(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.
“Parents should have been better informed,” Hains said.
“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:
Her comments were vigorously applauded.
Judging from the Herald’s reporting, it was anything but.
I applaud Father Kauth for his courageous statement to parents last night.
Jugis is not a coward. The fault is with the parents who manufactured outrage. Oh, and did you catch the connection with PFLAG and the scandal?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/thecrescat/2014/04/update-charlotte-catholic-high-schools-parent-meeting.html
“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
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!
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.
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.”
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.
“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)
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.
—
It was not that simple, Jay.
—
Yes it is. You and MPS need to stop making excuses for these cretins. It’s embarrassing.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
“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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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/
Boltoph,
I agree completely with your thoughtful post.
.
.
So why are we watching youse guys dance around the maypole then?
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.
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.
—
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
“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.
“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:
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
I would remind all and sundry to debate the issue and not the personalities of other commenters. Thank you.
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.
“Pray like you mean it.”
Organizing and standing up to these bigots, and beating them at the ballot box, is also needed in addition to prayer.
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?
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.
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.
Thank you Donald McClarey for the video of sister. If I had a venue I would invite her to speak.
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.
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.
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.
God help us, Tom M. That means that even if we win at the polls, we lose.
🙁
Praying you are wrong.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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!!
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.
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.