE: There is a point to be made that homosexual acts are (in the moral law) other than the struggle over homosexual “thoughts and feeling”. But we should not make that difference (whatever its proper distinction) to become a weaponized notion. Such thoughts and feelings should not be sanctified as identity markers.

  • mendezjb

    Why don’t those dissenters join the Unitarian or episcopal churches rather than masquerade as Catholic?

    • If anyone can spot a substantial difference between Unitarianism, the typical Episcopal Church and Political Correctness, then your eyes are sharper than mine. And there lies the answer why dissenters stay: since the work is already done in those churches, the stay in one of the few institutions left on earth that isn’t PC until it does become PC.

  • Terry

    Throughout history reform in the Catholic Church has started with the PEOPLE in the Catholic Church.

    It has already started – this is another stone to be laid in the foundation.

  • Enough is Enough

    I have been a member of St. Luke’s parish in Charlotte for over 10 years. The idea that we are all “subversives” egged on by a nun is pure nonsense. We are not a heretical parish and I take offense that my church was made out to be one of the last bastions of “leftism.”

    • Mr. Ruse may have overgeneralized, but let’s not miss the main point: the kerfuffle was not caused by (as initially reported), good and orthodox Catholics taking issue with the nun’s use of extra-Catholic sources, but rather a very vocal group who are offended at the very existence of the Divine Law against homosexual acts and are gunning for a president who it seems is trying to steer in a more orthodox direction.

    • Objectivetruth

      Could ya pass this on to your fellow parishioners? It’s from the Catechism.

      2357″ 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, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approve”

  • fredx2

    The interesting thing was the petition against the sister. Almost everything it says is factually wrong, yet it forms the core belief system of those supporting gay marriage:

    “Specifically the petition said children can thrive even if their parents are divorced, same-sex couples can raise successful children, homosexuality does not occur because of a parent’s shortcoming, masturbation or pornography. The petitioners reject the phrase “homosexual lifestyle,” believe “homosexual couples are capable of monogamy” and that “homosexual people lead healthy, normal and productive lives.”

    Well, Children CAN thrive if their parents are divorced, but divorce is obviously a negative for children, so why pretend that divorice is totally neutral? /That is the impression they give.

    Same sex couples can raise successful children? We have no idea since no serious studies have been done. True,we do have a social science community that is rabidly accepting sub-standard studies to prove what they dearly want to be true, but all of the studies are serouisly flaws. And see Jonathan Haidt’s comments on the massive liberal bias in most social science these days. As he says, their studies are virtually useless.

    Homosexuality does not exist because of a parents shortcomings? Again, we have no idea.

    The pettioners believe that homosexuals are CAPABLE of monogamy. Sure they are capable of it but do not practice it. Most gay men, even if married find they simply do not want to be monogamous. There is an attempt to undo or cover up this research now, but it is out there.

    And healthy lifestyles? Again, they might. But then again, they most often are subject to all sorts of health risks and problems.

    • Michael Paterson-Seymour

      What would be the point of fidelity, where there is no possibility of a spurious issue, or of any issue at all, come to that?

      In France, the majority of jurists opposed SSM, because they had long regarded Art 312 of the Code Civil: [“The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”] as providing a functional definition of marriage iand thought it a pointless exercise.

    • Tony

      They are not capable of monogamy, any more than they are capable of hanging upside down in a tree for ten hours a day. That is, they “could” do it, but there is no reason for them to do it; for one, the same-sex relations between men are corruptions not of marriage but of male friendship; and these corruptions involve neither the possibility of children nor any whole giving of oneself to one who is not like oneself.
      It’s a sign of our foolishness that we’d even need to wait for studies to prove what anybody with half a brain knows. A child deserves a mother and a father. I don’t need a study to tell me that children should play outside, either.
      We should not let the other side dictate the terms of the argument. A man cannot marry a man; that is flat biological fact. A child needs a parent of each sex; it is cruel to deny it. Jesus forbade divorce; his words are impossible to get around. The same Jesus who forbade divorce, we are to suppose, would have been fine with men cruising rest stops. Ah, but not all gay men do that — no, they don’t. But something equivalent, yes, and all. It was a gay man, a friend, who told me that all gay men regularly use porn. All, not some.

  • bonaventure

    On the day of the canonization of Pope John Paul II, it may be the ideal time to remind ourselves that John Paul, at the end of his life, literally compared the current culture of death (including homosexuality) to the 20th century’s worst ideologies of evil, namely Nazism and communism. John Paul’s comparison of homosexuality to the ideologies of evil is at the end of this quote, but it is worth reading it in its entirety.

    Here’s a longer quote from John Paul’s posthumous book “Memory and Identity” (Rizzoli, 2005), p. 10-11:

             If man can decide by himself, without God, what is good and what is bad, he can also determine that a group of people is to be annihilated. Decisions of this kind were taken, for example, by those who came to power in the Third Reich by democratic means, only to misuse their power in order to implement the wicked programs of National Socialist ideology based on racist principles. Similar decision were also taken by the Communist party in the Soviet Union and in other countries subject to Marxist ideology. This was the context for the extermination of the Jews, and also of other groups, like the Romany peoples, Ukrainian peasants, and Orthodox and Catholic clergy in Russia, Belarus, and beyond the Urals. Likewise all those who were “inconvenient” for the regime were persecuted; for example the ex-combatants of September 1939, the soldiers of the National Army in Poland after the Second World War, and those among the intelligentsia who did not share the Marxist or Nazi ideology. Normally this meant physical elimination, but sometimes moral elimination: the person would be more or less drastically impeded in the exercise of their rights.
             At this point, we cannot remain silent regarding a tragic question that is more pressing today than ever. The fall of the regimes built on ideologies of evil put an end to the forms of extermination just mentioned in the countries concerned. However, there remains the legal extermination of human beings conceived but unborn. And in this case, that extermination is decreed by democratically elected parliaments, which invoke the notion of civil progress for society and for all humanity. Nor are other grave violations of God’s law lacking. I am thinking, for example, of the strong pressure from the European Parliament to recognize homosexual unions as an alternative type of family, with the right to adopt children. It is legitimate and even necessary to ask whether this is not the work of another ideology of evil, more subtle and hidden, perhaps, intent upon exploiting human rights themselves against man and against the family.

    • Austin Ruse
      • bonaventure

        Just finished reading the link. Thanks. Yes, it does match John Paul’s description of moral elimination. The SPLC belongs to the ideology of evil, as does their pet sin, homosexuality.

        About my criticism: I do believe that it is constructive, even though my style is not very diplomatic. And I guess it is painful (for both of us I assume) to see the Church struggling with an adequate answer to an otherwise very, very serious problem that threatens the very fabric of existence.

        • Objectivetruth

          I find a lot of Catholic critics of Austin Ruse are squishy, lukewarm armchair quarterbacks that Christ would eagerly vomit out.

          Austin has chosen to dedicate his life in service of the Church. He has been called to bare knuckle it in the ring with no less of an adversary than Satan himself. This type of toe to toe spiritual warfare is never pretty, always dirty. But have no doubt: he is on Christ’s winning side and the Holy Spirit is his corner man.

          We should all rise up and fight the good fight like Austin. If not, prayers and support to him and those that do.

          • Patrick

            Are you sure you’re talking about the same Austin “I’m more interested in destroying the ideas of the Left than in serious discussion of morality” Ruse?

            • Objectivetruth

              Lets take a look at some of the Left’s “ideas”:

              – killing the baby in the womb, under any circumstances.
              – forcing society to accept same sex marriage, or you will attacked, fined, penalized.
              – forcing people to pay for immoral contraceptive prescriptions and devices against their conscious and religious beliefs.

              The Left will shout you down if you try to engage them in a serious discussion on morality. The only recourse at that point is to attack these insane “ideas”, which are not ideas, but assaults on both God and nature.

              • Patrick

                Certainly, but Mr. Ruse literally listed interest in destroying political ideas ABOVE his interest in morality. On this here site back in January.

      • Objectivetruth

        Just read it…..

        God bless ya Austin, keep fighting the good fight.

    • CadaveraVeroInnumero

      Regarding your tussle with Mr. Ruse. You take him to task unnecessarily; though the man doesn’t need my dueling for him. But still . . for instance . . .

      You did give your point #5 (below) very strong wording – almost (in these times) dangerously so. When Ruse posted a “no comment” to #5 in his reply you came back with an equally strongly worded response (always clearly put, by the way). Was he worn down a bit? He finally put aside his hesitation and gave you his “I agree”.

      Do you understand what he just awarded you by crowning your #5 statement and wording with his agreement? Even as we would all agree, he is certainly free to debate any of your way of putting things?

      By attaching his agreement with your wording he gave, not so much to you, but his ever vulture-eyed enemies.

      As he told you, Mr. Ruse knows how they operate. All they need to do is to pull out your wording (that is, their sly editing of it) along with his “I agree” and they have in hand not only a new bludgeon but also a fistful of nails.

      They look for this kind of thing. And as Ruse told us he does not have the safety, as you and I, of hiding behind the shelter of anonymity. Should we match the bravery? Should I,, for instance, declare my support and step out into the bright boldness of my real name?

      Do we dare be as bold as Danie, knowing his king kept a pit of hungry lions? As Fr. Schall described to us recently, here at Crisis, there is much danger in doing so these days. (Do the New Homophiles have an inkling of that threat?)

      Maybe I should. Declare myself. I have no income or employment at stake. I would loose no company of anyone worth keeping. I would not receive the censure of family. But there is, at this time, a reason why I cannot. Though, scattered in my prior comments are enough clues to zero in.

      Though mark well, it is not the sad tale of my life which prevents me. Against the admonition that faithful Catholics should refrain from speaking of such dark deeds, I am more than willing to timeline that story : how my father introduced me to homosexuality at age 6; how it even established repulsive physical manifestations; how, as a boy, I yielded every time because that was the only time my father spoke to me – except once; how it, like a magnet, sent me onto the streets in Los Angeles as a prostitute (Hollywood & Vine to be exact); how the twining of homosexuality and Satanism converted sex into power; how it was destroying my marriage. Then came salvation, when standing before the icon of the Theotokos I received an exorcism (of sorts, for such always engages the free will). And to give flesh to redemption there was the pilgrimage to the holy hermitage of St. Herman of Alaska off of Kodiak Island. And a wonder-working icon of the saint. Though being the honest fool that I am, I do not deceive myself. This “gay thing” still remains a struggle of sorts> Which is why I never use the word “deliverance”, even in the context of an exorcism. But there was salvation and redemption.

      So, along with Mr Matson, I know what works.

      Yet, it is that – the knowing of what works – which fuels my ire against the IDEOLOGY of the New Homophiles. Though, I do pray for them, as I pray that any bitterness on my part is laid behind in the confessional. My prayers are sincere, for the HomoFascists will not let them snuggle, for long, within their 50 shades of grey. Once their usefulness as “spiritual friendshipers” are over the HomoFascists will insist on an acting out – if they want to avoid being sniffed out as homo-heretics. As for myself, I would rather be an exorcised *Ex* exercising the courage of redemption within any present struggles. Such doesn’t make for a perfect life, but the very fact of homosexuality in anyone’s life – in this present world, at least – kills off that satisfaction.

      But it is not this – a life with ugly threads of episodes – which prevents me from signing my name. The culprit,
      if I am honest, may be what I dread the most – fear. Fr. James Schall, you are damn right on!

      In the end, fear or no, so be it, I suppose.

      What can I say?

      My story is the kind one keeps away from “questioning” 14 year-olds — is it not? That seems to be the order of the day. I mean,this seems to be the sentiment of the much honored “gay evangelists” trolling our schools; and, truth be told, also of the New Homophiles who, while affirming the teaching of the Church (as, now constituted) also affirm a sort of, a kind of, “gay (queer) identity”.

      Both the Homo-Fascists and the New Homophiles hate my kind of story (and why they are so adamant of keeping it way from all those 8th Graders) for it drills the conversation down (if only by example) to where it should be – the foundational question about cause and etiology.

      That question – sorry, boys – is not closed off, not executed by the APA with their diagnostic manual.

      Note to HomoFascists and New Homophiles:

      Listen up! You won’t, can’t, will not get away with it. At some point you will be compelled to sit down at the dialogue table and discuss the question about the cause and origin of homosexuality. That big, fat elephant of a question will be plopped down on the table for all to dissect; the consumption of its truth making one ill with the revelation that lies were propagated and lives destroyed, or sadly satisfied that truth was finally dished out for all to partake.

      Frankly, I don’t see the obstacle for such a table discussion; if only that such would make for one interesting meal! We are, are we not, very much at ease discussing the cause and etiology of such sexual “identity” maladies as pedophilia, sadomasochism,and necrophilia? Why not homosexuality? Why has homosexuality been given privileged protection from having its origins discussed? Why the constant sniffing out of homo-heretics? Why do the hounds of hell bray so?

      Final note: Mr. Matson (unlike some of the fellows – and gals – over at Spiritual Friendship) would give good counsel to any 14-year=old boy struggling with homosexuality.

      • bonaventure

        CadaveraVeroInnumero,

        Thanks for your reply. I need to be going now, but I will definitively try to answer some points your raised. Your reflection, sharing and witness is worth it.

      • Objectivetruth

        Well said………

    • ForChristAlone

      Reading this, I am resolved to pick up this book and the truths discussed therein.

  • WSquared

    Excellent article.

    Parents who tried to defend the priest and the school are now
    frightened, frightened physically and frightened for their children.
    That is why none of them wanted to go on the record.

    Lord have mercy on us all. And I do mean all.

    What you’ve reported here is quite indicative of how all passive-aggressive sentimentalism operates: cry victim and cry about how “hurt” you are, and as soon as you sense that you have the upper hand, go full bore, and viciously, too. What you’ve reported here is the bad fruit of the politics of “nice”: saying “that’s not nice!” is wishy-washy, because it conveniently avoids what is truly unjust and unmerciful for having no true sense of sin in the first place. Notice also that the flipside of having no sense of sin is that the unscrupulous will always try to make up new sins for everyone else.

    …also in the latter category, by the way, is any dumbing-down of the Catholic faith as mere “religion” qua “respectability.” The issue with any such reduction is that nature sure hates a vacuum: the issue is what a lack of orthodoxy cedes ground to, and directly after Vatican II, the combination of “pray, pay, and obey” and “kumbaaya,” both of which are bad enough in themselves, gave rise to a lethal combination. These dissenters didn’t just come out of nowhere. They illustrate the logical conclusion of a larger malaise. Moreover, I see that a lot of these discussions tend to be about being loved, being accepted, being included, and being able to contribute: the only One who can truly enable everyone in this regard is Jesus Christ. Orthodoxy does matter, as does the capaciousness of the Catholic imagination. Orthodoxy isn’t there primarily to Tell Us What To Do in some sort of clumsy, adolescent sense; it is there to tell us Who He IS.

    Someone told me it reminded them of why Christ did not answer some of his questioners

    Actually, Christ welcomes our questions very much. Whenever we have questions or doubts, it is more than okay to humbly give them over to Him in prayer. It is we who often don’t like His answers: we are often impatient because we refuse to be still. But the thing about any conversation with Christ is that by engaging Him, He engages US. Also, any “loving relationship with Christ”– as with anyone else– means allowing Him to be truly Himself. So Who IS Jesus Christ? Moreover, questioning God always comes with the caveat that He can and will question YOU.

    At least one teacher was outraged. “He blessed my room? He did this without MY permission?”

    Wow.

    Demography— coupled with authentic catechesis—is destiny.

    Spot on at least on a couple of levels. We do need to be a bit more prudent when talking about biological solutions and destinies. While the biological solution speaks for itself, free will should make us humble enough to know that there are never any guarantees that any of our children will stay Catholic (the Church welcomes big and small families under “being open to life,” but it’s a bit presumptuous to think that “having lots and lots of Catholic babies” is some sort of magic-bullet solution). Before Vatican II, it’s true that people generally had more children. But all of us know whole swaths of relatives who came from those “big Catholic families” that were the norm before Vatican II, who not only don’t practice, but enthusiastically accepted that dissent and passed it onto their kids. We should always proceed with hope and joy. But our hope and joy must be grounded in sobriety: we are naive if we think that the same can’t happen to us, whether our families are big or small. But nothing is impossible for God, and for the lost sheep, never underestimate the forms that the “twitch upon the thread” can take. Furthermore, I notice that we usually talk about “keeping our kids Catholic,” but rarely about how authentic Catholic orthodoxy will enable our kids on all levels.

  • Anne Hendershott

    Thank you for this article Austin – I knew it was bad at Charlotte Catholic but did not know how bad. This is what happens when dissenters are allowed to dominate a culture. But you are right, “help” is on the way as faithful young priests begin to graduate from that amazing seminary. God will not let His children perish – He will not leave us alone without help–He promised us priests and a Church that will prevail. We need to keep praying for those sad and angry faculty members–and the families they are teaching.

  • kag1982

    Yeah. Most Catholic parents don’t want a Latin Mass lovin’ Vatican II hatin’ wingnut advising their children. I’m sure that there is a Catholic priest who while still being orthodox had a more pleasing personality.

    • Guest

      Calumny and lies.

    • 1776Mariner

      Not sure what your point is but Fr. Kauth is a wonderful young faithful (orthodox) priest. This article nailed it. The problem is with the “Catholics in name only” among the teachers and parents. But they are a dying breed. God is in control and the Holy Spirit is renewing the Church. But the bad theology/beliefs will not leave without creating a turmoil. It is part of the battle of ridding the church of heterodoxy. But God is on the side of truth and orthodoxy will prevail.

      • kag1982

        Yeah. I thought from the beginning that this was an issue of Father Kauth, not Sister Jane. I think that he was forced on the parents and I think that the parents have a right to be concerned about it. I think that Father Kauth did know Sister Jane’s wacky views on homosexuality and divorce. I’ve heard such nutty views espoused by conservative Catholics. That poses the question whether the priest can effectively minister to high school students. When a child who is having a hard time dealing with a new stepdad or a child who thinks he is gay comes to him for advice can he deal with these students with love and compassion or does he tell the gay child to pray the gay away and the child dealing with a new stepdad that his or her mom is a slutty adultress bound for the hellfire. It seems like the latter is going on rather than the former as the parents and teens are exasperated.

        And yep. It really does concern me that there is so many ultra orthodox Vatican II hatin’ priests of my age. The world contains lots of grays and I’m not sure that the Latin Mass set can deal with pastoral challenges of the Church. What happens if the parish they are assigned to enjoys contemporary worship? Could they deal with it or do they throw a tantrum about it? What about if a battered woman comes to them for counsel about her husband or a gay couple seeking to baptize their adopted child? Life is really messy and priests need to understand that people are imperfect. A small group of priests and self empowered conservative laypeople have taken it to argue that the Church is only black or white rules and that they are the enforcers of orthodoxy

        • 1776Mariner

          Fr. Kauth and Sister is not “wacky”. You are obviously not at all in touch with the truths of the faith and have bought the cultural lies regarding homosexuality. In my training for my health profession we learned that homosexuality is a case of arrested sexual development. Well, the sexual revolution started with claiming that sex outside of marriage was just fine (as long as one loves one another) and that contraceptive sex is just fine, etc. (Read Pope Paul’s Humanae Vitae…he was a prophet and his concerns have been realized.) Well the sexual revolution is continuing. The latest is proclaiming that homosexuality is normal and not a pathological medical diagnosis. Well, next will be proclaiming that pedophilia is normal. Sorry. The Church is correct and the sexual revolution has only succeeded in destroying the family. But eventually the culture will implode and the Church will come out of the shadows from where they will be driven by the atheistic culture and restore the culture….there is nothing new under the sun. PS: Fr. Kauth is a wonderful, Godly priest. He is the best. Sorry you don’t get it.

          • kag1982

            One of my best friends in high school came out as gay when I was a junior in high school. He came from a very devout traditional family and had his head screwed on quite straight. He was the president of SADD and involved in the pro life student committee. He was a very religious person and was involved with the Masses as a reader and such. He never had a boyfriend in high school. It was just that he wasn’t attracted to girls. Sadly, his father rejected him and he was virtually disowned by the time I graduated. I haven’t really kept in touch with him but he is less screwed up than many of the straight student council brown nosers who got married right out of college. So the idea that gay people are all screwed up and diseased flies in the face of my own experience. The Church can counsel its rules on sex without demeaning the person and saying that they are something that they aren’t. Start with I think that you are a damaged person and I’ll tell you all about who you are and what you are and that person doesn’t want to listen to you. Why should he or she?

            And if Father Kauth believes what you believe about homosexuality then he should not be counselling high school students or their parents.

            • Guest

              Thanks for the parody.

            • Art Deco

              1. Personal experience is seldom probative, even in loci where there are hurdles to concocting fictions, which there are not in fora like this.

              2. You’re making comparative assessments of the quality of this individual against an amorphous crew of others, standards applied and assessed NOS. You’re quite adamant in doing so even admitting you haven’t kept up with him.

              3. You’re assessment is dodgy even with regard to this discrete crew and you’re generalizing to whole populations.

              3. You’ve referenced a mess of his adolescent activities. So what? Adolescents are will ‘o the wisps.

              4. Someone who makes a public point of his sexual disorders at the age of sixteen is (a) very peculiar and (b) likely very much in rebellion against the authorities in his household.

              • kag1982

                1. Personal experience is important when religiously or pastorally ministering to someone. You must look at the person, not a preconceived stereotype of your own making.

                2. I still see him on Facebook and at some events. He is less screwed up them many of the other people I knew in high school. There are bad marriages, bakruptcies, affairs, divorces, etc.

                3. If he was a damaged sex addict and psychologically screwed up, then it seems to reason that he would be engaging in other self destructive behavior.

                4. Yeah, he was a good kid and not a rebel. Teen years is when children discover their sexuality.

                • Art Deco

                  1. You’re not pastorally ministering to someone, you are making statements about the regularities of human disposition and behavior.

                  2. You mean that what he reveals of himself of Facebook indicates he is not the most dysfunctional individual with whom you are acquainted. That’s a standard just about anyone could meet this side of the gutter or the state prison.

                  3. He might, he might not. What of it?

                  4. You’d like not to draw out the implications of your earlier statement I take it.

                  • kag1982

                    1. We are all pastorally ministering to people and acting as evangelists of the Church’s message. Why would gay people want to hear the Church’s message if it consists of “I hate you” and “I think that you are a sex addicted pedophile”? This is what the Church is saying to gay people.

                    2. He is one of the most functional people I know.

                    3. You’d think that someone with a destructive psychological disorder would find other ways to act out – heavy partying, drug use, flunking out of school, multiple sexual partners – rather than coming out (but remaining a virgin).

                    4. The guy was a model child and was devastated by his parents’ reaction to his orientation. I think that he was expecting them to be more accepting

        • Guest

          Is this a parody?

          • Art Deco

            One would hope.

          • Art Deco

            Have a look at his other commentary. Devoted practitioner of plumbing the shallows of a subject.

        • Tony

          All politics, all the time. You are not arguing in good faith. You will not admit it — you DO NOT BELIEVE that homosexual relations are an evil. YOU DO NOT BELIEVE that the idea that a man can marry a man is an offense against the Creator. In other words, you are tagging all people who do believe those things — who are honest Catholics — with a political label, in order to dismiss them, calling them “wingnuts,” and subjecting the priest in question to your calumny.
          You think that the priest doesn’t know that people are imperfect? What in the name of all that is holy gives you the strange idea that this priest doesn’t know that? Or perhaps it’s YOU who are unwilling to look the evil of these things in the eye, because it’s always more comfortable to avert your gaze and to pretend that all is well. Jesus wants us to embrace the leper. He doesn’t want us to pretend that there is no leprosy, or that leprosy is just a wunnerful alternative epidermal lifestyle.
          Be honest. Tell us how YOU attempt to bring sanity back to our sex-besotted wreck of a society — tell us what sacrifices YOU have made to uphold and to promote what the Church teaches on these matters. We’re waiting.

          • kag1982

            Bunny.. You know what is really lonely- being a 32-year-old single woman who doesn’t want to spread her legs and have sex with every man she meets in a bar. You won’t believe the number of blind dates who expect that. It is either that or nutters who want a submissive Duggar wife who will bow to the menfolk’s every whim and be a submissive homeschooling mommy. Of course, I am probably not fertile enough anymore to be of interest to those sort. (And I am small and could probably not handle having babies every year When treating women like a brood mare, always be sure that they are hearty like prized livestock.)

    • ForChristAlone

      A weigh-in from the protestant wing of the Catholic church.

  • By the way, check out Fr. Hollowell’s movie about the Church and homosexuality “The Third Way” here: http://vimeo.com/93079367

  • Jayne

    It is my understanding from my child a current Charlotte Catholic student that Sister resigned after giving the exact same talk in South Carolina, resulting in a gay student committing suicide. . . . regarding Bishop Jugis, his note to the parents was insulting!! He starts by condemning parental behavior when he is too “busy” to attend the meeting! Mass has ALWAYS been available as has confession to the students prior to Fr. Kauth’s arrival – my children attended as did I from 2003 on your “facts” are just plain wrong!

    • Guest

      Sounds like propaganda talking points.

      • 1776Mariner

        Yes, pure propaganda. But the heterodox love to grasp at straws.

    • Objectivetruth

      Show your proof on the South Carolina suicide. I just searched, nothing there. Calumny is a grave sin.

      • Patrick

        I do wish you’d pursue unsourced claims by both sides of the discussion with the same vigor.

        It’s quite frustrating when our own side of the argument spews forth an order of magnitude more “I heard it and it sounds right, so I’ll declare it as fact in a debate” type claims as those who disagree with us. (Okay, maybe I just hear it more because of more exposure, but we need to educate our own more so we aren’t constantly having to answer for the poor arguments of well-meaning but misinformed allies)

        • Objectivetruth

          “Jayne” has just pegged a suicide on Sister Dominic. This is more than an “unsourced claim.” This, by all account until “Jayne” provides proof, is a lie. This is the sort of vicious attacks those that wish to do harm to the Church, start. In the age of instant social media, this is the sort of lies that could spread like wildfire. Destroying the life and reputation of a good nun. Demonic ventriloquy.

          • Patrick

            So, it’d be more like when Mr. Ruse made baseless accusations of criminal activity on the part of a teacher who was commenting on this site back in January.

            Glad we’re on the same page.

        • Guest

          There is no real equivalency between the sides in this issue. What are you talking about?

          • Patrick

            Art Deco rightly calls out baseless claims by people on the other side of the debate as us… but we just let them pass if they’re made by people we agree with.
            It’s not about equivalency, it’s about not correcting our compatriots when they’re making poor arguments.
            Every time someone quotes Paul Cameron’s “research” (for instance) it makes us look like the vitriolic, fascist homophobes we’re so often characterized as.

            • Art Deco

              I have not seen Dr. Cameron discussed here. The last occasion in which his research was referred to I can recall was a discussion on an evangelical site about nine years ago. He had, up to that point, published extensively in peer-reviewed journals in psychology, mostly small research projects. There were 30-odd articles of this character placed up to 2005 and more since, I imagine. I do not recall he publishes in trade magazines at all, but there may be an article here or there. ‘Vitriolic, fascist’ is not exactly the idiom favored by the editors of Psychological Reports.

              • Patrick

                You’re right in that he’s not discussed by name very often.
                But you’re also wrong in that his “work” is also very frequently repeated still, just without any sort of attribution.
                Dr. Cameron was being ejected from psychological organizations for ethics violations long before 9 years ago. Try closer to 30 years ago. You know, back when his public activities involved inventing horrific urban legends about gay people mutilating children (and inadvertently including enough details that police were able to concretely determine that no such event had occurred).
                It was the 1980s when he advocated concentration camps and/or extermination of homosexuals (to the Surgeon General, even) to solve the AIDS crisis.
                It was the 1990s when he wrote an entire article in his newsletter praising Nazi Germany’s methods regarding homosexuals.
                Every major Psychological, Sociological, or Psychiatric organization in the world has officially distanced themselves from his “work” on the subject of homosexuality.

                I spent most of my life in the city where he got his disgusting start, so maybe I’m more acutely familiar with him and his sickening rhetoric than most.

                He’s worse than Westboro Baptist because as soon as his name is filed off, people begin to uncritically repeat his lies.

                • Art Deco

                  1. Patrick, your obsession with this man is strange and unsightly, and for that reason, I would never trust any precis you offered of anything he ever published. I have been asked to assemble bibliographies of his publications; in format, perfectly unremarkable material, peer-reviewed, accessible in the standard databases of psychological literature.

                  2. There are lobbies within the American Psychological Association who had it in for him. He was and is an obscure rank-and-file research psychologist, so one grasps for an explanation. Then one recalls the modus operandi of the gay lobby and one grasps less. In a different era, professional associations could not be manipulated and corrupted in this way, but that’s not the era we live in. The American Bar Association, the American Library Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Anthropological Association, the American Sociological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, &c. have all been injured in this way, some by the gay lobby, some by other rancid little crews with time for committee work. If you want an example of someone with far more clout subject to an odious vendetta, look up the name Napoleon Chagnon. If you want a more comical example, check out the collection of pinkos who run the ‘Social Responsibilities Roundtable’ of the American Library Associaiton.
                  .

                  • Patrick

                    His own newsletter had an article praising portions of the Holocaust with a large swastika emblazoned on the page.

                    That’s not *me* being unsightly.

                    But you also seem to think he started his “research” on homosexuality less than a decade ago, so you clearly have badly incomplete information on the subject.

                    • Art Deco

                      William L. Shirer’s history of the Third Reich also had a swastika on the cover. Graphics have purposes other than straightforward endorsement.

                      I quite clearly said that I had been in a discussion of the subject nine years ago and that at that time his list of publications in academic and professional journals numbered about 30. No, I did not think that he produced all those research findings in one year. In any case, the citations have the dates on them.

                      Now why would I conclude you interpret his remarks any more reliably than you interpret mine (or ‘Robyn’s’ to take another case in point)?

                    • Patrick

                      The swastika was IN ADDITION to the direct praise of their techniques, which was the primary subject of the article.

                      Let’s skip my “interpretation” though.

                      How about the 1985 CPAC convention, where he talked about the necessity of “extermination of homosexuals”? Matter of public record, that.

                    • Art Deco

                      Patrick, I have no reason to believe that that has any reality outside your imagination and that of gay websites run by obnoxious sectaries. You have not demonstrated a talent for nuance in this discussion.

                    • Patrick

                      Nuance is not necessary when the individual in question spent his career calling for concentration camps and/or extermination of homosexuals in public speeches, more than a few of which were recorded.

                      This shouldn’t even be an issue. I can’t imagine why anyone who’s not from Stormfront.org would defend that kind of rhetoric.

                    • Art Deco

                      Patrick, the example you supplied did next-to-nothing to substantiate the contentions you’ve been making. You have a chronic problem with interpreting people’s words – his, mine, “Robyn’s”.

                    • Patrick

                      Former Surgeon General Koop stated that Cameron directly advocated extermination of homosexuals to him.

                      Don’t see where my interpretation is involved in that publicly documented statement by a respected individual who’s hardly a left-wing gay rights activist.

                    • Art Deco

                      You keep saying it’s ‘publicly documented’. The last ‘public document’ you supplied did not say what you insisted it did.

                    • Patrick

                      Why are you trying so hard to defend someone who advocated concentration camps at the 1985 CPAC convention? Pretty public events, CPAC…
                      Lots of people listening to the speakers. Conservative people. People with no interest in vilifying their own to support an agenda they disagree with.

                    • Art Deco

                      Patrick, you misinterpreted and misrepresented what he said in his 1999 newsletter, you (and others) allude to a conversation with Everett Koop that Dr. Koop couldn’t be bothered to mention (though Dr. Cameron is mentioned in passing in a different connection) and now you’re telling me he said x or y or z at the Conservative Political Action Conference. This is another internet meme. Problem is as follows:

                      1. In this circumstance and others, you place Dr. Cameron in improbable situations. It’s conceivable he attended CPAC in 1985. CPAC then existed, thought its attendance was sufficiently modest that if he did attend, he likely was just about the only one within commuting distance of Lincoln who did. You have an academic psychologist attending a conference that in our own time (and presumably then) is a haunt of club hobbyists, opinion journalists, politicians, political staff, and aspirant political staff. In my own experience in party politics, the ratio of opinions to willingness to do humbling things like canvass is fairly high for academics. Knocking about with people who want to work on Jack Kemp’s next campaign not their deal.

                      2. Doubly improbable you have him offering blood curdling statements at a mainstream political gathering. This sounds plausible to some of Jonathan Haidt’s research subjects, I am sure. The conclusion of his research, however, was that his subjects caricatures their opposition in a way others did not.

                      3. The one direct quotation that turned up in my internet searches had him saying, “‘Unless we get medically lucky, in three or four years, one of the options discussed will be the extermination of
                      homosexuals.” I would not stipulate he did say that, but pleased be advised that is what is known as a ‘faulty prediction’. It is not a signature of neo-Nazi views.

                      By the way, the source of this last was Mark E. Pietrzyk, the professional homosexual you quoted earlier.

                    • Patrick

                      You say Dr. Koop “couldn’t be bothered to mention” it… but he did mention it. I told you where he mentioned it and your only response was that he could not possibly have remembered Cameron, even though you yourself mentioned an instance where he DID remember Cameron.

                      It does beg the question of why Dr. Koop would let people attribute those claims to him for *nearly twenty years* without ever contradicting them.
                      It’s not a new controversy and these statements have been a notable part of the discourse for quite a long time.

                      Surely he would correct the record if someone were just attributing such extreme claims to him, yes? I find it at least an “improbable situation” that he would not do so.

                      Oh, And I’m curious what your citation is for Mr. Pietrzyk being a “professional homosexual.”
                      I was able to identify that there is a journalist by that name, but nothing about homosexuality associated with him save that he wrote an article about Cameron, and nothing at all about prostitution (though I realize that was probably simply a poor word choice rather than an actual claim on your part).

                      But I guess it boils down to this: Is he the sort of person who advocates concentration camps and extermination and government forcibly tattooing people’s faces against their will, or is he the sort of credulous dupe who breathlessly repeats horrific accusations of public acts of rape and mutilation that have no basis in fact whatsoever, and defends the repetition of urban legends because they “could have happened”?
                      And which of those makes him a good source to cite if you want to make an argument that won’t just turn into an argument about him instead of persuading anybody?

                    • Art Deco

                      Patrick, the only reference to Dr. Cameron in Dr. Koop’s memoirs refers to the man’s appearance on a picket line. You’re telling me he has a private meeting with Cameron where Cameron says ‘kill the queers’ and that merits no mention in his memoirs. However, he spots Cameron on a picket line outside one of his speaking engagements (without conversing with him) and that merits a mention.

                      Patrick, Dr. Koop’s memoirs would be a primary source. So would his office appointment calendar which is on file with his other papers at the National Library of Medicine. You can schelp down there and see if Cameron appears there either. Pietrzyk is not a primary source, and it would not surprise me if there be quite a daisy chain behind his claims.

                      Pietrzyk has been associated with an organization called the ‘Independent Gay Forum’. That’s the only employment he cared to list on that particular article.

                      And I am pointing out the obvious. There’s what Paul Cameron has said and done and then there is the internet meme of what he’s said and done. Our political culture being what it is, I’d wager the gap between the two is abnormally large for this man, though they’ll be a gap for any public figure. A small amount of research on this topic suggest three of your four key claims are tommyrot.

                      You’re quite invested in your antipathy to this man, which is too bad.

                    • Patrick

                      I said nothing about “private meetings” or the phrase “kill the queers” or any other such sub-rosa conspiracy nonsense. Maybe stop inventing new details and attributing them to me.

                      I said that according to the interview mentioned above, he said Cameron had recommended that course of action. That could have been in a document. A document that, being by a psychologist who, as of 1983 (at least prior to December) had not yet raised any notable controversy outside of Lincoln, Nebraska. A psychologist who focused on homosexuality.

                      That’s the sort of thing a responsible Surgeon General would read when trying to deal with the rise of AIDS.
                      I’m sure Koop had the sense to stop bothering with Cameron’s nonsense as soon as he got to the part about predictions of having to exterminate people, but I can see why, prior to that, anyone outside of Lincoln wouldn’t have considered him someone with meaningful information to contribute to that particular public health issue.

                      Besides, the fact that he could spot him without conversation clearly indicates that he was at least passingly familiar with him. Probably because Cameron is a very persistent individual who isn’t deterred by things like being told “We don’t like how much you talk about the necessity of concentration camps.”

                      Okay, Pietrzyk might be gay. I wasn’t aware of that. I’m curious, though, why we must assume anything he says is a lie when we must also assume any untrue thing Cameron has been caught saying must have been an earnest repetition of something he was fooled into believing.

                      You seem to be forgetting again that *I* am also a primary source of information about former Lincolnite Paul Cameron.
                      The only two consistent themes of his career are that he talks angrily about homosexuality a lot and that he’s been caught fabricating or misstating claims again and again and again throughout his entire career.

                      He’s either a deliberate liar or he just automatically believes anything that agrees with his preconceived notions.
                      Neither one makes him anything resembling a credible source of information.

                      And honestly the only reason I have any stronger feelings about him than I have about the urban legend email forwards I’m constantly sent by credulous people who have never heard of Snopes is that people keep quoting him as if he were infallible when they want to rationalize their emotional response to a difficult issue to discuss.

                      And from a purely constructive-criticism base position, why would someone use him as a source when all that will EVER achieve is this exact argument repeated ad nauseum?

                      No one will ever be persuaded by his work at this point. Isn’t it just sensible to use a source of information that won’t cause people to just ignore anything else you might have to say?

                      At BEST he makes anyone citing him look like the sort of critical-thinking-deprived dupe who believes (and gleefully parrots) any breathless claim they read in an email or overhear in the break room.

                    • Patrick

                      Actually, I apologize. I completely forgot an entire line of evidence. Dr. Cameron’s own words.

                      “A realistic hope of slowing down the AIDS epidemic involves quarantining gays, closing all gay bars and baths, criminalizing homosexual acts that involve exchange of bodily products and closing the borders to homosexual travel.”
                      -Paul Cameron, USA Today, Feb. 6, 1985

                      “Partial quarantines appear to be too little, too late.”
                      -Paul Cameron, from his book, AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome: A Special Report (Also printed under the title Special Report: AIDS: Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome; and AIDS: Guidelines for Containing the Homosexual Venereal Disease)

                      The back cover of Cameron’s book stated that homosexuals should be “contained, segregated, controlled and stigmatized.”

                      The book also suggests “exile” of homosexuals from America.

                      Oh, and he felt Wayne Lutton–a white supremacist, white nationalist, and Holocaust denialist–was a reasonable co-author for his book.

                      Actually, I think the voluntary professional association with Lutton well after Lutton made a name for himself writing for white supremacist groups is the most damning, but I’ll go on.

                      He also said it’s “sensible” to have a law prohibiting anyone who isn’t married and has children from inheriting property. Which is kind of another topic, but considering that Catholics consider the single, lay life to be a valid vocation, that’s yet another perfectly valid objection to his rhetoric.

                      He also objected when James Dobson said unjust discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. So Cameron disagrees with the Catholic Church on that issue.

                      “The ‘hate crimes’ gays complain about
                      are infrequent and seldom involve more than name-calling or snide
                      remarks.” – Paul Cameron
                      Which is either woefully uninformed or a deliberate lie, considering that a hate crime by definition (in the US) must involve a “criminal offense against a person or property” and it literally took me 3 seconds to find that on the FBI website.

                      He’s made a habit of referring to homosexuals as “parasitic lives.” Which, aside from being contrary to Catholic teaching, is pretty much also how Mr. Lutton (mentioned above) describes anyone who isn’t as pale as himself. It causes one to wonder how much those two kept in touch in the 90s when they were both writing about Nazi Germany…

                      He also said homosexuality “ought to be regarded as, and punished
                      as, criminal activity.” So… he clearly *was* for locking them all up. Just like in that article he wrote about Nazi Germany. Huh, funny coincidence, isn’t it. Almost like he was working closely with a white supremacist and Holocaust denier in the early 80s… named Wayne Lutton.

                    • Patrick

                      Also, are you suggesting that C. Everett Koop is a gay rights sectary?

                    • Art Deco

                      No. What’s the late surgeon-general have to do with anything?

                    • Patrick

                      Dr. Koop personally, publicly attested that Cameron advocated of outright extermination of homosexuals to him as a solution for AIDS.

                    • Art Deco

                      Again, you’re going to have to come up with the goods. That’s a citation to a reputable source, not an internet meme.

                    • Patrick

                      Mark E. Pietrzyk, News-Telegraph, March 10, 1995.

                      Can’t find a copy online, but the author of the interview seems to be credible from what I can find about him.

                    • Art Deco

                      Again, Dr. Koop’s memoirs mention Dr. Cameron once in passing, as having been on a picket line outside a speaking engagement Dr. Koop had. Somehow I tend to doubt the two of them ever had a conversation of significance to either, no matter what yarn Mark E. Pietrzyk is pulling.

                    • Patrick

                      Alright, so let’s focus on Cameron’s public speech at CPAC (1985) saying that government force should be used to forcibly tattoo identifying marks on the faces of every person who had contracted AIDS, in addition to saying that if the AIDS crisis got any worse, concentration camps and extermination of gays would become necessary?

                      In every other context, rational Conservatives would find that kind of invasive government action despicable and outrageous and they would not only *not* defend the proponent of it, but would pointedly avoid making any arguments that rely on anything the guy had ever said.

                      Why are people here defending something so contrary to good conservative principles?

                    • Guest

                      Where is the link?

                    • Patrick

                      Check above.

                  • Patrick

                    Oh, and maybe add Special Report: AIDS to your bibliography of him… You know, that book he co-authored that outright advocated concentration camps.

            • Guest

              Oh, so that is your beef. Every time anyone quotes “research” one is biased in some way. Research is not a god. It is one tool of varying import.

            • Art Deco

              it makes us look like

              You’d benefit from being less other-directed.

              • Patrick

                Rationalizing.
                I’m saying we should hold our in-group to at least an equal level of accountability as members of our out-group.
                Then I highlighted some of the problems that result from us giving a free pass to ourselves to reinforce the already sensible position.

                Fact is we wouldn’t be called homophobes nearly so often if we didn’t, as a group, unknowingly quote a virtual neo-nazi (Dr. Cameron) so often.

                • Art Deco

                  1. You get into arguments with people, they make statements, you make counter-statements. It is not my business or yours to clean up public discourse, nor can it be done. There are self-appointed hall monitors in this world; they are untrustworthy.

                  2. Paul Cameron is a lapsed academic who presides over a small research center (in Nebraska, as I recall). He is about 70 years old. He has published a mess of papers in his professional discipline, modally in Psychological Reports, an academic journal that specializes in briefs on small research projects. I cannot figure how this man was transmogrified into a ‘virtual neo-Nazi’ in your addled head. You need to stop trading in this tripe. It’s false and malicious.

                  • Patrick

                    He did start the disturbed period of his career in Nebraska, yes. Lincoln, to be specific. As a born-and-raised Lincolnite who lived there at the time, it’s conceivable I’ve heard more about him than you.

                    He’s a virtual neo-nazi because he used his newsletter to praise Nazi Germany (specifically their persecution of homosexuals), and repeatedly advocated concentration camps or outright extermination of them as a solution to AIDS.

                    Don’t call me a liar just because you’re unfamiliar with the subject I’m educating you about.

                    I can provide extensive sources on Dr. Cameron if you like.

                    • Guest

                      Do you have some links about this?

                    • Patrick

                      Sure, just give me some time to compile them again. I seem to have lost the txt file I kept of them when my old computer died.

                    • Patrick

                      http://web.archive.org/web/20011224220028/http://familyresearchinst.org/FRR_99_03.html#gays

                      Note that the man he merely characterizes as “who was in charge of some of these decisions” was a convicted murderer and later became the commandant of Auschwitz.

                      I’m also having trouble rediscovering a link to the original interview, but according to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Cameron was recommending extermination of gays as early as 1983.

                      It also seems that the University of Nebraska doesn’t have internet accessible records regarding the ethics investigation against him in December 1983, but it was the complaints by several of his coworkers (in Nebraska, I should add, which is hardly a gay rights hotbed even now and absolutely wasn’t in the early 80s) and the investigation that followed that prompted the APA investigation that resulted in his expulsion from that group.

                      This was following a censure by the Nebraska Psychological Association due to ethics concerns in 1982.

                      And according to Dr. Robert D. Brown (Happold Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln) and Dr. James K. Cole (Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln):

                      “Perhaps the most disturbing statement made by Dr. Cameron, however, occurred at the University of Nebraska Lutheran Chapel on May 3, 1982. In a tape recording obtained by the “Lincoln Star” newspaper, Cameron is quoted as saying: ‘Right now here in Lincoln there is a 4 year-old boy who has had his genitals almost severed from his body at Gateway in a restroom with a homosexual act.’ A “Lincoln Star” article, May 8, 1982, was titled ‘Cameron Used False Report.’ This article and articles in the “Star” and “Lincoln Journal,” May 6, 1982, pointed out that checks with Lincoln police indicated that this and similar rumors about a 7 year-old boy and a 14 year-old son of a prominent Lincoln family had no factual basis. Police were reported as ‘baffled as to the origin of the story.’ On May 10, 1982, the following editorial statement appeared in the “Lincoln Star.”

                      Cameron later defended his use of the completely fabricated claim because it “could be true.”

                      Also, a constant theme throughout his career is researchers reporting that he cites them as sources for information that is not even present in the work he is citing, as well as statistical analysis of his own work showing that not even his own research corresponds to the claims he makes.

                    • Art Deco

                      Patrick, your link is to an image of a 15 year old newsletter which includes a historical account of the experience of homosexuals in concentration camps in Nazi Germany, complete with lengthy quotations from Rudolph Hess (presumably derived from some secondary source, though perhaps from official testimony) of what was done when to manage such prisoners. Presumably, someone would criticize the source material, offer other source material, offer alternative accounts of what happened in those camps. However, the genre is reportage, not commentary. The closest he comes to a recommendation is a vague statement in the last sentence that is open to interpretation. The thesis advanced is that that the dimensions of the homosexual population are not fixed. That thesis is actually commonsensical, and requires no reference to histories of homosexuals operating in penal colonies. This is the basis for your referring to this man as a neo-Nazi?

                      Your other smoking gun is a tape recording (event not specified) where he made reference to what appears to have been an urban legend (which he evidently believed). That’s not meticulous or prudent, but people do that on occasion, even academics. A certain amount of public discussion is like the party game of ‘Rumors’, where ‘uncle John has a limp, pass it on’ turns into ‘uncle John is a pimp, pass it on’. I fail to understand why, more than thirty years after the fact, one of his shabby lapses interests you so.

                    • Patrick

                      Given the context that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop also attested that the same man who included that reportage in his newsletter was also advocating “extermination” of homosexuals for 16 years prior. To him directly. As advice for how to combat AIDS.

                      *That* is the basis for referring to him as virtually a neo-Nazi.

                      And I can understand that you probably didn’t live in Lincoln, Nebraska in the 80s, and as such you probably don’t remember the coverage of that particular speech he made.
                      But I did live there, and I do remember. This isn’t a subject I found out about 30 years after the fact. He’s been a stain on people who oppose gay marriage and such ever since, mostly because his claims get breathlessly repeated in email forwards by the credulous and those who care more about winning an argument than using facts to support the Truth.

                      If I were the sort to horde newspapers I would post a photograph of the news coverage of it online and link you.

                      And funnily enough, that non-meticulous, non-prudent, credulous repetition of unsubstantiated claims simply because they vividly support one group’s narrative is exactly what I’ve been saying we need to discourage.

                      Or should we resume spreading that urban legend that he defended even after it was proven false?

                    • Art Deco

                      Given the context that former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop also
                      attested that the same man who included that reportage in his newsletter
                      was also advocating “extermination” of homosexuals for 16 years prior.
                      To him directly. As advice for how to combat AIDS.

                      Sorry, Patrick, as an authority on matters factual, you’re batting close to nil here.

                      That aside, Dr. Koop was the chief of the Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service. Why would he be conversing with an obscure psychologist from Nebraska who is not a physician nor an epidemiologist nor prominent in any subfield of behavioral research? It is conceivable they met, but then again it’s conceivable Koop could have met just about anyone during his public career. It’s also conceivable that Koop got lots of crank mail, though not readily conceivable he’d remember much of a specific piece 16 years after the fact.

                    • Patrick

                      An “obscure” psychologist who was a speaker at CPAC just two years later and publicly advocated it again there?

                      Dr. Koop said Cameron was recommending it to him as early as 1983. He said this in an interview 1995. Four years BEFORE the Nazi Germany article in Cameron’s newsletter.

                      Are you saying Dr. Koop was a gay-rights shill? Or that he would just randomly decide to slander an “obscure psychologist” that you don’t believe he would even remember having met?

                    • Art Deco

                      Dr. Koop published a memoir in 1991 of which a paperback edition was issued in 1993. It’s possible to do a text search of the latter on Google books. Dr. Cameron is mentioned once in passing – as having been on a picket line at a speaking engagement Dr. Koop had.

                      Somehow I tend to think Dr. Cameron is not the only one who has been known to retail urban legends.

                    • Patrick

                      So, wait, this obscure psychologist that it’s “not readily conceivable” (your words) that Dr. Koop would even remember was mentioned *by name* in his memoir?

                      If he could remember the guy by name in 1991, I’m sure he could still remember the guy in 1995.
                      And he was the Surgeon General during the height of the AIDS crisis. He *might* just have been paying attention to the recommendations made to his office by psychologists who had dedicated their careers to writing about homosexuality.

                      Although I should use the word “psychologist” carefully, since Cameron’s credentials to practice psychology expired in 1995 and he never attempted to renew them.

                    • Art Deco

                      I have no clue as to how he defended himself afterward.

                      Patrick, there’s a site called ‘Snopes.com’ which provides accounts of urban legends, some true, some false, some merely unproven. He could have been referring to a garbled account of an actual crime or accident, passed through how many hands who knows. It’s not that important.

                    • Patrick

                      His claim included a very specific location. In Lincoln Nebraska.
                      The Lincoln police IMMEDIATELY responded to his claim by investigating it, and found NO evidence WHATSOEVER that any such crime had happened at all.

                      He defended himself by saying it was reasonable to claim it actually happened on the grounds that (he believed) “it could have happened.” Even though by that time he knew for a fact (due to the police investigation) that it had not.

        • Art Deco

          I’m not pursuing her claim, I’m deriding it, as it should be. A youngster who puts a bullet in his head is the responsible party for that. If you wish to apportion blame to his caretakers and preceptors, the least plausible target is a lecturer he encountered once. That aside, it is fairly rum to attribute suicidal melancholia to a summary of a literature review in The Linacre Quarterly. Anyone with an ounce of sense would attribute that to his ruined interior architecture, not to The Linacre Quarterly.

    • Art Deco

      It is my understanding from my child a current Charlotte Catholic
      student that Sister resigned after giving the exact same talk in South
      Carolina, resulting in a gay student committing suicide. .

      I’d say your revealed conception of human motivation, human behavior, and personal responsibility is such that you understand diddly/squat.

    • Tony

      There’s available and there’s available. In the Canadian parish where we spend our summers, confession is available, just as fox pelts are available. You just have to go out and catch yourself a fox. The question is one of frequency, regularity, and incorporation into the life of the school.
      It is nasty of you to say that Sister Dominic’s talk was the cause of a suicide. You do not know that. Who could know it? Was there a suicide note? Your source is a teenager, but even if it were a reporter, it is an evil to repeat what is at best a rumor. This is the sin of detraction.
      Let us see the note from the Bishop, and we can judge for ourselves. A question to you: Were you dissatisfied with Sister’s talk because it failed in its objective, to move students to accept the fullness of the church’s teachings on sex and marriage, or because she dared to question the sugar-coated version of sexual evils that is promoted in our media?
      If there is anyone out there who doubts that the median number of sexual partners for a typical homosexual man in America is upwards of 200 in a lifetime — actually, a lot higher than that — then I conclude you must be a woman, because you have never been undressed in a men’s locker room.

      • Guest

        Tony, I’m curious, are you gay? How would you know how many partners gay men have? Is that how many you have had? Do you have sex every time you undress in a mens locker room

        • Tony

          And what gives you the right to make a disgusting and personal comment? I know because gays themselves say so. I take them at their word. If you know anything about boys, what they do when their sexuality is misdirected would not be a great surprise; that is what I meant about the locker room. The actual median number of partners, lifetime, for homosexual men, before the AIDS epidemic, was more than 500. Afterwards, it’s somewhat fewer, but only somewhat. Every single gay man in America has either had anonymous sex or knows plenty of people who have. It is a big part of the lifestyle. What on earth do you think causes the venereal diseases to spread, in such a small and scattered population?

    • ForChristAlone

      The Charlotte diocesan school should be closed as it is NOT a Catholic school that is faithful to the Gospel and Church teachings.

      • Art Deco

        The question at hand is whether it be a salvageable apostolate.

        1. What’s the faculty and administration like?
        2. Can you recruit clientele in sufficient numbers to service your fixed costs (carrying charges on the building, &c)?

        Given the character of the clientele they have now, I suspect the answer to question 2 is ‘not a chance’. Without an ample supply of men and women religious, the expense of private schooling leaves it largely a collecting pool of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie. These people have the prejudices of their class and they do not take instruction from mere clergymen.

        In our time, homeschooling and homeschool co-operatives are the viable conduit if there be one.

        • ForChristAlone

          You write (very wisely): “largely a collecting pool of the professional-managerial bourgeoisie” but did you mean (cess)pool?

    • ForChristAlone

      “It is my understanding from my child a current Charlotte Catholic student…” This is exactly the problem: the adults are taking their cues from the children.

      Furthermore, if you actually did attend the school in question, you should ask for a refund since your writing skills are abominable.

    • ForChristAlone

      You have committed a mortal sin of detraction by stating that Sister’s talk caused a SC student to commit suicide. Since you’re so familiar with the sacrament of Reconciliation at the school under question, you might march your butt over there immediately to confess this most egregious sin.

  • Jim H.

    That school should be shut down immediately and reopened with orthodoxy and orthopraxy top of agenda. None of this dissent reflects the humility and love of Christ. It reflects the self-centered agenda and relativist thinking of the dissenting left. Peter isn’t their guide, its their genitalia.

    • 1776Mariner

      Nah, just fire the heterodox teachers. The heterodox parents will bail and all will grow from there.

      • Charlotte Smith

        Not so much, the heterodox parents pay the bills in that diocese…No way the diocese will give up the bishop’s $1.6 million mansion, chauffeur, pilgrimages and big fat collection plates from the liberal churches…The homeschoolers with the 10 kids falling out of the Econoline vans can’t pay the bills. CCHS is a cash cow, why do you think it’s so expensive, the high school carries a lot of water for the diocese and if the liberal parents go, so does the high school and so does about 99% of the collection…not gonna happen…

        • Art Deco

          I think we get the point sister. You people think you own the place.

          • Guest

            The “new” gospel perhaps?

        • ForChristAlone

          anything else you find objectionable about the Catholic Church in Charlotte? Tell us what you think about the Church’s teaching on contraception, homosexual “marriage”, male-only clergy, Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the sacrament of Reconciliation as it applies to you,

        • antonsdatter

          If CCHS is such a cash cow, why is the diocese financially supporting the school? By comparison with other Charlotte private schools, CCHS is a bargain. The tuition there is not considered expensive.

          Those home-schoolers you scorn and seem to resent are contributing to their parish/diocese and, therefore, subsidizing the tuition you pay.

          If the “liberal” parents are going to run CCHS, then we would all be better off if the school closed, as it would no longer be Catholic and would no longer have a purpose.

  • Pingback: Scholars Disappointed in Aquinas College (Tenn.) Statement on Sr. Jane Laurel | Catholic Canada()

  • Joelle

    One source told me, “When a new orthodox priest takes over a parish, the dissenters up and leave and have to go somewhere else and they are running out of places to go.”

    I really wish you would reveal the name of your one source like you did the names of Ms. Bischoff and Ms. Earnhardt, because this
    statement is so untrue it made me laugh and I wonder if
    someone actually said it. It is either an outright lie or a comment
    from someone suffering from severe delusions. Just look at the Charlotte DSA assessment amounts for 2014: St. Matthew (liberal) — $693,340 St. Patrick (conservative) $84,937. These amounts are based on parish size, so it looks like the “dissenters” have found a place. I left St. Patrick’s four years ago (after having been a member since 1987) I started attending a Jesuit parish (St. Peter) and my only complaint is that if you are not there 30 minutes before a mass, you stand…I just checked the most recent weekly collection and it was $44,000, way ahead of budget which means they are packing the house every week. There are plenty of “places to go” and they are flourishing. As for CCHS, 99% of the people who support Sr. Jane, don’t have children in the system, and they should shut up, move on and worry about their own children’s schooling. A survey was recently commissioned (at the expense of CCHS parents) and was 90% against Sr. Jane…

    • Objectivetruth

      From “Father Z’s blog”, interesting thoughts:

      http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/03/sister-explains-the-situation-spittle-flecked-nutty-bullying-intimidate-ensue/

      No, I don’t have children at CCHS. I’ve read however, on several sites what she has said and frankly if my kids were in high school I’d want them to hear her message. Our society is awash in a pro gay culture. Our children need to hear the Truth, that the gay culture is a sin. And high school age students are old and savvy enough to handle a blunt discussion on the topic.

      I’m confused about your balance sheet litany on how much is in the collection basket every week at the various parishes. Are you describing the moneyed parishes as “liberal”, such as St. Matthews in your example? And if so, define what you mean? What is a “liberal” Parish? One that dissents from authentic Church teaching? I’m guessing then your Catechism is much thinner than mine.

      • Joelle

        Well then Father Z’s catechism is pretty thin too, why would he put an Amazon ad on his blog that says he gets a percentage of sales when you buy things on Amazon through his ad if he didn’t subscribe to balance sheet litany?

        • Guest

          Where does this violate the CCC?

    • Guest

      IOW, people go where they hear what makes them feel good. Not exactly the Gospel but hey it is all about me baby. Me Me Me.

      • Objectivetruth

        That’s what confuses me. Does she parish shop until she finds one that will preach what she wants to hear or fits her lifestyle?

        • Guest

          The post was all about money. Not exactly viewing choices from the standpoint of eternity.

          • Objectivetruth

            Exactly. If there’s $100,000 in the basket that week, or $100, what’s it matter? What’s that have to with true Catholic teaching? These days, I’m guessing I’d probably get real Catholicism at the $100 parish.

            • Joelle

              For one thing it shows that people are attending, if you read my original post, I was disputing the fact that liberal Catholics have no place to go, they do, and fill the pews too. And if Conservatives really care about true Catholic teaching, you’re right they shouldn’t have to tithe…The $100 parish shouldn’t be asking for any money…I got an invitation for cocktails at the Bishop’s residence $5,000 per couple! Why would I, a member of a liberal parish ever be asked to Jugis’ residence for drinks? Could it be that I tithe? Maybe the 5 grand appealed to him? Again, prove to me that the conservation “$100 parishes” don’t ask for money, and I will take it all back…

              • Tony

                You are not answering the question. There is no such thing as a “liberal” or a “conservative” Catholic on issues that have been defined for us, as to be held by all of us. You cannot be a Catholic who believes that a man can marry a man. You’re either going to accept what the Church teaches or not. You cannot say to Christ, “Thus far and no farther.”

                • Joelle

                  And you never answered my question…the unnamed coward mentioned in the article that dissenters have no place to go. I countered that they do have a place to go (several by the way) and no one, not one person has disputed that. They have just attacked my faith and beliefs because they are angry at how the conservative parishes are shrinking and the liberal parishes are growing (St. Matthew is the fastest growing parish in the country). So then you say I’m not really a Catholic (again an attack instead of a fact to counter my claim) because that’s all you have to fall back on. When Bishop Jugis removes St. Matthew, St. Peter and St. Gabriel(all led by lefty grey heads as Ruse nastily describes these wonderful men of God) from the diocese of Charlotte, the assertion that dissenters have no place to go may hold water. Until then, we are all doing just fine, you don’t get to decide whos Catholic, Jugis does, and I don’t see him kicking us to the curb anytime soon.

                  • Guest

                    What good is a liberal parish with cash if people are not faithful?

                    • Joelle

                      And who are you to judge who is faithful and what is in one’s heart? I will compare the good works of St. Peters to any other parish…And the diocese obvious ly likes cash, why else would they ask us for $65 million this year?

                    • Guest

                      I am not judging anyone’s heart. I am judging words and actions. The article is about agitators rejecting Church teaching. “Good works” are great but they do not offset rebellion.

                  • Tony

                    You did not ask a question. I live in Rhode Island. I do not know how many churches there are in Charlotte, and I do not know what they are like. I know that Austin has talked to plenty of people in Charlotte. If he is wrong about the facts — if there are more Catholics in Name Only in Charlotte than he had thought — that is no cause for celebration.
                    I am still asking you to answer the question, to be up front with us. The Church teaches, against the sexual revolution, and in concord with what everybody before the day before yesterday believed, that:
                    Christian marriage is indissoluble;
                    Fornication is a grave evil;
                    Sodomy is unnatural and an offense to the Creator;
                    The use of pornography is a grave offense against purity;
                    Filching the pleasure from the sexual act while intending to thwart its procreative meaning is a grave wrong;
                    Abortion is the murder of an innocent being.
                    If you don’t believe these things, then you have taken the enemy’s side in the battle before us. Now, that doesn’t mean you are damned. God is merciful, and allowances have to be made for bad instruction, human frailty, inattention, misunderstanding, ignorance, and so forth. But it does mean that you are doing harm to the Body of Christ, regardless of how many bucks you shell out.
                    It’s time to trust the Church again, and not yourself.

                  • antonsdatter

                    I live in Charlotte. I have had occasion to attend Mass at St. Matthew and St. Gabriel churches. I do not find them to be unorthodox or outside of the Catholic faith in any way. Father O’Rourke and Msgr. McSweeney are not “lefty grey heads.”

                    I am unfamiliar with St. Peter’s as it is in the city center and somewhat of a transient church because of its location. St. Matthew Church has a huge parish and is rapidly growing, but not due to any lefty attributes. It’s simply in an area where the population itself is expanding.

                    It is a pity you choose, Joelle, to falsely brand these fine Catholic churches and their pastors, two of whom I know well and respect. You had better do someting about your out-of-control tirades.

              • Objectivetruth

                I’m doubting you’re claims of being a member of the Charlotte archdiocese and having a child at CCHS. You use the term “liberal Catholic” too much, and refuse to define it.

                I believe you are just a troll…….

                • Joelle

                  And I believe you are a troll, I have name my parish in Charlotte, several times, St. Peters. Where do you go to church in Charlotte? I’m guessing you won’t answer that, one you probably don’t even live here, two you are a troll yourself

              • ForChristAlone

                Money, money money…is that the god you worship. My advice: keep your money and get religion.

              • Guest

                Have you read your own post? Just reading it reveals so much. The standard you are using is not the Gospel imperative but some relativistic one. I am trying to be kind.

          • Joelle

            No but that’s not my point..One source says there are no Catholic churches to turn to, which I am saying is not true (and providing facts, unlike the one source)…Like it or not, a parish who is bringing in big bucks and having the fire marshall kicking people out because it’s too crowded is attended, well attended, which disputes the no place to go argument…And if the church doesn’t care about money, why does it ask for tithing, why does it require that parents of catholic school contribute a certain amount each month? Why have a Diocesan Support Appeal at all if money does not matter? Why are we being hit up for the priest retirement fund? Prove to me that the church would be absolutely fine with an empty collection plate each week and I’ll take that all back…If the diocese of Charlotte really wants to take its church back and exclude the more liberal Catholic they should return the money and operate without any funds.

            • Art Deco

              and exclude the more liberal Catholic

              There is no such thing as a ‘liberal Catholic’. There may have been some sort of creature ca. 1955 regarding certain disciplinary practices or modes of instruction or lay movements. There is no such creature today. There are Catholic adherents who are unintentional and material heretics and there are those attending parishes (presumably with valid baptisms) who fancy that contemporary bourgeois sensibilities should trump Church teaching. These people are tedious institutional tapeworms no matter how much of their disposable income goes to maintaining their suburban temples. Please, lady, take it somewhere else.

              • Joelle

                Nice, tell someone to leave because they think differently from you, or maybe it’s because you can’t answer my question? Why take our money if we are not really Catholic?

                • Art Deco

                  Sister, there are actual authoritative boundary conditions which define faithful adherence. Sorry to break it to you. If you’d like do it yourself, there’s likely an American Baptist congregation somewhere in Charlotte.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Do you believe all the Catholic Church teaches on faith and morals, including its teaching on homosexuality and its condemnation of the gay lifestyle?

            • Objectivetruth

              One last time: define “liberal Catholic?” Give concrete examples…..are you pro contraception? Pro gay marriage? Divorced Catholics can remarry and receive the Eucharist? What?

              • Joelle

                One last time, I am not here to debate theology, I am calling out a blatant error in the article (dissenters have no place to go…) When Bishop Jugis kicks my church out of the diocese and returns my tithe, I will accept that I am not welcome as a Catholic in Charlotte, until then it is up to HIM, not you..

                • Objectivetruth

                  So do the parents of CCHS students have a problem with the magisterial teaching given by Sister Dominic on homosexuality? Because quite frankly, I’m shocked at the reaction. The nun speaks the Truth on the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and the Catholic school’s parents are at her door with pitchforks to string her up??? THIS IS INSANE!!!! At my local Catholic high school, her remarks would have been greeted with a standing ovation, and the parents thanking her afterwards for giving their children THE TRUTH!

                • Guest

                  So your complaint is not with the truth of the faith, but with the notion those who reject Church teaching have no other physical Church building to go to?

                  Is that what you hang your hat on?

                  • Joelle

                    No that’s what Ruse hung his hat on…

                    • Guest

                      No, that is not true. You are picking out one aspect of his piece and attempting to invert the argument. No sale.

                    • Joelle

                      It has been my experience when there is a blatant lie in an article, there are many others in it as well..

                    • Art Deco

                      You attribute to him something he did not say, then accusing of of a ‘blatant lie’ for the utterance he did not make and would be of scant importance if he had said it. Cute.

                    • Guest

                      There are no lies in there. You keep trying to impute that to him for your own reasons.

                    • Joelle

                      “When a new orthodox priest takes over a parish, the dissenters up and leave and have to go somewhere else and they are running out of places to go.” LIE!

                    • Art Deco

                      The statement, put in dry and non-metaphoric terms, is that the number of dissenting parishes is in decline. Mr. Ruse may be mis-informed either by his informants or his hopes. Unless it is a self-conscious concoction, it is not a lie. It also has no bearing on any Church teaching, on pedagogy in Catholic schools, on the appropriate disposition of the laity toward Church authorities, or, indeed on any consequential point in this whole dispute.

                      I wonder whence comes the point you tire of throwing chaff in people’s faces.

                • Objectivetruth

                  Great……you’ve smacked down, bullied, humiliated, and consciously tried to destroy a good and holy young nun that has dedicated her life to Christ and with great love honestly bearing witness to His teachings within the Church.

                  I hope you’re proud of yourself.

                  The problem is as a self professed “liberal Catholic” you’re going to constantly run in to the brick wall of Catholic doctrinal teachings on faith and morals.

                  You’ll then have to make a choice: do I follow the Church’s teachings, or do I leave the Church? To try and find some mushy middle ground will only have you sink as if in quick sand.

                  • Joelle

                    Again, please enroll in reading comprehension classes.. Show me one comment where I “smacked down, bullied, humiliated, and consciously tried to destroy a good and holy young nun that has dedicated her life to Christ and with great love honestly bearing witness to His teachings within the Church.” I presented facts that dispute the “fact” that Ruse presented that “dissenters have no where to go.”

                    • Guest

                      You are being absurd.

                    • Joelle

                      OK “Guest” who is too cowardly to use its name…show me where I bullied the nun?

                    • Guest

                      I never said you bullied anyone.

                    • Joelle

                      OK, excuse me, your name calling is running together and I thought you were responding to my post where I asked Objectivetruth (again the irony!) to show me where I bullied the nun…

                    • Art Deco

                      He hasn’t placed a single appellation on you, woman. He did say you were being absurd, but ‘absurd’ is not a name. (And he’s right).

                    • Joelle

                      See his accusation of me above (about an hour ago)

                    • Guest

                      You are confused.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Where you not part of the lynch mob at that school that was “90% against Sr. Jane?” If you are, Austin does accurately report on the vitriol spewed against Sister, forcing her to step down. Where am I wrong?

                    • Bob

                      ” As for CCHS, 99% of the people who support Sr. Jane, don’t have children in the system, and they should shut up, move on and worry about their own children’s schooling. A survey was recently commissioned (at the expense of CCHS parents) and was 90% against Sr. Jane…”

                      Your own words.

                    • antonsdatter

                      Joelle, how do you know what “99%” of Sister Jane’s supporters do? Was there a survey taken amongst the supporters of Sr. Jane? Please cite the source of your 99% number.

                      Actually, whether Sister’s supporters have children at CCHS or not is irrelevant. All contributing Catholics in the Charlotte diocese support the MACS school system through their donations and are quite entitled to have an interest in diocesan Catholic education.

                      Sadly, many parents have no interest in a “Catholic education” for their children and send their children to CCHS only because the diocesan-subsidized tuition is more reasonable than other private schools. Parents like Joelle should be more appreciative of the financial support of fellow Catholics. Telling contributors to “shut up” and “move on” is telling us more than she’d like us to know about her.

                • TheAbaum

                  “One last time, I am not here to debate theology”.

                  Terrific. Why are you here?

                  • Joelle

                    To dispute a blatant lie in an article that affects the school my child attends

                    • Art Deco

                      There was no ‘blatant lie’. Project much?

                    • Guest

                      There is no lie.

                    • TheAbaum

                      You’ve made your point. Now you are repeating yourself.

                    • Art Deco

                      She’s repeating a false statement to boot.

                  • Art Deco

                    To kvetch she isn’t getting her money’s worth.

                    • Joelle

                      Again, you do not know my heart, I am TOTALLY getting my money’s worth at CCHS, but maybe you’re not?

                    • Art Deco

                      Madam, Catholic teaching on moral and doctrinal questions is a part of the package of a well ordered Catholic apostolate fulfilling its vocation. You fancy it should be service enterprise catering to your preferences, which (given those preferences) would be rather incongruent with a project of being an actual working Catholic apostolate.

                  • Patrick

                    To be fair, Mr. Ruse has said that’s not why he’s here, either.

              • ForChristAlone

                Joelle, we all should know, hails from the protestant wing of the Catholic Church. She is the first and last word on what she believes.

            • Guest

              Oh, now we see. You think that money is the metric to use. You think that we are safe as long as the diocese keeps taking our money. As long as the pews are filled then one is being faithful. The externals are the factor, right?

              Sorry, but that is so superficial that only a shallow thinking lawyer would think that logic would win the day.

              Sitting in the garage does not make us a car. Sitting through mass and throwing in the envelope does not make us faithful.

              • Joelle

                Then why would the diocese ask for $65 million through the DSA this year? Maybe we should all stop contributing to churches according to your logic.

                • Guest

                  That makes no sense. You keep using money as the standard to determine faithfulness.

    • Art Deco

      A survey was recently commissioned (at the expense of CCHS parents) and was 90% against Sr. Jane…

      If true, madam, that’s the smoking gun. Shut the place down.

      • Objectivetruth

        Here is a “cut and paste” from one of the commenters on Father Z’s site that describes it nicely:

        ” I have never understood this thinking. If you don’t believe “whatsoever the Catholic Church purposes to be believed,” why go to a Roman Catholic Church or send your children to a Catholic school? there are plenty of private schools out there, some even “religious.” If you just like the pretty vestments and liturgical services, go join the Episcopalians and leaves us in peace. There you can have your female bishops, gay marriage, and dance with bowls of incense.”

        • Art Deco

          If you just like the pretty vestments and liturgical services,

          It that’s what they fancy, they’d be more at home in an Episcopal parish, where they’d hear 19th century hymns and plainchant in lieu of leftover score music from last year’s Hallmark special. Of course, they’d also get a 20 minute long sermon that amounted to a meander through the rector’s sundry pensees that week.

          • Guest

            I actually don’t like the pretty vestments that much, which is why I was horrified at the amount of money spent on them by the priest at St. Patrick, that and the $2 million he wants to build a new sacristy..

        • Kara

          When Father Z takes down the Amazon link from his blog that state that every time one shops Amazon he gets a portion of the sales, I’ll take him at his word…Give up the dough father, you are in this for the money

          • Art Deco

            Sister, do you have any clue how much revenue he receives from that link (much less that the revenue is his motivator)? Are you always this gratuitously vicious?

            • Joelle

              I’m curious as to why he would solicit at all…Especially through a site like Amazon which sells sexually explicit, gay and pornographic materials, not to mention many offerings on Eastern religions and atheism…Fill me in, what is the motivator?

              • Art Deco

                I do not work for him, so you will have to ask him. Amazon is about the most generic vendor their is, so I would not fancy he endorses the content of their product line.

                • Joelle

                  Again you can’t answer the question, just like the Charlotte diocese, you condemn us and question our values but you can’t answer simple questions…

                  • Tony

                    Then be honest, will you please? Do you or don’t you hold to the Church’s teachings regarding the matters that Sister Dominic spoke about? Do you believe that contraception is an evil? Do you believe that marriage is for life, period? Do you believe that homosexual mock-marriage is a biological absurdity, and is clearly proscribed? Be honest. There is one really good reason to oppose Sister Dominic’s talk. It is that it was not MORE effective in persuading young people to see the sense and the beauty of the Church’s teachings.
                    Now, then, is that the talk that you wanted? Or are you angry that Sister Dominic dared to tell the truth?

                    • Joelle

                      Again your question has nothing to do with the point I took exception to in the article… An unnamed coward told Austin Ruse that the “liberal dissenters” have no Catholic Church to attend in Charlotte. I disputed that “fact” using facts and data. Ruse was not able to provide any facts showing that Catholics who are leaving the conservative parishes are now without a church home. If he has facts to prove that (other than someone who won’t even be quoted) I wish he would. Secondly, when I used collection and attendance figures, I was attacked for focusing on money. Bishop Jugis accepts our offerings, our volunteer hours and considers us a part of his diocese, yes even the liberal Jesuit parish, St. Peters, in fact he uses our church as “home base” for the Eucharistic Congress every year and we are very honored by that. If he did not think we were Catholic, I doubt he would say mass there. Until he kicks us out of the diocese, pulls our “Catholic” charter, rejects our day of service to Catholic Charities (coming up May 17, please feel free to join us!) and returns our offerings, I’d say he’s OK with our parish remaining a wonderful part of the Charlotte diocese. He’s the decider, not any of you…

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I guess the answer to Tony’s questions to you above are “No, I do not believe all that the Catholic Church professes and believes.”

                    • Joelle

                      I believe you are the true idiot who resorts to name calling when he is too stupid to win an argument.

                    • Art Deco

                      I’d suggest you quit playing games, but that’s an appeal to integrity, which may be futile in your case.

                      We get it lady,. You fancy the Church is a lawn service you’ve hired and you want it cut the way you want it cut. Get it through your head: the teachings of the Church are a function of apostolic authority, not your contemporary preferences or those of your friends. Take it or leave it.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      This all reminds me of St. Paul being chased by the crowds wishing to stone him because he told them of the Truths of Christ, that would challenge their sinful lifestyles. The same is happening here. Sister Dominic is being tarred and feathered, stoned and executed for teaching Catholic truths to Catholics. This is all so disgraceful the way the parents have reacted.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      Why are you sending your child to Catholic school if you don’t want them to hear and be taught true, Catholic teaching?

                    • Guest

                      What Catholic would not proudly proclaim they accept all the Church teaches?

                    • ForChristAlone

                      I guess you are confirming that, in fact, you do NOT believe ALL that the Catholic Church teaches.
                      I admit I engaged in name calling and anger. For that I am sorry and ask for your forgiveness. But I recognize that what I did IS against Church teaching and regret it. The last thing I am going to try to do is deny that I am a sinner and in need of the sacramental life of the Church. Now will you?

                    • Guest

                      So, your standard for faithfulness to Christ through His Church is what? That you give money? That the Bishop has not called you by name to reform your views? That your parish is in juridical communion with the diocese? What is your standard? What is the standard of the Church?

                    • Art Deco

                      She wants the money back because she does not give money. She conceives of it as a fee.

                    • Guest

                      Like buying your way into heaven?

                    • Joelle

                      Again, ask the diocese about that one… Their 2014 DSA goal is $65 million….

                    • Guest

                      And that is relevant how?

                    • Joelle

                      You say giving money is a false standard, yet the diocese makes an appeal to the tune of $65 million…Is that a false standard?

                    • Guest

                      It is hard to respond to you because you are being so illogical. The Church needs and asks for money. So? How does that translate into it being licit to reject Christ’s teaching?

                    • Joelle

                      No, I don’t want the money back, but I would not want Bishop Jugis to sin and be hypocritical and keep money from people who he does not support. You are very judgmental and not very good at reading comprehension, I suggest you enroll at St, Anns, they have a great program for those who can’t comprehend what they read. If our tithe was returned to us, it would definitely go to our May 17th service project, our partnership with Druid Hills, our Garden of Eaten homeless ministry and many other missions we service…

                    • Guest

                      Like all Bishops he takes money from sinners. Is this news? Again, that is not the point.

                      You giving money is not the point. You keep using a false standard.

                    • Art Deco

                      ‘Whom he does not support’? Lady, it’s his business to teach, sanctify, and govern. If you want ‘support’, go talk to your girlfriends.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Social work masquerading as the Catholic faith. Sister, most of us have been there, done that. That protestant wing of the Catholic Church pretty much bit the dust about 20 years ago. Christ calls us to proclaim the Gospel. Works of charity are about proclaiming Jesus Christ. In point of fact, United Way does a better job at charity work than most parishes. But we’re called to something wholly different.

                    • antonsdatter

                      So now you’ve decided to insult the parishoners at St. Ann Catholic Church. Dear Father Reid must have really pushed your button.

                      Reading some of your comments, I’d say St. Ann parish is too intellectual for you. Your name-calling marks you as a poor sad soul with nothing important to say. We’ll leave it at that.

                    • Joelle

                      My standard is that I act in a Christlike manner, pray, be thankful, serve others and share my blessings.. As for the church’s standard? Good question you should probably ask Bishop Jugis that…Because if he continues to allow our parish to operate under his authority and accepts our contributions (time, talent and treasure) I will take that as his support for our parish and its mission.

                    • Guest

                      If that is your standard then you really ought to learn your faith. We cannot bargain with God or that utilitarianism is licit. There is not some divine scale where we can say hey I helped some poor people, but I reject the 6th commandment so I am faithful.

                    • TheAbaum

                      The political left is obsessed with money. Of course.

                    • Tony

                      No, the Bishop does not decide who is Catholic and who is not. Half the bishops in the world, during the time of Saint Jerome, had become Arian heretics. That is neither here nor there. I am not going to dispute with you about the relative attendance at various churches in Charlotte. I asked a question about where you stand. You won’t answer that question.
                      It’s sometimes instructive to change the area of contention, to illustrate a principle that is at stake. Let’s suppose we were not riven with heresy over tawdry matters of sex. Let’s suppose our heresies had more intellectual nobility to them. Let’s suppose then that the Arian heresy had returned (it has, but that’s another discussion). Then if I asked you, “Do you in fact believe the orthodox teaching regarding the person of Christ?”, I’d be asking, in effect, “Where do you stand on the central question of our time?” That is, in the fight that is before us, where is your allegiance? In those days, you had to choose between Arius and the Church. In these days, you have to choose between the sexual revolution and the Church. There was no splitting the difference then, and there’s no splitting the difference now. You either believe that marriage is indissoluble, or you do not. You either believe that fornication is a grave evil, or you do not …..

                    • Joelle

                      How about you answer my question since I asked first, then I will answer yours? Deal?

                    • Guest

                      Your question is meaningless. You assert that those who reject Church teaching have an other Church building to go to. Ok, so what? That is some trump card you think?

                      All it means is that too many reject the truth. How is that good?

                    • Joelle

                      My question is meaningless to you because you can’t answer it. Ruse made a point in an article and I challenged it, neither he or anyone else on this thread can dispute my presentation of facts.. And I wasn’t presenting it as a trump card, we are a part of the diocese.

                    • Guest

                      You are being pedantic. The issue is not that dissenters go to some particular Church.

                    • Art Deco

                      She’s not being pedantic. There is no scholarly point, petty or otherwise. She’s just manufacturing red herrings. Ruse neither stated nor implied what she attributes to him and it would be a peripheral point if he did.

                    • ForChristAlone

                      Now who’s sounding childish? It’s tantamount to when children say, You go first.” “No, YOU go first.”

                    • Guest

                      Perhaps if you used more simple terms and used analogies that involved cash and pop culture your questions would be more meaningful?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    she is like a plague

                  • Art Deco

                    Madam, you pay good money to send your youngster to a Catholic school and then scream like a banshee when the moral teachings of the Church are presented. What did you think that apostolate is there for?

                  • Guest

                    Your question is not relevant.

                    • Art Deco

                      The web links on the blog of an observer of the situation in Charlotte are not only irrelevant to the issues at stake, they are irrelevant in a peculiarly brazen way. However, not one but two of the defenders of the fool parents of Charlotte have brought it up. Just imagine you were a school official (or a husband or an employer) and had to interact with either this pair one-on-one.

                    • Guest

                      Well, to be honest, I would be wondering how people with such poor reasoning skills could afford the tuition. Is that too mean?

                    • Joelle

                      No it’s ironic because the people like you are the ones who can’t afford the tuition.

                    • Guest

                      Really? You are too funny. The elitist and simple-minded make money their god.

                    • TheAbaum

                      And we are reminded of the Pharisee thanking the Lord that he was not like the rest the rabbe.

                  • TheAbaum

                    What “values”?

                • Joelle

                  But he takes there money, interesting…

                  • Objectivetruth

                    You’re avoiding the topic, interesting….

                    • Art Deco

                      No, it’s a shabby tu quoque argument. Not interesting.

                  • ForChristAlone

                    there she is again…yikes…like a bad penny

                  • Guest

                    And you think that is wrong? Interesting. You base this logic on exactly what?

              • ForChristAlone

                Idiot #3 once more

              • Guest

                Huh?

          • Objectivetruth

            Classic diversionary tactics when one doesn’t respond to the questions or stay on topic. Nice try.

          • ForChristAlone

            Idiot #4 appears

          • Guest

            Why?

          • Tony

            How many fallacies can one person commit at once?
            Ad hominem: You are distracting attention from what someone says to what kind of person he is.
            Innuendo: You claim knowledge that you cannot have. You do not know what money Father Z makes from his sales, and you do not know where that money goes.
            Attribution of evil motive: “You are in this for the money.” This is more than a fallacy. It is the grave sin of calumny.

      • Objectivetruth

        Sister Jane Dominic comes from an order of nuns that is extremely loyal to the teaching magisterium of the Catholic Church. If 90% of the school’s parish rejected her, that tells you everything. I think Sister Dominic’s Mother Superior knew exactly what she was doing sending the good sister to CCHS. In the year of evangelization (especially to fallen Catholics) it looks like there’s a lot of work to be done there.

        • jeffersonian_nc

          What does it tell – that the Catholic Church is once again behind the times. Think Earth the center of the universe. Think the Spanish Inquisition. Think Friday the 13th, and the list is long.

      • ForChristAlone

        Absolutely shut the place down; it’s a den of heathens.

    • ForChristAlone

      Idiot #3 again resurfaces

    • Guest

      So your point is there still are plenty of liberal dissenters around. So what? Instead of lamenting the dissent and scandal caused by that all you go on about is that liberal dissenters apparently give some money. As if that makes dissent ok and consistent with salvation.

      The goal is not increased attendance or stable cash flow. The goal is total abandonment to Christ.

  • SomeoneWhoKnows

    As a witness to all that happened I can say that very little of what is written here by Austin Ruse is actually true.

    • Art Deco

      Thanks for your input.

    • Joelle

      He is aptly named..

      • CadaveraVeroInnumero

        What’s the point of being a Catholic if there are no distinguishing marks? The rationalization for being a liberal Catholic (honey, that’s your tag) is no different than the qualifications for being an intern on Hilliary Clinton’s campaign staff.

        If being Catholic these days is all about the preciousness of being gay, for get it. Well, that’s the temptation. In the end, the Church will outlast both you and I, and sin’s preciousness.

        By the way, Joelle, did you ever clear up your claim about that “gay” student suicide? How did the Sister’s words kill that poor soul, since that was your point? Or, shall we chalk it up to the same mythology as the cause of Matthew Shepard’s murder?

        Joelle,Joelle, you should not leave dead bodies around without burying them.

        • Joelle

          I didn’t make the suicide comment, perhaps you should read what I originally wrote, there seems to b a problem with that here…I believe that comment came from Jayne…

          • ForChristAlone

            Idiot #3 resurfaces

            • Joelle

              How Christlike of you! Some clarifies a point, states a fact and they are an idiot.. Classic childish response from someone who can’t debate using facts. Last comment to you, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is unarmed. Your namecalling proves that. Sticks and stones

          • CadaveraVeroInnumero

            Properly admonished. Comments now directed to Jayne. The issue still needs to be cleared up. It was quite startling to come acrossa.

      • ForChristAlone

        Idiot #3

    • Austin Ruse

      My story was based on extensive interviews with people directly involved. I asked repeatedly for the other side to talk and none would. I would have been happy to tell their side. This is what happens….

    • ForChristAlone

      Idiot #2

  • clintoncps

    “Using material from the Catholic Medical Association and the prestigious if conservative Linacre Center in Great Britain, Sister Laurel talked about the causes of later homosexuality saying that a distant or absent father can cause a boy to seek masculine affirmation in a sexual attraction to other males. This theory is now rejected by the psychological establishment but still held by a stalwart yet rump group of psychologists like Rick Fitzgibbons and Joseph Nicolosi.”

    Could the author please specify who constitute the “psychological establishment” referred to in the above quote, and is this the same “establishment” that de-listed homosexuality from the catalog of psychological disorders over 40 years ago? Thank you.

    • Austin Ruse

      yes, the same.

  • Robyn

    One thing becomes clear to me. Herein lies a darn good argument for spanking. Most of these kids seem to need it, and their parents too. They want respect and cannot give it. They want love and do not understand what it is, except as part of sex. A bunch of spoiled, whining, rabble rousing perverts, just about all.

    • Patrick

      I’m glad you found the high ground and used such a respectful tone to discuss the issue without resorting to name calling or the like.

      • ForChristAlone

        Idiot #1

      • Art Deco

        I keep seeing complaints about ‘name calling’ in response to posts which have no names in them.

        She has a point. This exercise on the part of the parents and teacher-exhibitionists lies somewhere in the gray area between egocentric and narcissistic.

        • Patrick

          I was simply pointing out that Robyn was complaining about hypocritical disrespect while *simultaneously* being disrespectful.

          I don’t have a problem with what she was saying. My problem is that she felt the need to be the exact kind of hypocrite she was accusing others of being.

          • Art Deco

            1. You should develop better hobbies. There is an opinion journalist named Conor Friedersdorf who decided a few years back he’d found his niche: writing critiques of talk radio programs – hundreds of words on how (Rush Limbaugh or Mark Levin or Glenn Beck) was rude to some caller. Absolutely futile and soporific.

            2. Equal respect is the abolition of respect.

            • Patrick

              You keep arguing about things other than my point.

              Pure and simple: Robyn complained about disrespect and the hypocrisy of being disrespectful while demanding respect…then she was disrespectful of those same people, thereby engaging in the exact form of hypocrisy she considered to be a valid criticism of the other people.

              If one is going to start of by saying “They’re hypocrites for demanding respect while not being respectful themselves,” one should have the common sense to finish the post there without also indulging in the exact form of hypocrisy one just condemned.

              I am criticizing the form of her argument because it detracts from the message. I am trying to help tune it so the signal-to-noise ratio is better, which will make it more well received in general.

              Hear that? I agree with the point and am trying to correct a presentation error.

              • Art Deco

                Robyn complained about disrespect and the hypocrisy of being disrespectful while demanding respect

                No, Patrick, she said the parties involved needed a bloody good hiding. You’re losing track of the distinction between your own thoughts and concerns and those other have.

                • Patrick

                  “They want respect and cannot give it.”
                  That right there is a direct quote from her post. That right there is the line that prompted me to criticize her own refusal to show respect.

                  If she’d left out that line or simply maintained a respectful tone, I would not have had any critique for her argument at all.

                  • Art Deco

                    1. Patrick, she made no reference to ‘hypocrisy’. That’s your interpolation, and an invalid one. Not everyone has the adolescent fixation on ‘hypocrisy’.

                    2. And, again, equal respect is the abolition of respect. Of course she regards them with disrespect. They’ve earned it. Her point, which was not in the least bit obscure, is that they do not comprehend the apposite substance and form of their dealings with the wider world or with venerable institutions such as the Church; her interpretation of the causes for that is that they been ruined by indulgence. Not a bad guess.

                    • Patrick

                      I already said I don’t object to her point, but to the poor presentation she made of it.

                      I already told you my criticism was that she included in her argument things that distracted from the actual point she was making.

                      What she said was fine if she’s only shouting into an echo chamber, but if she’s going to try to persuade anybody who doesn’t already agree, she’ll need to avoid things that will make people miss the point and focus on her.

                    • Art Deco

                      I already said I don’t object to her point, but to the poor presentation she made of it.

                      You’re putting an awful lot of verbiage into the point if all you object to is her diction.

                      Making a one sentence commentary here is offering her $0.02 on the subject under discussion, nothing more, nothing less. If ‘Robyn’ would like to offer an exposition on the subject and submit it to the National Catholic Reporter, I imagine she’ll get ’round to it.

                    • Patrick

                      Until you and Art Deco started misrepresenting my criticism, I had also made a simple one sentence commentary here offering my two cents. Nothing more, nothing less.

                      The “awful lot of verbiage” started with Art’s outrage.

                    • Art Deco

                      No outrage, just criticism. You have a real problem with this.

                    • Patrick

                      Okay, I stand corrected.
                      The “awful lot of verbiage” started with Art’s *comment*.

                    • hombre111

                      Amen, Patrick. You have discovered what so many already know.

                    • Guest

                      You need a spanking. Just my two cents. No more no less.

              • hombre111

                Art Deco has a way of turning the argument away from the main point. Nothing new, there.

  • Pingback: St. John Paul II Set the Barque Back on Course - BigPulpit.com()

  • Objectivetruth

    Fr. Kauth’s statement and reason for bringing in Sr. Dominic, because of the darkness he saw in the youth:

    http://catholicnewsherald.com/images/stories/News_Local14/fatherkauthfullstatementupdate.pdf

  • TruthBeKnown

    Too bad Mr. Ruse did not have many facts correct in his article. The staff at CCHS were told not to discuss the contents of the nun’s presentation in the classroom or with the press. Mr. Ruse faults staff for not responding when they were just following directions from the administration. Many students were deeply disturbed by the content and were quickly calmed down by teachers and classes went forward with planned lessons. No one held open discussions or cancelled their original lesson plans. The math teacher mentioned did not leave the assembly. She stood with one of the assistant principals during the entire event. Father Kauth did not bring back the daily Mass. Charlotte Catholic has had daily Masses for decades. They are held during the 20 minute mid morning break.

    • Art Deco

      Many students were deeply disturbed by the content and were quickly
      calmed down by teachers and classes went forward with planned lessons.

      ‘Deeply disturbed’? From where are you recruiting your clientele?

      • Objectivetruth

        What could a small, humble, virtous, polite, devoutly Catholic nun say to 17-18 year olds that could “deeply disturb” them? I don’t get it.

        • Guest

          That “gay” is not normal. Can you imagine the drama. What is next? Sin separates us from God?

        • jeffersonian_nc

          Lies.

    • Guest

      The person who is feeding Mr. Ruse the “facts” for this article didn’t attend the CCHS lecture on 3/21, did not attend the parent meeting on 4/2 and not only does not have her children at CCHS, they are not even in the Catholic school system! Instead of “What Really Happened at Charlotte Catholic HS” this article should be titled “What I Want People to Think Happened At CCHS, because I have an opinion, ulterior motives and nothing else to do” I can’t possibly imagine her motivation to get involved in this situation, one would think she would have enough meaning in her life to avoid getting stirred up about a school she has never cared about.

      • Austin Ruse

        In fact you’re wrong. You don’t know my sources. My sources either attended the lecture, the parents meeting. Or both. Not sure who the woman is you’re referring to.

        • Guest

          The person who is bragging on Facebook how she practically wrote the article for you…She attended none of the meetings and has no children at CCHS. Maybe she lied to you and told you she attended, but she did not, IDs were checked at the door to ensure anyone attending had a student enrolled and she has not had children in Catholic schools for years . She may have attended a previous Sr. Jane lecture, but did not attend either meeting at CCHS Either you knew this and are lying or she lied to you (wouldn’t put it past her, she is very dishonest)

          • Austin Ruse

            I had ten sources, all with deep ties to the school.And it was well known I was in town as I was reaching out to folks who were critical of the Nun and Father Kauth. None were willing to talk. I stand by my story.

            • Guet

              But the one who declared she should say she should start telling people she works for Crisis Magazine, has NONE and is telling people she provided the bulk of the facts including the quote from the mother (which she sent to you after being asked specifically not to, again dishonesty and lack of credibility)…

              • Austin Ruse

                She was not a source. She introduced me to those who became sources. Like I said, all sources have or had deep ties to the school and had attended the lecture or the parents meeting or both. She caught some typos in the published column. Very help editorial suggestions.

                I really wish folks like you had stepped forward,. It was pretty well known i was in town and I asked specifically for folks on all sides of the issue to talk. Sadly, you didn’t, whoever you are, Guet.

                Are you a parent at the school? A teacher? Admin? Happy to talk still…..

                • Guest

                  I am a parent at the school and I would like to know how it was “pretty well known” that you were in town. Parents were not notified or asked to participate, there was no mention in my church bulletin, how was it “pretty well known?” I’m guessing it was pretty well known among the only 10 people in the whole school who agree with you. And while I may have talked to you a week ago, seeing how you shredded the quote from the mom in your article, I’m really not interested, because you really don’t care what people think who disagree with you think. I will say that I heard a radio show where you compared the meeting to the crucifixion of our Lord and I think that is blasphemous.. Fr. Kauth did not drag a cross on his back, there was no crown of thorns, no piercing of the hands and feet, You should be ashamed of comparing that meeting to the murder of Christ. Addiitionally, you mentioned the meeting in the fall, only 16 people went to that and Kauth was livid and sent out a scathing emal scolding parents in very unkind manner, then forced it on students later in the year. We have to sign permission slips for our children to watch PG-13 movies on bus rides to field trips, suicide and drug prevention talks and 100s of other assemblies. We did not have to for this and I think that was underhanded, and possibly violates the Diocesan sexual abuse policy. Boys and girls can’t hear about reproduction in the same class, but homosexuality and masturbation is OK. CCHS is a great school and will continue that way, despite efforts of outsiders to tear it down…

                  • Guest

                    What was said in the talk that was wrong? How exactly were children harmed?

                  • Guest

                    This is your big complaint?

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Actually, i emailed two of the dissenting faculty and my sources were encouraging dissenting parents to talk. My presence would not have been announced in Church bulletins, The tone of your email demonstrates abundantly why my sources were eager not to be known. They feared bullying of themselves, and more importantly their children.

                    • Guest

                      My tone comes from frustration. And actually we the parents of CCHS feel bullied by articles like this. So many people who have nothing to do with CCHS or even Charlotte have expressed negative opinions about our school, our parents, our kids…Mine have been in the system for 13 year and have done amazing things…Where were people like your editor when a Kindergartner died of brain cancer? How about the 8th grader who has leukemia? How about clean up days at school and fundraisers? How about volunteering at the schools? Nope no interest.. “My kids don’t go there..” OK, so why the sudden interest in a school you don’t attend? Since you are obviously interested in what goes on down here and in fact made a trip here, would you like to contribute to the fund for student with leukemia? His mother has had to quit her job to care for him…Call Kevin Parks at HTCMS is you are interested in contributing to the “Prayers for Matty” fund

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It is not really important where your tone comes from. it has frightened other parents and children who are afraid to voice their own opinions in public. Parents who did try to voice support for Father Kauth adn the Nun were shouted down at the parent;s meeting.

                      Let me ask you this. Do you accept church teaching on contraception? divorce and remarriage? homosexuality? abortion? This is the divide I discovered in Charlotte..one of accepting Church teaching or not. Do you accept all these teachings?

                    • Guest

                      So you really don’t care about my opinion, wow, that’s shocking. And you don’t care that we feel frightened. I answered this previously. WIll you answer my question, with all your interest in the Charlotte Catholic Schools, would you like to help out a struggling family?

                    • Austin Ruse

                      The feeling i got in Charlotte was that opinions like yours got a full airing out. what’s more, I tried very hard to get opinions like yours into my story, all to no avail. Do i care about your opinion? Abundantly. But where were you and others when I was down there and writing the story?

                      And there are plenty of sick children and children who have died in my own home parish.

                    • Guest

                      I’ll take that as a “no” You come down here, trash our school, but when an offer comes to help out, you, like the rest of the CCHS bashers (who have no children at the school, but love to butt in and try to damage it) the answer is no…I get it, CCHS will be just fine, bash all you want…I’m off to CCHS right now for May Crowning, a beautiful, ceremony organized by our seniors, we have great faithful children, why don’t you write about that? Oh, because you don’t write about positive things.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      See, even now, you are frustrated adn are running away. i am happy to stay here and dialogue for almost as long as you want. but you have set up litmus test precisely in order to walk away. “You are not willing to come down and help our sick children, therefore i am not willing to talk to you any longer.” Makes not a lot of sense. but, most of this is petulance of the kind directed toward Father kauth, too…

                    • Guest

                      No, I am not running away, I am going to May Crowning in 9 minutes so I needed to get ready. And I offered you an opportunity to write something nice about Charlotte Catholic (May Crowning). As for not helping the sick children, it has been my experience in 13 years at MACS that the people who want to criticize what’s going on in the schools and have shown up for this latest mess, never participate when there is an opportunity to step in and do something good…People showed up at St. Ann’s to pray for Father Kauth, but not one of those has shown up for our Prayers for Matty vigils. These homeschoolers use our school facilities,m but never show up on clean up day…It’s typical and I really shouldn’t be surprised, I guess it’s more rewarding to condemn and complain..And now it’s minutes until I have to leave, so I really must end here..You really should stop making assumptions

                    • Guest

                      3 minutes

                    • Interested

                      This does not address the substance of the article or the serious issues at hand. You may want to read another article on this site recently posted about arguing in a logical manner.

                    • P2H

                      Please go and say the rosary.

                    • antonsdatter

                      So this is what it boils down to? Petty whining about others who don’t do their part of the clean up? Guest, you sound ike you’re too busy patting yourself on the back for your faithfulness in attendance at all things. You have no idea why some people participate less than others. Walk in their shoes. Give them the benefit of the doubt. They may have crosses you couldn’t even imagine.

                      What do you have against homeschoolers? They’re heroes in my estimation. They do not rely on diocese support as MACS does, and are a blessing to our Catholic community.

                      My granddaughter is a schoolmate of Matty’s and told me of his illness. I had not been aware of any “Prayers for Matty” vigils. I do not even know his last name, nor have I ever seen him, yet he is part of our personal daily prayers. I did attend the prayer service for Fr. Kauth, but I’m surprised to hear that you were there taking attendance, in order to make your ludicrous statement as to who exactly was or was not present at both vigils.

                      I’ve met women like you in other parishes in other dioceses. You do more harm than good by driving away those women who would like to serve, but who find your prickly criticism of everyone else difficult to endure.

                      One bright note, and hopefully it is correct. My granddaughter informed me that Matty is in remission.

                    • Art Deco

                      Buddy, your school was ‘trashed’ by the behavior of parents, students, and faculty twits. Own it. As for your commentary here, when you’re in a hole, stop digging.

                    • Tony

                      The article did not trash your school. The protesters have done grave harm to Father Kauth’s reputation, and to Sister Dominic’s reputation, and to the integrity of Catholic teaching at CCHS.

                      I’ve read Father Kauth’s statement to the parents — his explanation of what happened, and of why he invited Sister Dominic to speak at CCHS in the first place. It is a model of paternal care and humility. It is also, alas, a model of bleeding before sharks. Does it matter, for the subject at hand, that some of those sharks behave like human beings under other circumstances? A thief coaches Little League. Does that mean he is no thief, or that it is wrong of us to condemn theft?

                      Mr. Ruse and the rest of us here have yet to hear from a single parent at CCHS who says, “What Sister Dominic said was true and good, but I am dismayed, because the talk could have been much more successful in imparting the faith to those young people.” I’m waiting for someone to say that he — actually, it is she; the complainers are women, aren’t they? — wanted a more PERSUASIVE and EFFECTIVE preaching of the Church’s moral teachings.

                    • Interested

                      Yes, and I have not read one comment from the complainers that fully explains their position. It is all vague and emotionalistic. Can they specifically mention what was wrong with the talk?

                    • Tony

                      Mrs. Guest: Your sensitivity, laudable in itself, can never provide any rule as to what may be said or not, and when.

                      If I am speaking to a large group of people, as I often do, and the subject is purity, there may well be many young people in the audience who habitually sin against that virtue. They may be troubled by what I have to say, no matter how gently and considerately I try to say it. At this point we come to an impasse. I must say what will hurt, or I must not speak at all. But if I do not speak at all, that means that the truth is silenced.

                      If I say to a man, “It is wrong to divorce your wife, because a vow is a vow, and that is that,” he has a few choices. He can argue the point. He can admit that he was wrong, and then try to mitigate the judgment against him. Or he can stamp his feet like a petulant child and accuse me of being mean. If he does the third, what he is essentially doing is attempting to forestall all moral discussion.

                      But all moral discussion is going to pinch. People do wicked things, and those wicked things hurt themselves and others. It isn’t nice to hear about, but then, Jesus was never “nice” in that way, either.

                  • Austin Ruse

                    I did not make the comparison. My sources attending the parent meeting nearly all made the comparison. From what I heard, the treatment of Father Kauth at the parents meeting was brutal and unrelenting.

                    As you know, Father Kauth says there was a miscommunication between him and the Sister about that part of the talk. He says he did not know the talk included the part about homosexuality. Do you accuse him of lying about this?

                    • Guest

                      Well then there was someone on some Oklahoma radio station claiming to be you, who compared the parent meeting to the crucifixion..1170 KFAQ Tuesday 4/29…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I did not make the comparison IN MY PIECE, but yes i have made it elsewhere. Sounds like a crucifixion. By the way, thousands of others besides Christ were crucified including two men with Him on Good Friday. A comparison to crucifixion is not necessarily comparing someone to Christ. But, didn’t He say we should pick up our cross and follow Him daily and doesn’t this imply crucifixion? And shouldn’t we try to emulate him as closely as possible?

                    • Guest

                      I find it offensive, comparing the meeting to a murder, any murder is not accurate.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Ok..

                  • Austin Ruse

                    Shredded the quote? It was a cut and paste. No change in the quote whatsoever.

                    • Guest

                      I’m referring to your commentary on the quote and it was used without the mother’s permission. Your editor told this mom she would not send it you and then she did, which I think is dishonest

                  • Austin Ruse

                    To me the heart of the matter is fidelity to the teachings of the church. I will ask you. Do you accept Church teaching on contraception? Divorce and remarriage? homosexuality? Abortion? The divide i detected was not about the nun but rather about orthodoxy.

                    • Guest

                      Absolutely, but I don’t want my daughter hearing about masturbation and 500 sex partners in an audience with 18 year old men. And even through I am not divorced, I feel very badly for the children who were hurt by Sr Jane’s condemnation of their parents. One of my daughter’s friends has had a very rough year (father left mother) and she was distraught. My mother’s heart breaks for her and that didn’t need to hear that on top of all the stress she’s endured this year. And you would be surprised who is a contracepting catholic, just saying…

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Do you accept Father Kauth’s apology and his explanation that there was a miscommunication between him and the Nun?

                    • jeffersonian_nc

                      I believe that Father Krauth – who sent an email in the fall condeming parents for being bad parents – took advantage that our Principal was on paid leave did what would not have been approved otherwise. I believe that Father Krauth is so arogrant and insincere (personal opinion from email exchange with him) that he believes the end justifies the means and needs a long period of reflection.

              • Crisiseditor

                Who are you referring to and why should we believe anything you say?

                • Guest

                  It seems all the critics of the article refuse to point out exactly what was so wrong with the talk. So far we have learned lack of notification regarding basic Catholic teaching is perceived as a violation, having boys and girls hear Catholic teaching together is wrong for some reason, and finally the talk made those prone to melo-drama complain. That is about it.

                  • Crisiseditor

                    Yes, I think these are the central complaints, although it’s safe to say that there is real opposition to the content of Sister’s talk.

                    May I suggest you come up with a more creative pseudonym? There are way to many “guests” in the comment boxes. Hard to distinguish one from the other.

          • Austin Ruse

            Oh, you are talking about Brice? She was not a source. She helped me meet those who had attended the lecture, the parent’s meeting, or both.

            She caught some typos (this is your suggestion that she “practically wrote the article”).

    • Objectivetruth

      What about the content “deeply disturbed” high school students? Very strong language. Explain?

    • Austin Ruse

      But teachers did discuss it in class. In fact teachers ginned up opposition to the lecture. The math teacher did announce she was not teaching etc etc. I stand by my reporting and my sources.

    • Austin Ruse

      According to sources there was not daily mass every day because there wasn’t a resident priest/Chaplain. Perhaps there were periods where this was true but again according to sources it was not consistent.

      • jeffersonian_nc

        There was a year with no assigned priest. The year prior to Father Krauth. BTW, he has only been there 1 full year, not 2. Just look at when he finished his time in Rome to confirm.

  • Pingback: Aggressive Emotivism at Charlotte Catholic HS | Crisis Magazine()

  • lisab

    i understand you are presenting a case but i was at the meeting and i have to say your description is more than a little slanted. actually the whole article is very biased and does not present the full picture and the concerns of the parents. if you are outside of this situation do not form judgement base solely on this source.

    • Interested

      What exactly was the problem?

    • Austin Ruse

      Would have loved to talk to dissenters!

      • jeffersonian_nc

        The dissenters are more afraid of the Church than the supporters are of the dissenters.

  • PalaceGuard

    The little apples did not fall far from their trees. They entered the assembly ignorant and obdurate, and left in the same condition, which condition began at home.

    • jeffersonian_nc

      Maybe God does not speak through the nun.

  • Christine420

    Dear Austin,

    Regarding the statement: “This theory is now rejected by the psychological establishment”, it may be helpful for your readers to understand the history behind this position and why no further research into the psychological underpinnings for homosexuality have been studied by the APA in the past 40+ years. The links below are for the transcript from an NPR interview entitled “81 Words: the inside story of psychiatry and homosexuality”.

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

  • agadofive.leti

    The liberals will try to shout us down and to intimidate us to cower in fear. I, for one, will not be intimidated. Didn’t the apostles die horrible deaths standing up for God’s words? If I was at that school, I would proudly proclaim the truth and speak it out loud. I will never cower to bullies.

  • Pingback: Friday, May 2, 2014 | Gus Lloyd's Reflections()

  • thomasjj70

    Can’t tell you how much I love this when I hear stuff like: “the small seminary has twenty-two young men, all orthodox.”

    I can tell you the same is happening in Columbus Ohio as I know two recent seminarians. Additionally, this was confirmed recently when I went to confession with what I can only define as a visiting “lefty priest”(just using the above terminology). This “lefty priest” came out of the seminary in the 70s, and during my confession, he essentially castigated my Bishop, Saint Pope JP2(boy does that have a great ring to it!!!!), Pope Benedict XVII, and all the new seminarians for their orthodoxy… I did get my absolution, but it took 45 minutes of listening to his political rant.. Christo et Ecclesiae!!!!!

    • Tony

      Same thing up here in the Providence diocese. Quite a few of the seminarians will enroll in courses taught by me or by my friends in our theology department. They are fine young men — emphasis on all three words. And they are on fire for the Lord and for the Church.

  • Student

    I find it very sad that quotes and information have been used without double checking sources in this article. I am a student and I had Mrs. Bischoff immediately after the nun gave her speech. I feel the need to clarify a few things. Am I afraid I will get slaughtered with comments after I post here? Yes. But I don’t think having misinformation is fair.

    First, Mrs. Bischoff did not give us a free period after the speech. We had a shortened class and she gave us an assignment to complete. Whether or not a student worked on the assignment is something they can deal with on their own, but there was an assignment. We never had a class discussion about the talk. In fact, we’ve gone about class every day just like we normally do. It has been mentioned in these comments that there were two dissenting teachers. It makes me wonder why only one of them is being named (and being named incorrectly at that). If there are other teachers that have discussed any of this in class, then that’s on them, but none of my teachers have discussed it, including Mrs. Bischoff.

    Second, I think it is important to note why some of the people in the talk were upset. I can only speak for myself, so that is what I am going to do. I do not AT ALL think there is anything wrong with the Catholic teachings. I agree with them. My issue was with the presentation of the information. I’m not saying it was wrong to have someone talk to us, but the way it was conducted made me and many others uncomfortable, which I feel led to many people not getting the message that was trying to be given. All I am saying is that I think there could have been better way to get the information across so that it was better received. That is all, so please don’t attack me here.

    Finally, I didn’t see ANYONE walk out of the talk. There were students who left here and there to go to the bathroom, but I didn’t see anyone actually get up and leave this assembly, teachers included. I was not asleep, I was paying attention, and I feel I was alert to what was going on around me.

    I feel it is important to get a side of things that ACTUALLY happened. And for the record, no I don’t expect to get an A in Mrs. Bischoff’s class and I am a male student – I’m not a girl which seems to be so important from reading some of the comments posted. I’m sorry if you don’t agree with what I say, but I’m being honest.

    • ForChristAlone

      Dear Student, I for one do not believe that you are currently a student at Charlotte Catholic.

      • Student

        Of course you wouldn’t because I went against what was written in the article.

      • Guest

        Of course you don’t, just like you won’t believe I’m a parent. I don’t think you are either…Fact is, I AM a parent, have lived in Charlotte for 30 years and found out recently that the local Episcopal school (Trinity Episcopal) would be very interested in buying CCHS from the diocese. Will be interesting to see what happens. I would think all of you would be very glad to see that happen, all people without children at CCHS, don’t live in Charlotte and just want to see CCHS fail..The diocese will be very different if CCHS goes down, and maybe that’s the way it should be…it will all work out..

      • jeffersonian_nc

        That is a belief, just like one’s belief in God. You cannot prove either one – pro or con.

    • Austin Ruse

      Do you deny she said what I quoted above? That she said something like “my god loves you all” etc etc?

      • Student

        Yup.

        • Austin Ruse

          I have an eye witness…

          • Student

            I am an eye witness. But then again that wouldn’t have supported your article.

            • Austin Ruse

              I would have been delighted to interview you. Care to talk now?

              • Student

                No thanks. I’ve seen how people get butchered when they don’t agree with what’s been said. And I’ve said all I want to.

                • Austin Ruse

                  Now, how did I know you’d say something like that?!

                  • Guest

                    Because it’s true??

                    • Austin Ruse

                      Because you’re predictable?

                  • John Doe

                    Why do you, an adult, find the need to egg on a student? Showing your true colors here.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      It is just so typical. Someone complains about not being spoken to or interviewed or whatever and when you offer to talk to them, they head for the hills. Irrelevant if he/she is a student.

                      Typical also that someone insists upon anonymity, John Doe. Be brave…

                    • John Doe

                      The fact that I choose to remain anonymous has no bearing on my courage. It’s typical that one would think this though.

                      I didn’t read anywhere that the student above was complaining about not being spoken to or interviewed. I still don’t see the need to try to egg them on. What I’m curious about is the fact that you still haven’t addressed the fact that a number of different people on here have stated that your information is incorrect. How can you be so sure that you have all of the facts when you only admitted to talking to about 10 people out of the 1,000 that attended? Maybe it was those 10 people who were trying to keep things going instead of all of the others who chose not to speak publicly about it.

                    • Austin Ruse

                      I have repeatedly said I reached out to several people on the other side of his questions. Crickets. Nothing. I stand by my sources.

                    • John Doe

                      Sad because your sources are mistaken. Maybe you should have tried a little harder.

                • Objectivetruth

                  You blinked.

                • NDaniels

                  Those students and all persons who profess to be Catholic- Do you believe God created us as objects of sexual desire/orientation in direct violation of God’s Own Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery or do you believe God created us male and female and ordered us to live in Loving relationship as sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands,wives, fathers, mothers?

                  • jeffersonian_nc

                    Oh gosh. God created man, but man created religion to explain what man did not understand. We are animals and thus we desire.

                    • Ndaniels

                      Animals are not capable of existing in relationship as husband and wife.

                    • NDaniels

                      Although it is true that not every couple that consists of human persons are able to exist in relationship as husband and wife, there are no animal couples that can exist in relationship as husband and wife; nor can animals exist in Loving relationship, in communion with God.

                    • jeffersonian_nc

                      Not sure what your point is …

                      Some animals do live in relationships to raise the offspring. The terms “husband” and “wife” are just our way of grunting something in communication.

                      Many humans do not maintain the relationship of husband and wife – hence adultery and divorce. Yes, the Catholic Church shuns those things, but other religions do not.

                      And of course this presents the question – which religion (of all of man’s created religions) is the correct one? You have a belief (as do I), but you cannot provide any prove of which religion (if any of them) is the correct one.

                      Maybe, with all of our intellect, we are merely conceited in our views towards the other animals. Until one can think outside the box (or dogma), one is not truly free.

  • TruthBeKnown

    I believe the presentation would have been better received if it had been done in individual classes (maybe religion), also with permission from parents. Many forget this is a four year high school with students 13-19 years old. With the broad age range, the material is received at very different levels of maturity. Preparation for this presentation was not well researched. Father Kauth invited the nun to speak and he should have been well aware of the content of the talk. He was also in a position to stop the talk when it went beyond what he says he was expecting. What happened afterward could have been avoided if he had stepped up to the plate and taken responsibility for her lapse in judgement.

    • Interested

      And that justifies the response? No way. The material was presented by an orthodox nun. The children are exposed to terrible propaganda everyday with no complaints. In fact, the material when presented within the context of Church teaching is never a problem. The problem is the hearer.

  • NDaniels

    No doubt, we are living in a Time of The Great Falling Away, as those persons who have left Christ’s Church spiritually, have been permitted to remain within His Church physically, causing chaos and confusion as they have led a multitude astray. Why no statement from the U.S.C.C.B., or our pope? Who am I to judge, for sometime now, has been the battle cry for those who do not desire to call a sin, a sin. We are called to be chaste, in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds.

    One can only have an apostasy from The True Church.

  • Guest

    I must admit, this is quite laughable. There is so much hate from anyone who disagrees with what is written in this article, yet out of the roughly 1,400 people who attended the talk and out of the roughly 1,000 people who attended the parent meeting, there are only 10 sources that you are using. I guess it never occurred to anyone that the teachers are probably under a contractual agreement not to speak to anyone, regardless of whether they wanted to or not, and that after the parent meeting everyone else, except for these sources just attempted to move on. Comments in this article aren’t being backed up by actual facts and some of the facts reported are just plain wrong. How sad.

  • jeffersonian_nc

    It is sad that the author is wrong about so many small details.

    (1) “Parents who tried to defend the priest and the school are now frightened, frightened physically and frightened for their children.” – The truth – parents on both sides of this issue are frightened. The Catholic Church has a long history of punishing those that disagree with it – and never apologize when it is later proven wrong.

    (2) “dissenting Church is dying in Charlotte, North Carolina and this is perhaps its dying gasps.” – the Catholic Church membership is growning in Charlotte and one of the largest Catholic churchs is in Charlotte. Additionally, the Catholic School system in Charlotte is growning while it is dying in many other parts of the USA.

    (3) “Prior to Father Kauth’s arrival two years ago, the school only had visiting priests, no regular confession, never regularly daily Mass.” – This is incorrect. A long standing priest handled both the Middle School and High School for a number of years before being reassigned. There was 1 year prior to Father Krauth – who has only been at CCHS for one year. There is no school wide daily Mass at CCHS even under Father Krauth, but there is daily religion class.

    • John Doe

      Finally someone who is getting it right! It’s a shame that such untruthful comments can be thrown around and called facts. I find it ironic that the names of teachers and parents and students who were NOT spoken to were used while the names of the ‘sources’ for this article weren’t given. I think that alone speaks volumes. Bravo to you for having the courage to speak out against this article and about all of the untruths that are written.

  • Dr paul

    my name is Carolina i want to thank my friend for showing way to AGAGULOVESPELL@GMAIL.COM where all my sorrow was turn to joy, i was in a relationship for 4 years and suddenly a mistake came into it from my side but i tried to beg my man but he refuse to listen to my apologies, until my friend told me about a spell caster called Dr Henry Olu that help her when she was also in a problem but i did not believed in her cause i don’t also beloved in spell caster until i chose to give him a trial. this man told me what i need to do so that my man will come and after doing them my man came back to me to apologize the way this spell caster told me, so people out there i am using this opportunity to inform you all that this is the best caster that you can ever contact and trust in him cause with him all your problems, please contact him through his email address:AGAGULOVESPELL@YAHOO.COM

  • Dr paul

    My name JOY and I am a professional traditional healer spells that specializes in love, money, power, success, happiness and witch craft, Pregnancy, Inheritance Properties, win back his divorced husband back.i Can you help with any problem of your wish, you may have. I have more than 30 years experience in the field of magic / spiritual healing. Over the years I have worked for thousands of clients in more than 80 countries worldwide. My services are highly in demand, which is proof of the success I achieved on a daily basis. We can also help those who were victims of fraud by fake loan lender, or in any way scammed get your money back from this fraudulent loan lender that the occupation of our fake magic of the loan and the lender back the money to scam from you and also send money back in your country. i’ve helped so many people around the world and are satisfied with their charm our casting.the All you have to do is send us a false loan lenders e-mail address and name management company and we will help you, we will cast spells ruturn back your money on fake loan lender and after 3 days will be contacted and ask how to send back money scam from you, so it is a good time to get my money back from this scam people. Do you have the problems issues that you need to solved? i have a variety of love spells that change your life forever. Have you lost a loved one? Are you in love with someone who does not seem to you? Is your loved one in love with someone else? Call me and I will muster all his strength to make your dreams come true. You struggle to make ends meet? You are experiencing a financial crisis and can not pay all your bills? I know what it is. Let me help you by casting one of my much sought after money spells. I can help you increase your income country, the job you are after, to help you achieve success in many areas, to improve their happiness, and much more … You live in constant fear? Need protection spell? Call me and I will cast a very effective protection spell that will protect you and your loved ones from evil. Do not wait until it’s too late. Please contact us. Traditional temple gods. I specialize in different areas of spell casting. Can you help with any problem you might face. Contact me now for immediate results {iyaijebulovehome@gmail.com] OK Hello Thanks for your response. You are welcome to my shrine where all kinds of problems are solve with the power of my great grand father, you have make the right choice for contacting me, all you need to do right now for you to have him back is for you to fill this information and return it back to me immediately ok. Your full name Your ex full name Your country Your phone number Your age Your ex age The photo of both of you. Once I get this information from you I will be able to consult my gods for the items that is needed to cast the spell. i want to assure you that the spell i cast for people is 100% guarantee sure and safe no side infect or harm that will affect both of you in future i have been doing this for more than 40 years no body has come to my temple and left with the same problem or complain of his ex lover OK.

  • Honest Guy

    As a student of Charlotte Catholic, I can relay what has happened better than any parent or political figure of Catholic Rights. First, the talk from the nun started out with gender roles. Basic ideas about how men need to protect women and women need to care for men. Then, the speech progressed into dark and very sexual topics. The most shocking things I heard from this person were exaggerated statistics about: people who watch pornography that become sexual predators, people (especially boys) who masturbate will eventually become homosexual, and some even more gross statistics about homosexuals. These “facts” were mainly about: how gay people have hundreds of sexual partners a year, how gay parents rape their children, and how people are gay due to the lack of love from a parent. This is what I heard first hand from the nun.

    • John Doe

      Thank you for speaking the truth about what was really said. From those of us who were there firsthand like you, but cannot say anything, your truthfulness is much appreciated.

  • Msize

    The Lord works in mysterious ways……my wife and I recently moved to Charlotte, after 20 years in Atlanta (great city). On a friday nite we randomly? decided to attend the CC / Providence football game 11/7. Drawn to the CC performance / win….. I researched the team and school on Saturday morning (my time net/coffee mind yoga)……and came across this article. Wow. I’m a progressive Liberal regarding social issues….I believe Jesus was sent here to save us, to give us the ultimate out for our human failings, I believe this for only one reason, it is the truth of my personal experience…..Grace simply cannot be denied forever. I believe his message of love each other no matter what trumps everything ever written by anyone. Period. That said, I am always taken aback (but less and less) at my fellow Liberals indignation when they have to deal with an opposing view. I understand when children are involved, the passion gets turned up….fast. I have 4 kids / young adults, i GET IT. But, we (liberals) describe ourselves as, open minded – free spirited – accepting – understanding – compassionate…..and many times just aren’t…… the ideas we (liberals) tout get framed in “as long as it’s aligned with how we think”….. We’re often hypocrites….a word we love to use against the right. It’s gotten to the point where I find myself ducking meaningful conversations with fellow liberals……….except one.

  • Ursula

    This is a great article! However, you left out one important aspect of this situation- the homofascist agenda . LGBT was in the news in Charlotte for at least the 2 weeks preceeding this incident. There were other LGBT protests happening and the LGBT community also got involved with this. When the parents went to the meeting many were wearing the bracelets given to them by the LGBT activist group. Fr Rocky got in trouble for his talk shortly thereafter. Other schools were having problems around the country. This incident became part of the bigger agenda…
    But the fact remains with proper catechesis and a Catholic school that actually has a Catholic Identity -not Catholic light, as you say, then Catholic Moral Teaching including sexuality would not be an incident to garner national attention. It would be an expected norm…as it should be at a Catholic school.

  • Pingback: PR FORMULA, PR-агентство, PR-услуги, PR-обслуживание, абонентское PR-обслуживание, PR-акция, PR-активность, PR-продвижение, связи с общественностью, инфо()

MENU