Profiles in Cowardice

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

 (Image of Bishop Jugis removed by the demand of the diocesan newspaper, The Catholic News Herald, of the Charlotte Diocese.)

 

Well, the diocese of Charlotte decided to throw Sister Jane Dominic Laurel under the bus after she had the temerity to teach basic Catholic doctrine in a school that hilariously calls itself Charlotte Catholic High School.  Go here to read about the controversy.  Here is what happened at the surrender ceremonies at the High School where the diocese capitulated to parents and students who despise Catholic moral teaching on divorce, homosexuals and sex.

 

 

Diocese spokesman David Hains acknowledged after the meeting that the Rev. Matthew Kauth, the school’s chaplain, apologized to the parents for a March 21 speech by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel that was not the one he expected her to give.

Hains also said the high school committed to developing new policies that would better scrutinize visiting speakers in the future. He said the school also wants to do a better job of communicating with parents ahead of time when such speeches will deal with sensitive subjects such as sexuality.

“Parents should have been better informed,” Hains said.

During her speech, Laurel quoted studies that said gays and lesbians are not born with same-sex attractions, and that children in single-parent homes have a greater chance of becoming homosexual, Hains and others said.

Diocese spokesman David Hains acknowledged after the meeting that the Rev. Matthew Kauth, the school’s chaplain, apologized to the parents for a March 21 speech by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel that was not the one he expected her to give.

Hains also said the high school committed to developing new policies that would better scrutinize visiting speakers in the future. He said the school also wants to do a better job of communicating with parents ahead of time when such speeches will deal with sensitive subjects such as sexuality.

“Parents should have been better informed,” Hains said.

Go here to read the rest.  Well, who are the main cowards in all this?  First and foremost is Bishop Peter J. Jugis.  He formerly had a reputation as an orthodox bishop but I guess he thinks he has figured out which way the wind is blowing from the Vatican.  Second, are the powers that be at the school.  Third, and most tragically, is the school chaplain Father Matthew Kauth who before last night had a reputation as an orthodox priest.  I hope that he made his craven apology under obedience, and I hope that he can still look in the mirror when he shaves.

Friends, we live in low and dishonest times when a Catholic nun is thrown under the bus for preaching the Truth.  Despicable, truly despicable.

 

Update: 

Judging from the below report at Women of Grace blog by Susan Brinkmann I retract my statement about Father Kauth and double down my statement about the Bishop who wasn’t even man enough to be there last night:

The only media who were permitted into the room were reporters from the diocesan newspaper, the Catholic News Herald, whose reporters said that even though there were supporters among the parents who attended the assembly, most of the attendees were critical.

“Parents said they felt betrayed by school administrators for not being told about the March 21 all-school assembly beforehand. Other parents objected to some of the material Sister Jane had presented about homosexuality and the way she presented it,” reports the Herald’s David Exum and Patricial L. Guilfoyle.

For instance, one parent said her child came home from school the day of the presentation feeling ashamed and embarrassed. The parent proceed to chide Father Matthew Kauth, the school’s chaplain, for arranging the event.

“I have lost confidence. I do not trust your judgment and I do not respect (Father Kauth),” the parent said.

Her comments were vigorously applauded.

On the other hand, whenever a parent tried to defend the school and the presentation, they were loudly booed by the crowd.

This was in spite of a statement read aloud from Bishop Peter Jugis, who was unable to attend due to a prior commitment. Bishop Jugis prayed there would “be a friendly and respectful conversation among Catholic brothers and sisters, united in the one faith and in the love of Almighty God.”

Judging from the Herald’s reporting, it was anything but.

” . . . (M)any parents’ emotions boiled over, with arguments even carrying over into the school’s parking lot when the meeting ended after two hours. Two observers called the meeting’s climate ‘disrespectful’ and ‘hate-filled’,” they report.

Indeed, parents seemed to be out-for-blood because the school allowed a presentation that included politically incorrect facts about homosexuality – the kind that gay activists never want  mentioned in public and silence with their own version of “hate speech” that falls under the umbrella term “homophobe”.

In an effort to cool tempers, Father Roger Arnsparger, diocesan vicar of education, apologized for the section of Sister Jane’s talk that included the alleged offensive data.

“Many said that the first part of her [Sister Jane’s] presentation at Charlotte Catholic High School was excellent and fully in line with the Catholic faith,” Father Arnsparger said.

“There was unfortunately a misunderstanding about the content of the last part of the presentation. In that part, I understand that Sister used data from the Linacre Quarterly, a reputable journal, and from other sources. That data can be debated and, in fact, is debated back and forth by scholars who are researching the areas of human sexuality. Because of the ongoing debate, it would have been better if these studies and data were omitted from the presentation to the students.”

This was not enough to satisfy parents, one of whom claimed to be representing lesbian, gay and bisexual students at the school and who said the presentation created an unsafe environment for these students.

Another told the school chaplain: “You don’t know what’s best for our children. What are you planning on doing for the healing? We want our children to remain Catholic, but we are being pushed away by the climate of what is going on here.”

Judging by the hostile attitude of these parents, it’s hard to imagine what they might want short of a retraction of Church teaching in order to assuage their offended children (who wouldn’t be offended in the first place if they were being taught the Truth at home). If not a retraction, then they are certainly gunning for the watered-down version that is creeping into so many other Catholic schools where youth are served the same kind of cultural pabulum they can get for free in the public school down the street.

I applaud Father Kauth for his courageous statement to parents last night.

“When I came here, I experienced to an increasing degree the suffering that comes to our children and the blackness they feel inside. They are taught by nearly every form of media that Christ’s teachings in His Church are restrictive bars, medieval torture chambers to keep them from happiness.  When they have ‘broken free’ I get to see their agony,” he said.

 

 

 

More to explorer

Just in Time for Christmas

Well, President Trump certainly isn’t the first Republican President to be associated with a stuffed bruin:    

Not One Thin Dime

(This is a repost from 2014.  Nothing has changed in regard to the Catholic Campaign for Human Development and no faithful Catholic

Requiescat In Pace: Stan Lee

  Stanley Martin Lieber, better known as Stan Lee, passed away today at age 95.  A World War II veteran, Lee  worked

144 Comments

  1. “Jugis is not a coward.”

    I disagree. This was a time that needed episcopal spine and he showed that he has none. He should have been at that meeting and told the mob that if they were offended by Catholic teaching there was the door

  2. I would say that the Bishop cowed to pressure and human respect instead of using this teaching moment to underscore the truth of Catholic sexual teaching. Instead he allowed the misinformed to bully him and others. What a precedence!

  3. I do not blame this on either Bishop Jugis or Father Kauth. Rather, the fault lies with liberal progressive Democrat parents.

    Furthermore, I have failed Church teaching on many matters, including sexual ones. Is here anyone here who has not? And I know what I but for the grace of God deserve – in my case, likely death with a heroin needle in my forearm’s vein. Nevertheless, do we expect the Church to soften Her teaching just because we fail? The best thing that happened to me was when my 12 step sponsor, having heard my 5th step moral inventory, told me to get my sorry behind to Confession.

  4. Don is right. The Diocese could’ve nipped this in the bud by NOT having a parents meeting AT ALL and issuing a statement that read

    “Sister delivered a talk that reflects the unchanging and inerrant teachings of the Catholic Church. Such teachings are NOT open for debate or ‘dialogue’. If you attend a Catholic school in this Diocese, you can expect to hear ONLY things that are faithful to that Magesterium. There are, of course, alternative educational choices available should this be undesirable to you. If that is the course you prefer, good luck in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system.”

  5. It was not that simple, Jay. While it is certainly true that many of the students and parents are indeed taking exception to unambiguous Catholic teaching, the Church takes no position on the cause of homosexual appetites. According to witnesses quoted in news reports, Sister expressed some pretty eccentric views on that, and did so in a way that conflated those views with Church teaching. Any statement by the Diocese would have had to have been more explict as to what is Catholic teaching.

  6. “During her speech, Laurel quoted studies that said gays and lesbians are not born with same-sex attractions, and that children in single-parent homes have a greater chance of becoming homosexual, Hains and others said.”

    It is regrettable that Sister Laurel did not record her talk or speak from a prepared script.

    If true, it was ill-advised of her to express views on the ætiology of same-sex attraction, a subject on which there is no scientific consensus and which has no place in homiletics

    One recalls the Dominican preacher, rebuked by St Robert Bellermine for preaching on the Copernican theory and taking as his text “Viri Galilei quid admiramini aspicientes in cælum?” – You men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing into heaven” (the ghastly pun on Galileo Galilei’s name alone was worthy of the stake)

  7. If true, it was ill-advised of her to express views on the ætiology of same-sex attraction, a subject on which there is no scientific consensus and which has no place in homiletics

    Longitudinal studies have demonstrated discordant behavior among identical twins and that it is at least as common as concordant (homosexual) behavior. We know damn well you’re not born with homosexual attractions and there should not be any difficulty discussing adjacent questions.

  8. I had been under the wrong impression about the character of the local ordinary…..now it is duly noted.

    But, who am I to judge, except with my money, as small as it is?

  9. Art, where have either Michael or I excused the virtiolic criticism of the parents? We haven’t. You’re a bright guy, but being smart is not a substitute for reading before criticizing

    You tend toward arrogance bud, an arrogance that I suspect you would not display in person.

  10. And AD, if the reports on what Sister Jane said were accurate, then Jay’s suggested Diocesen statement would have been incorrect, in which case it is indeed not that simple. You are mistaken.

  11. I’m going to withhold judgment on this one. I’m as hardcore orthodox as they come on the subject of sexual morality, but I’ve definitely seen people go too far, and do damage to the faith by speaking inappropriately. I wouldn’t want to second-guess a bishop, particularly without seeing the text of her statements.

  12. There is nothing ‘incorrect’ about Jay Anderson’s proposed statement. That she commented on matters adjacent to questions of Church teaching does not render it ‘incorrect’. If you fancy that these youths were hot and bothered that Sister Jane offered a reference to psychological or sociological literature that was in error and that offended their precise empirical minds, I’ve a bridge for sale.

    I do not take an interest in your assessment of me. I merely not you mistake exasperation and impatience for arrogance.

  13. Art,
    If you think that Sister Jane carefully distinguished her explanations on Catholic teaching from her personal irrelevant speculations then I can sell you an even bigger bridge.

  14. Personally I agree with Paul. I don’t know if we’re living in a solipsistic culture during an antinomian age, or if it’s the other way around, but it seems to me too many people want and expect the Church to turn towards them when it is we who are called to conversion.

  15. Actually, I have expressed myself on the other dialogue “Sr Jane tells it all” but let me put my statements in succinct form.

    1) The Catholic identity and mission of a Catholic school needs to be made explicit and clear to any and all who approach the school for education. A Catholic school in faith and morals will indeed teach Catholic doctrine period. No excuses, no debate,. period. Parents don’t like it go someplace else.

    2) An assembly such as this containing or being wholly devoted to teaching on sexuality needs to be well communicated with parents fully knowing what will be said and agreeing to allow their children to attend. Parents are still the first educators especially in the area of sexuality. That is solid Catholic principle.

    3) The person giving the talk ought to stick strictly with Catholic teaching (and the explanation of that teaching) and not to ideosyncratic or spurious theories concerning the subject.

    4) Pope Francis, despite both liberal and ultratraditionalist spins (strange bedfellows!) both holds to Catholic teaching in sexuality in general and homosexuality specifically. In his words, ga marriage is anthropologically regressive. His statement “Who am I to judge?” is, based on both Scripture and Church teaching. He is not speaking about saying something is right or wrong [such as homosexual acts] but Who am I to judge [condemn]: let the first one without sin cast the first stone. All the stones flying at Francis are hitting Christ you know!

    5)The local bishop simply did not show up at a meeting. Was he sick, an emergency come up? I sense he could have handled this better, but…….

    Hope this helps sorting out the various strands of issues here

  16. “If you think that Sister Jane carefully distinguished her explanations on Catholic teaching from her personal irrelevant speculations then I can sell you an even bigger bridge.”

    Though she may have presented speculations as such to an audience that has been taught that homosexuals are born that way. This to counter the argument that there is nothing a homosexual can do about it and thus it is right. There is in fact a body of psychological evidence that it is not inherited and thus the basis of therapy. The audience may then have misinterpreted her presentation as saying this was Catholic teaching on the nature of homosexuality.

    Unless Sister Jane states she said such or there is a record of the talk, it is unclear. Though one may get her talks free here:

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

  17. If you think that Sister Jane carefully distinguished her explanations on Catholic teaching from her personal irrelevant speculations then I can sell you an even bigger bridge.

    1. There is no transcript or recording.

    2. There is no demonstration that she was ‘speculating’ either. It is perfectly plausible she has a bibliography on just that question, studies disputed by other studies. That’s perfectly normal in social research.

    3. It would not matter whether she ‘carefully distinguished’ or did not. These people are not in a frame of mind where they would notice distinction or nuance.

    4. Who cares? She presents Church teaching, she notes it is a common belief that x is so and discredits Church teaching. She denies that x is so (in the course of whatever else she has to say).

    You’re in the business of gagging on gnats while swallowing the elephant of the behavior of the constituents of this school and this bishop. Not too impressive.

  18. I’m old enough to remember when homosexuality was something you did not something you were.

    I’m not an evolutionist. However, if gays are born “that way” wouldn’t the gay gene or divergent DNA or whatever “nature” not “nurture” factor have died out (along with the Neandrethals) when the born-that-way-gays declined to procreate.

    N.B. They didn’t have in vitro gfertilization or surrogate mothers in prehistoric times.

    Finally, when did evil become more powerful than virtue?

  19. Some very good comments and there is most likely more to the story. Sister Laurel may not have arrived at her conclusion by the correct means (faulty study/research what have you) but her conclusion was not in contradiction to church teaching on homosexual lifestyles. As I read the argument and the statements. Those are observations on observations.

    For those of you who side with the Pope in a “who am i to judge” manner, I would ask that you reconsider your position. The Popes responsibility is to reinforce and protect the Deposit of Faith that is Catholic doctrine and inform those individuals of the standard by which we ALL will be judged. So, when somebody asks, “What do you think of Homosexuals and their lifestyles?” A proper comment should have been to the punch. “The church has not changed it teaching with regards to Homosexuality. Homosexuals are welcomed into the Church and are accepted in accordance with open arms in accordance with Christ’s teaching on charity and loving one’s neighbor as himself. The homosexual lifestyle is condemned under pain of mortal sin.” It seems at face value that Sister Laurel had the courage to try and argue that point.

    It would also appear that Bishop Jungis has a much larger problem in that modernism and liberalism have not only taken root in his diocese, but seem to growing.

  20. 1. Correct, so we can only argue from the unreliable reports of witnesses, unless you want to just assume away those reports in favor of some fabricated hypothetical.

    2. If the studies are disputed by other studies, then offering up her preferred study to high school students as the truth is worse than speculation.

    3. I agree that it is doubtful that the students could have distinguished her sociological/anthropological/psychological musings from her explication of Church teaching, which is exactly why it was horribly imprudent for her to present the former while she presented the latter.

    4. A hypothesis that homosexual appetites are caused by forces other than post-natal environment or choice does not in any way discredit Church teaching. Scientists could discover a gene tomorrow that causes men to be sexually attracted to toddlers, and it would still be sinful to act on such attraction.

    5. If you think my points are gnats, don’t waste your time arguing with them. I have little sympathy with parents who send their children to Catholic school and then object when they are exposed to Catholic teaching. I also have little sympathy for teachers, especially Catholic religious (conservative or liberal), who conflate their own personal/sociological/anthropological/psychological beliefs with the magisterium. Such confusions only make it harder for those of us who regularly defend Catholic teaching.

  21. These are profiles in cowardice, when weasels are called into action and succumb to unCatholic tirades and teachings, wanting to legitimize sewer perversions such as sodomy. Sr Jane Dominic did a good job but the parents have not, with poor catechesis now for several generations. These won’t need to join the freemasons and modernists, for they already think like them/

  22. There is no transcript or recording.

    .

    1. Correct, so we can only argue from the unreliable reports of witnesses, unless you want to just assume away those reports in favor of some fabricated hypothetical.

    .
    So why are we watching youse guys dance around the maypole then?

  23. So why are we watching youse guys dance around the maypole then?

    Because then we can find some loophole to explain how certain prelates aren’t acting in a cowardly fashion.

    That Sister Jane’s discussion of some of the psychological and physiological aspects of homosexuality may have left something to be desired is rather beside the point, as anyone with a hint of common sense should acknowledge that it is the larger condemnation of homosexual activity that drove these adolescents (and here I refer to the parents more than the students) into such snits of anger. Certainly these points could have been addressed by the diocese in a way that didn’t otherwise throw her under the bus.

  24. Mike Petrik, your points are gnats. I am arguing with them because you’re being unreasonable. You’ve made a mess of unsupported assertions (“eccentric”, “irrelevant explanations”, “promising research”) when you could not possibly be speaking on your own authority and when you are speaking in a realm where there is likely to be a mess of competing opinions. What she is supposed by you to have done (made a statement about human behavior in the course of a talk on normative questions) is not even an offense even if there are better informed arguments. The implication of your second point is that she must never discuss social research (because it’s commonly disputed). You ever thought of following it yourself?

    A generation ago, Pat Buchanan offered a rule-of-thumb about conflict: “when the mob’s coming to get the old man, you don’t sit him down and demand he write down a list of mistakes. You start firing from the upper floors”. The same applies here. I might offer Sister some thoughts on qualifications to offer, citations to use, reviews to consult, and paragraph placement if I had a transcript of her talk. Lot’s of things can be improved. Would not be a priority under the circumstances, though.

    If people had a complaint about the notion that homosexual conduct is correlated with single-parent upbringing, they’d have made that complaint and left it at that; it could conceivably be wrong, but its not the sort of thing you’d be motivated to hotly dispute if you were not antecedently a tribune for divorcees or homosexuals. The notion that pathology is associated with fatherlessness is a banal one. It’s not likely the parents in this auditorium had annotated literature reviews up their sleeves. You did not.

  25. Hitherto ortodox bishops throwing other orthodox Catholics under the bus for defending orthodoxy when the blowback starts to hit them long predates the present pontificate. That should be obvious to anyone who has observed Church affairs in at least the last two decades

  26. “born that way”? What? Concupiscent? Babies are born addicted to heroin. The answer to that question doesn’t really matter.
    The point of Catholic teaching is that we each have a choice when we are tempted. Same sex attraction is a temptation and a terrible cross.
    I hope that any Catholic speakers, whether they are speaking at high schools or men’s conferences or any grouping of clerics or laity, would realize the tremendous suffering that is part and parcel of this struggle.
    Speak the truth, draw the hard lines, but do it with love.
    I don’t know the tone of voice/attitude she gave with her facts but I know the subject needs to be approached with love, so that the sinner feels welcome to listen and discuss. The prudent way to broach a difficult subject is with firmness and with kindness.
    I don’t know what the bishop’s previous commitment was.

  27. “I don’t know the tone of voice/attitude she gave with her facts but I know the subject needs to be approached with love,”

    That is always sister’s approach which makes the reaction of the parents and their spoiled brats even more farcial:

  28. FYI-
    A STATEMENT FROM AQUINAS COLLEGE
    April 02, 2014
    From Sister Mary Sarah, O.P., President of Aquinas College:

    The talk, “Masculinity and Femininity: Difference and Gift,” presented by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, O.P., at Charlotte Catholic High School on March 21, attempted to reflect the teaching of the Catholic Church in matters of faith and morals. This is a challenging topic to present and has been favorably received in other places where Sister Jane Dominic has made a similar presentation.

    The presentation was given with the intention of showing that human sexuality is a great gift to be treasured and that this gift is given by God. The current culture sees this differently, and Sister was attempting to bring the Church’s teaching to a group of young students with the intention of delivering a message that would bring life, peace and a deep sense of purpose. It appears that this message was not universally accepted. The hope of Aquinas College is that no one was left feeling that they are not loved by God.

    The subsequent events surrounding this presentation are unfortunate. Our hope for the members of the Charlotte Catholic High School community is that the matter will be resolved and that this Catholic community will be reunited in their love for God and one another.

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

  29. I am currently reading the Acts of Apostles. I can’t imagine that the early church would have gotten very far if they back pedaled and kowtowed like the clergy and administraitors of CCHS did at the meeting with protesters. St. Paul was nearly stoned to death in Lystra. From the various reports about the meeting, it didn’t seem like any of the so-called shepherds were willing to confront the wolves to save the sheep. I got the impression that the bishop was glad he had a previous commitment. What a wimp! This diocese needs a major regrouping. I think my initial suggestion (in the earlier post) to close the school and retool it is the right thing to do.

    Friends, we are fast approaching a situation akin to 1930s Germany. This time the powers that be are coming after Christians and especially RCs. An increasing number of people, especially young people, view traditional and conservative values as hate speech. Too many people label the Bible as hatefilled and subversive. At first, they will not ban the Bible outright but instead will target believers as hate-filled bigots and arrest them for hate crimes. People will be afraid to even have a Bible. It’s coming fast and there is not much time, it may be too late already. Pray. Pray like you mean it.

  30. I am likely not going to bother with so-called Catholic education. From my own experience in the 1970s, the Sisters did little to teach us much about the Catholic faith. I learned more about the Catholic faith in two months on the Internet back in 1999 than I learned in five years of Catholic school and three years of CCD.

    This episode in Charlotte reinforces my opinion. How dare the parents of Catholic school students complain about Catholic teaching on homosexuality?

  31. I don’t know if the bishop or priest or school board are cowards. (It would not surprise me.) I do think the parents who protested should be shown the door with no apologies-and-don’t-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out. This is based on my own experience as a Catholic who sends her boys to a Protestant School part time. I am well aware they are Protestant. I am well aware they use Bob Jones University text books and the science teacher there, God bless him, has somewhat more faith in Creationism than I have. I was a little shocked when one of my boys declared that “dragons” are actually “dinosaurs.” Didn’t see that one coming, but I guess I should have.
    .
    My point? What business have I to complain about what my children are learning there when I sent them there knowing full well that the school and I really don’t see eye to eye on some issues. It seems to me the proper response is to simply withdraw them from the school, and either find a school/co-op that teaches what I believe, or else to teach them on my own, not scream and shout at the administration and Headmaster. (Perhaps I should not have sent them in the first place.) Seriously, who does not know what the Church teaches on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, divorce and the like? The parents knew; do not tell me they didn’t know. One wonders if the parents put their children at that school on purpose, in order to better situate them to cause trouble.

  32. I don’t think a PFLAG-organized demonstration was kvetching about the presentation of certain debatable facts. This skeezy organization simply doesn’t want Catholic teaching on homosexuality taught in Catholic schools. It appears we are going to accommodate them.

    The Left isn’t having kids, so they insist on stealing yours. This is part of a pattern, and if you don’t think it’s a coordinated effort, you desperately need some ice dropped down the back of your shirt.

    And, yes, Jugis is a coward. “Now, children, play nice” is a bullshit cop-out.

  33. PFLAG…. organization simply doesn’t want Catholic teaching on homosexuality taught in Catholic schools. Dale Price
    That is the bottom line, isn’t it.
    … and I think they have the upper hand right now with mass propaganda, mass and mob mentality. They’ve got the momentum.
    Our efforts are slow, and small increments, person to person evangelization. Sigh.

  34. I’m with Donald and Jay on this one. Catholic schools should teach Catholic teaching and if that means the school closes due to lack of attendance so be it.

    Paul, if you think these parents are progressive liberal Democrats, I have an even bigger bridge to sell you. This is North Carolina where Romney won 68 percent of the white vote. I’m sorry but these parents are your Rand Paul type libertarian fiscally “conservative” socially liberal Republicans.

  35. I am appalled at this decision by the Bishop to kowtow to the liberal parents. I guess he deems it worth of apology by the nun. Guess he just wants to keep peace in the Diocese (yes, keep on sending your kids to Catholic School…they will be great CINOS when the graduate, (CATHOLICS IN NAME ONLY). Does he also support abortion, living together outside of marriage or homosexual unions? Or perhaps they are just not topics that need to be addressed to our youth. “Just do whatever feels good to you.” Most of our US Bishops are leading Catholics in this country down the path to Hell with failure to defend the few who have the courage to tell the truth. I do not reside in the Charlotte Diocese but have no doubt our Bishop would have also made the good nun look like a rabble-rouser. Sad day for conservative Catholics.

  36. God help us, Tom M. That means that even if we win at the polls, we lose.

    🙁

    Praying you are wrong.

  37. I was there last night and Fr. Kauth did NOT apologize for the CONTENT of the talk, only that one aspect of the talk should’ve been given in a more personal setting and not in front of the entire school where it couldn’t be appropriately explained. In fact they TRIED back him into a corner and get an apology for the content but he refused. Bishop Jugis is NOT a coward. The crowd that forced last night’s meeting did not DESERVE the presence of a bishop. In actuality, they shouldn’t of even had the presence of Fr. Kauth and Fr. Arnsparger. Their manufactured complaints about parental notification (if only these parents got that upset when grade school kids are taught secular sex-ed without parental notification) and feigned indignation over kids hurt feelings (if only they were that upset about the 4,000 abortions committed every day in the USA) should’ve been addressed in a letter and been over and done with. The lies spewed last night were profuse and deep and now it is YOU throwing two good priests and a good bishop under the bus. Fr. Kauth took a lot of abuse last night and never compromised the faith. One commentator likened it to “a crucification” of Fr. Kauth. There were a lot of spiritually sick parents there last night that took the occasion to use some minor mistakes in Fr. Kauth’s judgment to bully a good priest.

  38. The faith is compromised because the homosexual mafia inside the Catholic Church makes such a scene that Church teaching on homosexuality will never again be presented at that school or probably anywhere in that diocese. The parents and their children should be expelled from the school if they are not interested in Catholic doctrine — which isn’t about feelings. How hurt these people will be when they’re on fire in hell for all eternity.

  39. “and deep and now it is YOU throwing two good priests and a good bishop under the bus.”

    Rubbish. I retracted my statement as to Father Kauth based on additional information. As for the Bishop and the powers that be at the school I stand by every syllable. The Bishop knew what was going to happen and that is why he vamoosed. Such cowardice is unworthy of a man of honor, let alone a Bishop. This was a moment for the Bishop to stand up for the Faith and he was missing in action.

  40. The Bishop is a coward and lacks real faith. A man of faith would welcome the opportunity to reaffirm the teachings of the Church. Instead, he curtsied to the so-called Catholic parents who vehemently take issue with Church teaching. To the parents who were angered by this good nun clearly explaining the 2000 year teaching of the Catholic Church I say, Wake up! You’ve been drinking too much of the secular Kool-Aid. A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it and the truth is the truth even if no one believes it. Church teaching is truth.

  41. How dare you call our good and holy Bishop a coward because he didn’t have time in his busy schedule to answer a bunch of whining parents. Sorry that he can’t cancel THE DEDICATION OF A PARISH that has been on his schedule for months to shush a bunch of dissenters.

  42. Our Bishop, Bishop Jugis is a holy and courageous man! One who has a history of standing up to the media and speaking strongly and about our Church Teachings. He is also a man who put his trust in his most capable priest, especially the pillar of strength that Father kauth is and always has been. Our Bishop left this meeting in the capable hands of Father Kauth and keep his prior commitment. Shame on you for speaking so about such a holy man…and so quickly without even having all the facts. This is not how we treat our beloved priest and bishops!!

  43. Bishop Jugis is a wonderful Bishop and Father Kauth is an awesome priest. Sister is a blessing. I was a single mother and Sister’s news, studies, and statistics about single parent homes was also in the movie Courageous. This is not new news. Truth is not always recognized. Family on earth has the holy family as a guide.

  44. All of you need to be very careful of how you speak of Bishop Jugis. Your starting to sound like the parents who were horribly disrespectful to Fr. Kauth at that meeting. You are resorting to name calling (coward) toward a man of God. There are many priests whom I don’t agree with or honestly just don’t like. BUT I would NEVER try to humiliate them in a public forum. It’s fine to have your opinion, but leave the personal attacks out of it. I’ve always known Bishop Jugis to be forthright and true to Church teaching. He has taken a stand on other issues in the past, and I think he will now. The parents at CCHS had the nerve to say their kids were being taught to hate as they booed parents who were trying to speak in support of Fr. Kauth. They obviously had no intention of hearing the other side. They resorted to actions that were immature and petty.

  45. Perhaps the real reason contributors are calling Bishop Jurgis a coward is not that he sent a delgate to that ill advised meeting (the Chancery should have known by now what the real reason for that meeting was, it was to preside over the surrender of true Catholicism to the modernist who obviously sought the meeting. In short it was because of the Chanceries UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!

    A truly courageous Bishop such as Cardinal St. John Fisher would not even allowed that meeting to take place on Church grounds!

    May God have mercy on an amoral Amerika!
    Viva Cristo Rey!
    Yours in Their Hearts,
    Kenneth M. Fisher, Founding Director
    Concerned Roman Catholics of America, Inc.

  46. “How dare you call our good and holy Bishop a coward because he didn’t have time in his busy schedule to answer a bunch of whining parents. Sorry that he can’t cancel THE DEDICATION OF A PARISH that has been on his schedule for months to shush a bunch of dissenters.”

    How dare you seek to excuse such cowardice. The Bishop knew precisely what was going to happen at that meeting and he didn’t want to be there. He could easily have set it up on a date when he was free. He sent his chancery staff to wave the white flag of surrender instead.

  47. “Shame on you for speaking so about such a holy man…and so quickly without even having all the facts. This is not how we treat our beloved priest and bishops!!”

    We do no favor to a Bishop when we excuse obvious failure on his part. One of his primary duties as Bishop is to stand up for the Faith and in this case Bishop Jugis was missing in action. Do not be a fool. Jugis knew precisely what was going to happen at that meeting and he did not want to wave the white flag in person. He sent his chancery staff to do the dirty work. Shameful!

  48. “He has taken a stand on other issues in the past, and I think he will now.”

    His “stand” this time was to run and hide and send out his Chancery spokesman to apologize to parents who booed his priests at the meeting. That is contemptible and cowardly.

  49. You are resorting to name calling (coward) toward a man of God. There are many priests whom I don’t agree with or honestly just don’t like.

    ‘Coward’ is a descriptor of his disposition. If anyone wished to engage in ‘name-calling’, they’d have referred to him as “s***face”.

    This whole incident indicates that the school and much of its constituency are gangrenous. The appropriate response would have been to expel the children of the main agitators, send a letter to the rest of the parents informing them that if they do not care for the school’s program of moral instruction, they should enroll their youngsters elsewhere, and to prepare contingency plans to close the school. Instead, they called a meeting and offered wheedling apologies over procedural matters. That’s blood in the water and not something committed and prudent people do.

  50. This mornings prayers and Sister Jane collided. May we walk the walk.
    “If anyone suffers for being a Christian..he ought not be ashamed, He should rather glorify God in virtue of that name.” 1 Pt 4:16

    It is sad that “her own” supposedly, have partaken in supporting the opposing viewpoints. Judas it seems is alive and well.

  51. The cancellation occurred prior to this asinine meeting. Some of the commentary on that article calls to mind a suggestion of Erma Bombeck: “If you can’t make it better, laugh at it”.

  52. A quality of tolerance seems to be evidenced by intolerance in this world of the political activism of the body. ‘Hate’ becomes a tag for others who may speak of love or mercy. What an overwhelming quagmire of confusion this presents for the growth and development of young minds.

    No wonder that keeping the little phone in the hand has become their main religiously kept objective.

  53. It is truly shocking how incredibly judgmental the author of this post and most of the commenters are — without bothering to learn the facts.

    Does “Catholic teaching” include the lie that masturbation, growing up in a single-parent household, and pornography are all causes of homosexuality? Because that’s what Sister Dominic reportedly “taught” the students. Does “Catholic teaching” include the lie that gay people are child abusers and gay men have 500-1000 sexual partners? Because that’s what Sister Dominic reportedly “taught” the students also.

    I love how you all ignore the “judge not” part of the Bible, and you don’t bother to arm yourselves with readily-available facts before you attack.

    Go look at the local reports of what happened.

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2014/03/27/4799363/charlotte-catholic-high-calls.html#.Uz6d3V5JHLQ

    http://goqnotes.com/28415/anti-gay-charlotte-catholic-high-lecturer-sparks-controversy/

    And shame on you for your indignation born of ignorance of the facts. Pity how no one here seems to care about the children, who are the only victims in this story.

  54. David Badrash is a shill for the gay activist group The New Civil Rights Movement which seeks to make a sexual perversion into the equivalent of being a racial minority:

    http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/

    Go to the link below to read one of his charming anti-Catholic tweets:

    https://twitter.com/davidbadash/status/182454450236030977

    He and his movement have zero interest in tolerance and every interest in ensuring that people who hold to Catholic moral teaching are hounded from the public square.

  55. It is truly shocking how incredibly judgmental the author of this post and most of the commenters are

    The term ‘judgmental’ is commonly favored by the sort whom an ordinary person contemplates and then asks “girl, when you look in the mirror, just who do you see?”.

  56. Dear Friends, let us always assume positive intent, especially on the part of our bishop and our priests. And especially a bishop and priests that have always demonstrated themselves to be extremely faithful to the Church. And let us pray for them to have wisdom and strength. I think we are tempted to focus on the problem from our own perspective, when we have no idea the larger pastoral perspective of a bishop and priests who serve large and diverse communitities (and I *mean* diverse in circumstances, not belief, although this is ostensibly the reality.)

    If you were in an argument with someone you love dearly, and you desire reconciliation, what would you do? Do you tell them swiftly and plainly how wrong they are? Or do you seek for any way to offer some sort of apology to be able to open the dialogue and soften hearts? No one apologized for Church teaching, but I think our dear priests are looking for a way to be able to still reach these families and not shut them out. (Even though it seems like many parents have chosen to shut down the conversation from their side.)

    It is our duty as faithful Catholics to give our respect to our bishops and priests, even when we disagree with their actions. Let us express our opinions charitably. And pray.

  57. “Dear Friends, let us always assume positive intent, especially on the part of our bishop and our priests.”

    Based upon the experience of the past several decades I think that is, sadly, frequently not a wise policy.

  58. For the record, I make no judgment regarding His Excellency or Father Kauth except for their judgment in this particular instance. I’ve heard many good things about them, and I don’t believe them, in general terms, to be “cowards”. On that point, I’m not necessarily in agreement with Don.

    Where I AM in agreement with Don is in that they made an egregious mistake in judgment in this case to even give the time of day to these dissenting viewpoints. A parents meeting SHOULD NEVER HAD BEEN HELD to discuss matters of Church teaching. It is ALWAYS a bad idea and no fruitful “dialogue” can EVER come from it. The impression should NEVER be given that the Church’s teachings are up for debate or subject to critique from parishioners, Catholic school parents, and ESPECIALLY Catholic school students.

    I stand by my earlier comment that a perfunctory statement should have been issued by the Diocese reiterating the Church’s unchanging and inerrant teachings and wishing those who persist in their dissent the best of luck in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system.

  59. If you were in an argument with someone you love dearly, and you desire reconciliation, what would you do? Do you tell them swiftly and plainly how wrong they are? Or do you seek for any way to offer some sort of apology to be able to open the dialogue and soften hearts? –

    If I am in an ‘argument’ with them, I am engaged in the act of telling them they are wrong. No, I do not offer cloying pro forma apologies. That is not what an apology is for.

  60. What Mr. Anderson says. That was the gross procedural error, not the reference to an article in The Linacre Quarterly and not failing to type up and publish her text with double-spacing, wide margins and Turabian compliant citations.

  61. When a theologian speaks on the priority of Mark, the authorship of the Pastorals or the rival merits of the Tischendorf and the Nestle-Aland editions, they speak as experts and can only be judged by their peers. On questions of psychology or sociology, they enjoy no privileged insight and the wise will seek some more credible source of information.

  62. I understand the frustration of seeing situations not be corrected or addressed in the way ‘we’ think they obviously should be addressed, and the erosion in some places, of our rights and of the presentation of the true gospel that seem to result. However, it’s clear that you don’t know our Bishop. He is a very prayerful, careful, resolute leader, not one to back down from a fight. Good leadership is not hasty. He made the correct choice.

    Regarding this situation in particular, while the infamous student/parent petition made it clear they wanted to take on Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality and other things, the letter sent to parents ahead of time made it clear that those who wished to use the meeting for that purpose would not be allowed to do so. Having lost that agenda, the parents changed their focus to parental notification, many claiming that was their concern all along – although it was not the issue in the petition. There is no need for the Bishop to be present to address parental notification violations.

    My husband works with experts in the field of conflict resolution and organizational change. His colleagues would uniformly and ardently argue against having a meeting like they did, using the format they did, or sending the Bishop to attend. It was predicted to be a disaster and it was. If there are people to blame in this situation, it would be the PR staff of our diocese. They legitimized the mob mentality and rewarded it with the attention they wanted. A simple letter of apology would have sufficed, with a plan for parental notification and a lecture for the kids that clarified that the scientific material presented to them was not Catholic teaching that we are obligated to believe.

    What you accuse him of – cowardice – was actually wisdom and prudence on his part. Two virtues which may have been lacking when you wrote this article.

  63. However, it’s clear that you don’t know our Bishop.

    Waal, lady, you know a little more now than you did last week. And so do we.

    There is no need for the Bishop to be present to address parental notification violations.

    You mean the artifice of the organizers justifies the negligence of the bishop.

    If there are people to blame in this situation, it would be the PR staff of our diocese. They legitimized the mob mentality and rewarded it with the attention they wanted.

    They work for the bishop. There cannot be that many layers of management between the bishop and his press agent and presumably he has some discretion over his schedule.

    A simple letter of apology would have sufficed, with a plan for parental notification

    No, that would have been a craven cop out.

    Nice try, sister.

  64. “What you accuse him of – cowardice – was actually wisdom and prudence on his part. Two virtues which may have been lacking when you wrote this article.”

    Rubbish. What the Church in America, and around the world actually, needs are clerics like Archbishop John Hughes of New York who always unhesitatingly stood up to enemies of the Faith. He was known to friend and foe alike as “Dagger John”, a tribute to his toughness. The Bishop, in addition to being a coward, is a fool if he thought to appease the enemies of the Faith with the surrender meeting he had his diocesan staff orchestrate. You act as if the Bishop is not in charge of his staff, which is actually more damning about him than anything I have written.

  65. Once again the policy of timidity and conciliaton of the USCCB is showing up.
    So.sad and dissapinting. Is time to speak from the pulpit. As my old spiritual adviser Rev. Lebroc told a group of us.members of the Cuban Catholic Students upon us taking arms against Castro’s regime :”The Catholics of today are no longer martyrs ,they are warriors and as such should fight the forces of Lucifer that mean to destroy our faith,sometimes utilizing the plight of the poor to attain their goal”
    Time to grow a pair

  66. The Other Kevin here: While reading the above the subject of my commentary changed. I will briefly end with my first thoughts after this: Love is patient, love is kind and you know the rest. What was to be a discussion embracing an situation at a Catholic high school involving church teaching on sexuality and so called homosexuality sounds more like a fight about the right to denounce a bishop. I would think the enemy almost gleeful to have truly believing Catholics sounding so….unloving. We all are pretty close to agreeing that what happened at the school was deplorable, another frightening wake-up call as to where our culture – and many Catholics are – but the focus turned to the failure of individuals in our Church. From the people who know him and his past record, the bishop seems like he is a good priest. Did he make a mistake here? Possibly. May be, and I am not saying so, he even buckled under a pressure or fear of things becoming worse. Haven’t we all done that before? But then again, we don’t know his reasoning and it is a little too much to say he knew all that was to happen at that meeting. So Botolph, whereas I agree with you very often, I think perhaps you and others are too strident in the case in calling the bishop a coward. Especially when the evidence is he has not been so in the past. And even if it were a momentary cowardice, as with St. Peter, Christ did brand him a coward but died on the cross for him. And I am not even saying we should not point out acts of cowardice, but if we do carefully so. And that is different that naming someone a coward. So while we have very serious issues to deal with, and great need to evangelize, we are fighting over an apparently faithful bishop who may or may not have done something less than brave. The dialogue approaches insulting and is it really turning our eyes to Christ? I say this with the presumption that we are all well intended and wanting to defend our faith.

    Were I to advise on how to handle this (something I used to do), I would have informed the parents a need for a cooling off and schedule a meeting when the Bishop could be present. The Bishop would write a pastoral letter preceding the meeting clearly affirming the Truth, that is, Church teaching and the need to find the best way to reach the world, including your children, with it for the sake of their immortal souls. In the letter he could ask for specific complaints in writing about how Sr. delivered Church teaching and he would look into it, but please understand that he knows Sr. is a good person trying to faithfully teach much needed understanding. Then have the meeting, where the bishop begins by charitably confirming church teaching, saying that obviously there was some misunderstanding by some, but by those who disagree please know our allegiance to the truth will not change. Now if they attacked the research part, he could say I hear you, and appreciate the need for caution, but that does not alter the truth. If there are those in attendance who suffer the temptations to sexual behaviors outside of marriage, it is the Church’s duty to loving thy neighbor to encourage you to live a chaste life even when married.

    As I think I’ve mentioned in the past, I used to do what Sr. is doing. It could get pretty dicey but my approach was always to lead the audience on a unsuspecting journey where they inevitably reach the same conclusions, or close to, as Church teaching on the meaning and purpose of sexual behavior. Then I would bring in doctrine, and specifically bring up homosexuality, contraception and so on. I found this approach allowed me to get much further along without objections and when I got there, they realized that they were objecting to what they had just concluded. It made it a lot harder for them to reject outright.

    In one particular talk focused specifically on contraception at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, the some of adult audience were particularly hostile, and most opposed (yes, at the Cathedral). These were well educated and at least one doctor was in the group. The hosting priest deserted me when one heckler started in and the doctor and a few others did their best to ambush the teaching. I asked for their respectful attention, told the heckler that I was not responsible for her anger, but if she wanted to stay to stay quietly and she could ask whatever when I was finished. I talked about the meaning of love, sexual love and got their agreement on it. Then I explained the teaching on contraception in very basic terms. Except for my heckler friend, the hostility vanished and they expressed gratitude for at least understanding why the Church taught what she did. For some it was truly received and others reminded me of the rich man who walks away from Jesus.

    I probably went on too long. My point is let’s focus on what we can do and try not to be sidetracked. It can be done.

  67. Again, I understand your frustration. Many of us who know the Bishop are telling you that you’re being too harsh. Experts in dealing with situations like these would agree with his decision not to attend. PR is tricky business and these are human beings you are speaking of. The Bishop did the right thing not to attend.

    I’m starting to think that giving more and more attention to you for your erroneous accusations is similar to giving credence to the angry parents by arranging the meeting they had. Look, you’re wrong on this, and you’re claiming to really know this man’s heart, which you simply do not. Even looking at his track record in addressing situations in our diocese (Belmont Abbey, etc.) would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before making the accusation you did. You’ve dug in your heels, and no amount of facts, expert advise or reason is going to change your mind. So be it. The Bishop has my support.

    “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”

  68. “The crowd that forced last night’s meeting did not DESERVE the presence of a bishop.”

    Perhaps, but what those parents NEEDED, and what the Church in general NEEDS, was for the bishop to read the riot act to those ignorant parents, explaining that this type of nonsense is not going to go on in that diocese. Leaving the priest to deal with the mob alone was the definition of cowardice.

  69. “The parents at CCHS had the nerve to say their kids were being taught to hate as they booed parents who were trying to speak in support of Fr. Kauth. They obviously had no intention of hearing the other side. They resorted to actions that were immature and petty.”

    Which is exactly why the bishop should have been there. And if they persisted in their behavior, they should have been shown the door and their kids should be expelled. The time for playing nice is over.

  70. Stacie T.,

    1. you’re going to have to do better if you wish to persuade the skeptics that there is such a thing as an ‘expert’ and ‘dealing with situations like this’ (or that it would be a good thing if there were).

    2. The problem here is not public relations. Your problem is your reflexive repair to the notion that it is.

    3. No one is claiming to know the bishop’s ‘heart’. They are observing his actions and drawing conclusions about what could possibly be his motives; you are working overtime to manufacture excuses, such as letting the bishop off the hook by blaming his press agents, which is not fair to the hapless souls who have to answer the crank mail and talk to reporters.

  71. “The appropriate response would have been to expel the children of the main agitators, send a letter to the rest of the parents informing them that if they do not care for the school’s program of moral instruction, they should enroll their youngsters elsewhere, and to prepare contingency plans to close the school.”

    Exactly.

  72. Kevin. Paragraphs. They’re very utile. With the software this site uses, you need a carriage return, followed by dashes, followed by a carriage return to make them.

  73. For all commenters, I offer this helpful formatting tip for paragraph breaks. If you write br in brackets and then /br in brackets between paragraphs, it will create paragraph breaks. Art’s method also suffices. I have taken the liberty to edit Kevin’s comment so that it now has the breaks.

  74. “Experts in dealing with situations like these would agree with his decision not to attend.”

    Right, because the Church’s PR experts have been doing such an awesome job, we should definitely defer to their sound judgment.

  75. but the focus turned to the failure of individuals in our Church.

    Because they failed.

    Kevin, the burden of your complaint is that the art of rhetoric ought to be practiced. No one disputes that, but it does not always work and it’s a bad bet that this crowd would have been amenable to that. People pleasing apologies are a species of rhetoric as well, with unintended consequences.

  76. Since the sub-topic of paragraph breaks has emerged, I can offer a far simpler method to do so. To break for a new paragraph hit the Enter & Control keys simultaneously.

    Like so.

  77. Well, I guess not with this software. However, it works on most other comment boxes and facebook.

  78. I have not been able to read every comment in this thread of epic length, in which has been displayed a great deal of zeal, much passion, and not a little imprudence on the part of the commenters. One thing I have not seen — either because I missed it, or because it was not there — is any account of what the Bishop Jugis’s “prior engagement” was. Knowing its nature would help greatly to establish whether his absence was, in fact, a case of episcopal cowardice, as has been been alleged, or an error in judgment, or a proper exercise of charity and prudence.

    For my part, as (1) a member of the diocesan family in question (2) whose previous experience has given him a good feel for clerical phonies of all sorts and (3) has had some pretty deep face-time with the bishop in question, I seriously doubt that an accusation of cowardice could be sustained were we in possession of all the facts. I am aware of nothing — nothing — in his record that suggests that Bishop Jugis is either unorthodox or lacking in spine.

    This is not to say that that it might not have been an error in judgment or even a lapse into moral cowardice like that of the first Peter. Neither would be without precedent even among bishops now or soon to be recognized as saints. However, some of the rhetoric being tossed about on this thread approaches the heat and intensity of that used by the Donatists and Novatians against the lapsi and those who favored their reconciliation with the Church, otherwise known as Catholics.

    Have a care, and examine yourselves, brethren: There is a fine line between commendable zeal and dangerous irascibility — fine, but distinct, and it is crossed at the very moment when one begins to believe that the future of the Church may depend solely on him — or on any other of the children of men: “The anger of man does not work the righteousness of God,” as St James writes in that Epistle of his which Luther (probably for that reason as much as for that Apostle’s teaching on faith and works) despised as “an epistle of straw.”

  79. “would think the enemy almost gleeful to have truly believing Catholics sounding so….unloving.”

    So Jesus never confronted or chastised anyone? St. Paul didn’t write about showing the door to dissenters? He didn’t warn about false teachers?

    We are Catholics, so lets move beyond the scriptures; how did the Church Fathers describe heretics? St. Jerome didn’t use some harsh language?

    The enemies of the Church and their allies within the Church are not playing games. They have made it clear that driving the Church out of the public square will not be enough for them. They are going to go after the tax exemptions next to hurt her financially, but as a cultural matter, they aim to create a world where identifying yourself as a Catholic will be the same as identifying yourself as a Klansman. Time for people to wake up.

  80. “There is a fine line between commendable zeal and dangerous irascibility”

    Actually Sam what I think about the Bishop’s poltroonish behavior I have not expressed in the pure unvarnished language it deserves. He set a very dangerous precedent for every Catholic school in this country when it comes to allowing people who hate the Church to in effect censor what is considered acceptable at a Catholic school, and if he doesn’t understand that, then he deserves far harsher criticism than anything said about him on this thread.

  81. Donald,

    Thank you! I learned a new word today lol “poltroonish”. I had to look it up lol I will put that in my personal thesaurus lol

  82. Five years down the road, the Bishop’s defenders will, without a hint of irony, puzzle sadly over the fact that the Church’s teachings on sexual morality are never propounded from the pulpit or in Catholic schools.

    The rest of his priests will surely get the message from what happened to Father Kauth.

  83. One thing I have not seen — either because I missed it, or because it was not there — is any account of what the Bishop Jugis’s “prior engagement” was.

    Supposedly dedicating a parish. The bishop presumably keeps a planner for his schedule and the meeting could have been called for a time in keeping with that schedule; if the school administration had to re-schedule, so what? C’mon people, this is not that difficult.

    I seriously doubt that an accusation of cowardice could be sustained were we in possession of all the facts.

    Waal, the bishop can add some new facts: vouch for the Sister, re-state the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, specify that the chancery sees to need to muzzle or chastise the Sister for quoting articles in medical journals, state to any concerned parties that if you send your youngster to a Catholic school we are not going to ask your permission to teach Catholic doctrine or even make passing reference to articles in medical journals, and tell the PFLAGgots to get off the lawn.

    Ball’s in his court.

  84. Your April 3 blog post by Donald R. McClarey “Profiles in Cowardice” contains an unauthorized use of an image copyrighted by our diocesan publication, the Catholic News Herald. You did not seek our permission to use the image of Bishop Peter Jugis, nor did we grant such usage to you. Please remove it immediately.
    — Patricia L. Guilfoyle, editor, the Catholic News Herald

  85. Yep, I will remove it. This is the only time in the six year history of this blog that any diocese has objected to the use of any image of a Bishop. I guess we struck a nerve.

  86. This is the only time in the six year history of this blog that any diocese has objected to the use of any image of a Bishop.

    Stacie T, Samuel L. Edwards, Carolyn Franks, Judy Townsend… ball’s in your court here.

  87. The diocese’s priorities managed to wring a chuckle out of me.

    Ferocious defense of copyright. Catholic moral teaching? Meh.

  88. The actions of these parents are indicative of the progressive and secular nature of Charlotte. Bishop Jugis and his priests are plugging holes in a dike ready to burst with liberal secularization. As a member of the Diocese of Charlotte, I can assure you that in my years as a Catholic, I’ve never found more educated and orthodox Priests as can be found in our diocese. And that’s the way I like it. I know Father Kauth. I’ve heard him preach, and have spoken to him on a couple of occasions. Any parish would be more than proud to have him. Extremely well educated (some of it in Rome), and if orthodox also means traditional, he’s in the same groove with the other priests I’ve met in the Diocese. I went to an all-boys Christian Brothers HS in New York. And there were homosexuals there. But you’d never know it. If they told anyone or showed femininity at all, they wouldn’t have lasted 2 days. The other students would have run them out. 3 were close friends of mine who came out after graduation. All of them, and the hundreds I met as a correction officer all admitted to same sex attraction feelings before the age of reason. (7 in the Church). It isn’t a sin to be homosexual. To act on those feelings is. There’s no getting around it. The Courage movement exists in the Church to help homosexual Catholics live a chaste life. Doctrine will not change to be stylish, regardless of reports of how “the wind blows from Rome”. Perhaps many of these LGBT students would be more comfortable in the Charlotte Public Schools, where homosexuality is celebrated. Let’s keep a Catholic High School Catholic.

  89. “As a member of the Diocese of Charlotte, I can assure you that in my years as a Catholic, I’ve never found more educated and orthodox Priests as can be found in our diocese. And that’s the way I like it. I know Father Kauth. I’ve heard him preach, and have spoken to him on a couple of occasions. Any parish would be more than proud to have him. Extremely well educated (some of it in Rome), and if orthodox also means traditional, he’s in the same groove with the other priests I’ve met in the Diocese.”

    Orthodoxy is not the issue. Having the courage to stand up and fight for orthodoxy is the issue.

  90. “This is the only time in the six year history of this blog that any diocese has objected to the use of any image of a Bishop. I guess we struck a nerve.”

    “The diocese’s priorities managed to wring a chuckle out of me.

    Ferocious defense of copyright. Catholic moral teaching? Meh.”

    Whether the Bishop is a coward is a proposition that is debatable. And I think we can say with certainty that the Bishop is quite orthodox.

    But one thing is certain: the Bishop and/or someone in his emply is petty and trifling.

  91. It would appear that Sister Jane has taken a leave from teaching (by her request) and has cancelled her other talks, not just the one at the Youth Conference mentioned above. Perhaps it is just me, but the way I read the the statement in the news article, it seems to be that even the college is throwing her under the bus.
    .
    http://catholicnewsherald.com/42-news/rokstories/5264-charlotte-catholic-speaker-sparks-student-petition
    .
    I remember in the 7th grade a teacher asking me if I had started smoking. Why? My clothes smelled like cigarette smoke. My best friend’s father said I would grow up to be a smoker. Why? My parents smoked. I hated smoking then and still do today. I was hurt by the comments, but…so what? So Sister Jane said some derogatory things about divorce and its possible link to homosexual behavior among children from broken homes. It seems that children and their parents these days are way too easily offended.

  92. “As a member of the Diocese of Charlotte, I can assure you that in my years as a Catholic, I’ve never found more educated and orthodox Priests as can be found in our diocese.”
    .
    If the Bishop and priests are so orthodox, I’m rather forced to wonder why the dust up if St. Jane has given similar talks in the past all over the country. Surely they would have been teaching the faith all along and none of what she said should have been so “hurtful” even if it was debatable. So perhaps, no, they really do not have the stomach to stand up for orthodoxy.

  93. 2286 of CCC; “Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion. Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible.” Pope Pius XII June 1st 1941

    The Bishop is in need of prayer no doubt. Name calling doesn’t aid his vocation, however prayers from righteous men and women can be efficacious. They most certainly won’t hurt.

    Bravo Sister. God help us all.

  94. DJ—It’s the PARENTS of these kids who aren’t instructing them at home. It’s like a kid who acts up in school, and when the teacher calls home they say—In school, it’s YOUR PROBLEM. Epic FAIL. IMO if it was the Bishop who set up a meeting on this, which he may be regretting he did, he should have been there. As an Administrator I would have ignored it, and issued a statement to the parents that if they had issues with Church Doctrine, to turn off the TV and Facebook, read the Catechism, Spend some time in Eucharistic Adoration, and not be in a rush to crucify people called by God to give their lives to serving Him. Believe me, this isn’t the end of it. But the end will be when the Bishop puts his foot down. And he will. If you don’t believe our Creed, Doctrine and Teaching, nobody’s breaking your arm to send your kid to a Catholic School, and for that matter remaining in the Church as a non-believer. Being a Catholic is hard. If it was easy, there would be no Protestants.

  95. @ Marine Doc: as Brian English wrote “Orthodoxy is not the issue. Having the courage to stand up and fight for orthodoxy is the issue.”
    .
    Why do the parents not know Church teaching? (Actually, I would find it hard to believe they don’t.) So, again, why the dust up, which appears to be coming mostly from the parents?

  96. Bottom line, for me, is that she has now officially received more censure for statements which the pastor, the diocese and her college have said were 100% orthodox theologically, but arguable scientifically! than generations of liberal nuns have ever received for preaching heresy.

  97. Based on what I ‘ve read, the Chaplain in question caved, as well as the Diocese and the school. Not a one supported the nun.

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

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

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

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

  98. The times certainly seem to be changing. I don’t mean to sound flippant OR funny, but Is there simply NO truth at ALL to that wise old, Italian (I think) saying, that “them who don’ta playa the game, shouldn’t be a-makin the rules!!! ????????

  99. Respectfully, Mr. McCleary, then why, in our Country do we still lavish Horatio-Algeresque praise on Management people who internally “worked their way to the top”, and wind up subsequently directing a Company’s efforts in their higher-up positions???? They played the game, and they ultimately get to make the rules.—It’s the American Way and the American Dream.

    It is manifestly apparent that time and technology tick AGAINST the established order
    in matters as they were discussed by this Sister.- Those who purportedly don’t “playa the game”, so to speak.

    The parents of these kids are still the legal (economic) consumers of the product. And in their role as primary consumers, they didn’t like the message. If the institution
    doesn’t change with the times, it eventually becomes irrelevant,–sort of like Amish
    attitudes about the work horse and buggy. And astrologic notions about the stars.

    You’re not really thinking of continued investments in horses and buggy whips, are you???? Or tarot cards, perhaps????

    If not, I’d suggest getting used to the new “Normal”. The entire dynamic is changing,
    and believe it or not,…… for the better, not the worse.

    Conventional thinking no longer works in an unconventional world.

  100. “They played the game, and they ultimately get to make the rules.—It’s the American Way and the American Dream.”

    Their activities are governed by laws and regulations. Free agents living by the laws they make up to suit their predilections is an invitation to anarchy and violence.

    “It is manifestly apparent that time and technology tick AGAINST the established order
    in matters as they were discussed by this Sister”

    What a truly hilarious statement that is! I can imagine that statement being made by a Roman senator to a Christian circa 125 AD. The Church has been around for 2000 years and will be around teaching the truth of Christ when current technology and mores are as antique as the mores and technology of Rome in 125AD.

    “The parents of these kids are still the legal (economic) consumers of the product. And in their role as primary consumers, they didn’t like the message.”

    That matters not a whit. The teachings of Christ will win out no matter what current resistance to them is. When Christ explained His teaching on marriage to the Apostles they reacted by saying that it would be better then not to marry at all. So long as the teaching is preached it will be believed by some and they will shape the future, as they have for the past twenty centuries.

    “You’re not really thinking of continued investments in horses and buggy whips, are you???? Or tarot cards, perhaps????”

    The sexual immorality you are trumpeting is as old as the Human Race. The idea that it is new and innovative is one of the more absurd conceits of “modern” times. As for tarot cards, they are quite popular among many today who seek substitute faiths to fill the God shaped holes in their souls. People who do not worship the true God will always end up worshiping false ones by whatever names they call them.

    “Conventional thinking no longer works in an unconventional world.”

    Nothing is more conventional, or more false, than the materialism you embrace. As always it is the followers of Christ who have the radical message of freedom from sin and redemption.

  101. Bravo Donald,

    “….it is the followers of Christ who have the radical message of freedom from sin and redemption” and find the dignity of the human person in Christ and the beauty and goodness of marriage in Christ’s love for His Bride the Church.

  102. Mr. McCreary,

    You have made the fallacious assumption that I somehow embrace materialism, and
    sexual immorality in our times.

    Nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just that I simply refuse to believe in
    apocalyptical assumptions as you no doubt probably do. I simply believe that
    ANY human being, no matter how little good he or she has done,– is good enough to get them into Heaven, and that the other place simply doesn’t exist.

    It’s just that I believe it’s a real place,(or places) and therefore HAS to be material.

    Don’t give me the line that it’s a “better” place. Presume you’re going and I’m not.
    What’s really there for you after you’ve shaken the J-Man’s hand???(along with a chosen few deserving others, if you’re right??) What’s your individual share of that NEXT SERIES of collective moments???? Be a good travel agent and convince me it’s worth the trip!!!! After all, in today’s world, if I want to go on a trip to a faraway place,
    I, like most people I know, want to know as much about the place as possible

    Try and do that without relating to some facet of your empirical existence. If you can,
    I’m a monkey’s uncle. (Or at least, a cousin, as per Richard Dawkins) But then, I’ll bet you probably have five fingers on each hand and five toes on foot just like me……

    You might just be a relative.

  103. “I simply believe that
    ANY human being, no matter how little good he or she has done,– is good enough to get them into Heaven, and that the other place simply doesn’t exist.”

    You are incorrect in that belief since God states otherwise.

    “It’s just that I believe it’s a real place,(or places) and therefore HAS to be material.”

    You are correct that it is a real place. It does not follow that real places have to be material.

    “Don’t give me the line that it’s a “better” place.”

    That isn’t my line, it is Christ’s line, and since He is God He should know.

    “What’s your individual share of that NEXT SERIES of collective moments????”

    The Beatific Vision, bliss beyond imagining, and being reunited with my loved ones who have gone before, and most especially my son who died on Pentecost of last year.

    “But then, I’ll bet you probably have five fingers on each hand and five toes on foot just like me……”

    And a soul.

  104. I simply believe that
    ANY human being, no matter how little good he or she has done,– is good enough to get them into Heaven, and that the other place simply doesn’t exist.

    So Our Lord told us “Good enough will do?” Oy Vey!
    There’s a seat at the nearest Jewish Temple waiting for you. They don’t believe in hell either, from those I’ve asked.

  105. Othodox Jews believe in Heaven and Hell:

    “There will be three groups on the Day of Judgment: one of thoroughly righteous people, one of thoroughly wicked people and one of people in between. The first group will be immediately inscribed for everlasting life; the second group will be doomed in Gehinnom [Hell], as it says, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to reproaches and everlasting abhorrence” [Daniel 12:2], the third will go down to Gehinnom and squeal and rise again, as it says, “And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried. They shall call on My name and I will answer them” [Zechariah 13:9]… [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah 16b-17a]”

    The cited tractate also seems to posit Purgatory.

  106. Mr. McClarey,

    Forgive me once more, but you have made one of the most astounding assertions I have ever heard. On the one hand, you indicate that it does not follow that real
    places have to be material. And then you go on to indicate that you are looking
    forward to being reunited with your son, who passed away last year.

    1) How would you even know it was your son, if there was no material manifestation

    and

    2) How would you express your joy at being reunited with him if there was no material manifestation of either him or yourself???? Expression itself is a function of materiality!!!!!! And of the 5 senses.

    I’m truly sorry for your loss. I myself lost a Dad this past winter. But a mere Beatific Vision, and “Bliss beyond imagining” just doesn’t cut it for me. I’d want to shake his
    hand, and give him a bear hug!!!!!!

    That’s why “real”, rhymes with “feel”………..

    I’d settle for lots more, but nothing less. Why should you????

  107. As two of the three comments I’ve posted have not been published, I see “free speech ” doesn’t exist here. Only comments that support the author’s extremism get published. Actual facts are censored as unacceptable. Intelligent debate is outlawed. What a sad world you’ve created for yourself, Donald.

  108. “1) How would you even know it was your son, if there was no material manifestation”

    I am confident that I will know his soul, as he will know mine. When he was born he was born with a soul and a body. I buried his body, but his soul lives on, as will mine when I go, hopefully, to where he is now.

    “2) How would you express your joy at being reunited with him if there was no material manifestation of either him or yourself????”

    The bliss we would share would not be in any sense limited by the fact that we are spirits. Quite the contrary actually.
    Of course after the Resurrection we will be spirit and flesh again.

    “But a mere Beatific Vision, and “Bliss beyond imagining” just doesn’t cut it for me. I’d want to shake his
    hand, and give him a bear hug!!!!!!”

    I assure you that there is nothing “mere” seeing in God face to face which is the Beatific Vision. In regard to your father, assuming that he got to Heaven and you do also, you would be able to shake hands with him and give him a bear hug after the Resurrection. This life is merely a pale reflection of what awaits those who have eternal life in Christ and our experiences in this Vale of Tears are no limitation on the joy that exists beyond the grave.

  109. Mr. McCleary,

    My apology,–that last line of mine should’ve read “Why should you settle for
    anything less, either???” rather than “Why should you???”

    Sometimes, keyboard and mind fall out of sync.

  110. “As two of the three comments I’ve posted have not been published, I see “free speech ” doesn’t exist here. Only comments that support the author’s extremism get published.”

    I have deleted none of your comments, so I have no idea what you are talking about. On the week that gay activists got the scalp of the CEO of Mozilla for a political donation years ago, your comment about freedom of speech I will take as an attempt at humor.

    “Only comments that support the author’s extremism get published.”

    Which indicates that you have read very little of this blog and the comments that are posted in response to articles.

    “What a sad world you’ve created for yourself, Donald.”

    I find it rather enjoyable Dave. As I have often indicated, I blog for the fun of it. Part of that fun is debate, which, contra your misperception, tends to be rather lively on this blog.

  111. Mr. Badash should be aware that Mr. McClarey owns the blog and Mr. McClarey decides what is and is not posted on it. Mr. McClarey is free to tell anyone – including me – to shove off his blog. THAT is freedom of association.

  112. I will cop to being the one who didn’t allow the comments of the anti Catholic bigot. I grow tired of people who whine about freedom of speech on a blog, as though they are owed a platform to spew nonsense. Donald is much more patient than me.

    I’d also point out to the brain surgeon that a good chunk of people on this thread expressed disagreement. Gee, you think the reason I rejected your comments had less to do with expressing disagreement and more about how and what you said?

  113. “On the week that gay activists got the scalp of the CEO of Mozilla for a political donation years ago, your comment about freedom of speech I will take as an attempt at humor.”

    [br]
    Yes, it’s delightful to be lectured on freedom of expression by people doing their damnedest to extirpate it. People just like poor oppressed Mr. Badash, who got his own “STFU” scalp of the Sister in Charlotte. God must love irony, otherwise we wouldn’t see so much of it.[/br]

  114. The Church does not teach that masturbation, pornography, or single or divorced parenting causes a child to be homosexual. Sr. Jane was irresponsible and has as much of an agenda as any gay rights lobbyist. Fundamentalist Catholics truly need to stop talking and re-learn the faith.

  115. Rubbish. That is a distortion of what she said according to Father Mathew Kauth who was present:

    “What I didn’t know was that Sister has a section that she sometimes inserts into her talk that focuses on the leading studies of the CMA on same sex attraction. She simply assumed that is what I meant for her to do. Now I understand her initial hesitation. I didn’t know such a section existed. In that sense I was as stunned as anyone. I was not stunned by what she said per se as I had read similar things in various medical/theological journals.”

    I would assume Jonna that those who you regard as “Fundamentalist Catholics”, and I assume you have no clue as to just how hilarious that formulation is, are those who actually accept the teaching of the Church on sexual morality.

  116. The Church does not teach that masturbation, pornography, or single or divorced parenting causes a child to be homosexual. Sr. Jane was irresponsible

    That the Sister made reference to sociological literature is not irresponsible. It is a talk at a secondary school and you will scrounge in vain to find anyone on the faculty of such a school who is an academic or professional specialist in any discipline. The transparent fraud in these complaints just stupefies.

  117. I would have advised the parents who protested that I understand they feel they should have been notified, fair enough; it won’t happen again that sexuality issues will be addressed without alerting parents. Then I would have advised these parents that this is a Catholic school and there will be regular presentations on Catholic moral issues, including homosexuality, abortion, extra-marital sex, euthanasia, stem cell research, etc. These will include the Catholic teachings which you will probably find are at odds with the at-large perspective. If you don’t like it send your traumatized baby to another school. This is not PC Central ladies and gentleman, Grow a pair and grow up.

  118. I would have advised the parents who protested that I understand they feel they should have been notified, fair enough; it won’t happen again that sexuality issues will be addressed without alerting parents.

    That was a pre-text, and there is no point in treating it as a serious complaint. Tell them upon admission that it’s a Catholic school and Catholic sexual ethics are taught there.

  119. Art-you are being too kind to the Bishop. But what did you expect?
    .
    At least Fr. Reid at St. Ann’s has organized a Holy Hour of Reparation for this Friday. That is more than can be said for the Bishop, or for that matter, Sr. Jane’s superior, Sr Mary Sarah.

  120. The Church does not teach that masturbation, pornography, or single or divorced parenting causes a child to be homosexual. Sr. Jane was irresponsible and has as much of an agenda as any gay rights lobbyist. Fundamentalist Catholics truly need to stop talking and re-learn the faith.

    So…. What does the Church teach about masturbation, pornography, and single or divorced parenting?

    I’m going to guess that the Church doesn’t share the world’s blase attitude on any of those subjects.

Comments are closed.