Thursday, March 28, AD 2024 9:48am

Bishop Jugis Statement: Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Sister Jane Silenced

Well, Bishop Jugis finally issued a statement regarding the debacle at the Charlotte Catholic High School:

 

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The past few weeks have been very difficult for Charlotte Catholic High School. We have all experienced a great deal of pain. During this difficult time I want to express my support and encouragement for all the parents, students, staff and faculty at the high school. We must move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.

Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues.

At the parent meeting on April 2, 2014, many expressed concern about the lack of advanced communication with parents regarding the subject matter of the assembly. Apologies were made at the meeting for that lack of advanced communication.

The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all.

During this difficult time I support the continued work of Fr. Matthew Kauth, the chaplain; Mrs. Angela Montague and Mr. Steve Carpenter, the assistant principals; and Mr. Randy Belk, the dean of students; and all they are doing for our Charlotte Catholic High School students. All of us are indebted to them.

I am shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting, and outside the meeting in conversations and in social media. There simply is no room in the Catholic Church for such displays of uncharitableness and disrespect. If we have failed in this regard let us make amends to God and neighbor. Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love.

We ask the Lord Jesus Christ for His mercy and His healing as we approach the celebrations of Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Sunday of the Lord’s Resurrection. Please be assured of our continued dedication to the mission to teach and live the truth of the Catholic faith at our Charlotte Catholic High School.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis

The Bishop might as well have not released the statement if all he was going to do was give an episcopal version of Rodney King’s “Can’t we all just get along?”

He has been Bishop of Charlotte for almost 11 years.  After this time period he has parents and students at the Charlotte Catholic High School staging a full scale revolt against Catholic moral teaching and viciously attacking Sister Jane Dominic Laurel who had the temerity to preach Catholic doctrine at a Catholic school.  He has been missing in action throughout this agitprop by enemies of the Church.  Now he comes out with a statement that attempts to sidestep the whole issue.   What was needed was a full throated endorsement of Catholic moral teaching in regard to marriage and sex and a pledge to get to the root of the problem at the High School where so many students and their parents obviously reject Church teaching.  Instead of this we have the Bishop giving a lecture in manners, firmly focusing on the molehill instead of the mountain.  The words pathetic and useless come to mind.  As I noted in an earlier post, the chief lesson of this fiasco is that if a Catholic defends Church teaching in the area of sex and marriage, and those who despise Church teaching take offense, you are on your own Jack and Jane.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Karl
Karl
Wednesday, April 9, AD 2014 9:12pm

As expected.

Christine
Christine
Wednesday, April 9, AD 2014 9:27pm

What kind of a statement is this? Is it just me or is he saying nothing? “The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention…” Really? So what IS the problem? “The lack of advanced communication with parents regarding the subject matter” ? That is the only concrete problem clearly stated. That is causing a’great deal of pain’, ‘difficult time’ (3X), ‘shock’, ‘disturbing reports’ that require ‘support’, ‘encouragement’, ‘healing with charity’, more ‘support’, and ‘amends to God and neighbor’. There is some reference to disrespect, lack of charity and disagreement – over what we do not know- but this condemned. What a bunch of baloney! He sounds like a politician who answers questions without answering but takes you for a walk somewhere. Come on, Bishop!! Why is Sr Laurel the only one not mentioned for any support or indebtedness or anything, while parents, students, staff, faculty and four administrators by name are addressed. This stinks……

trackback
Wednesday, April 9, AD 2014 11:01pm

[…] Livin’ & Fancy Footwork – David L. Alexander, Man With Black Hat Bp. Jugis on Charlotte Scandal: Can’t We All Just Get Along? – D. McClarey Much Ado About Who-Knows-What in Charlotte Scandal – Dr. Ed Peters The […]

Clinton
Clinton
Wednesday, April 9, AD 2014 11:53pm

I’d say that His Excellency’s support for the clear and unadulterated proclamation
of the Church’s teaching in this case is… underwhelming.

Don Wright
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 12:47am

They should expel everyone of these students and excommunicate the parents. If I was the Bishop that would be the least I would do.

Philip
Philip
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 4:06am

“We must move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.” Bishop Jugis.

Enough said. Pray hard. The devil is hungry.

Don the Kiwi
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 4:31am

With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Wake up, bishop – the enemy is at the gate.

Scott W.
Scott W.
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:21am

I want to give the bishop the benefit of the doubt. If an objection to the content was not raised at the parent meeting, then it wasn’t raised. My speculation is that it was about the content, but when it became clear to the complainers that they would have to justify the uproar to the bishop, they balked and cobbled together a complaint about not being forewarned. To wit: You don’t raise a stink so bad that it forces a nun into a sabbatical because someone forgot to cc the parents in advance.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:35am

Sister Jane and the school did not prepare her audience for her talk. Heck…Christ did not prepare the pharisees for any of his “whited sepulcher” talks. John the Baptist did not prepare them for “brood of vipers”. This preparation thing must have started when grief counselors started in the high schools. Last week in Jersey City’s Dickinson High School, twenty students brawled and took out the security guard and the principal with an overhand right and she should know by now that if you grab the top/ back of your head with your left hand, the overhand right fails because it collides with your bicep. There was no talk of grief counselors…if in fact Jersey City has any.
Sr. Jane could give ten talks at Dickinson High with no parent protest because parents there are just glad to see their children non ambulatory after school. Poverty/affluence is a factor in this preparation thing.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:45am

That should be ambulatory not “non ambulatory”…lol.

Paul W Primavera
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 6:53am

My letter to the Diocese at http://www.charlottediocese.org/contact-us. I tried to be nice.

Your Grace,

I read your statement with regard to the recent parent meeting on Sister Jane Dominic laurel’s talk about sexual morality at the Charlotte Catholic High School as it was reprinted on the American Catholic blog:

https://the-american-catholic.com/2014/04/09/bishop-jugis-statement-cant-we-all-just-get-along/

I dislike the disrespect that some have shown towards you. I appreciate the reputation you have for orthodoxy in the Faith. I wish, however, that a stronger statement of support for Sister Jane had been issued. She was correct when she stated that the likelihood for sexual deviancy increases as a result of the wounds created by pornography, masturbation, single parenting and divorce. That said, I too admit that I have failed in the area of morality (for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God) and I thank God for the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance. But Sister Jane deserves a more vocal support than was received.

Respectfully Yours,

Paul Primavera

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 7:26am

“The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all”

Let us trust this will be seen as a measured call to “an abstinence from all private fancies and caprices and personal tastes” in religious instruction, The very last thing we need today is ” stores of learning, but little that is precise and serviceable; Catholic truth and individual opinion, first principles and the guesses of genius, all mingled in the same works, and requiring to be discriminated.” (Bl John Henry Newman)

Every teacher of religion should be ready to answer Andrew Melville’s oft-repeated question to the Tulchan Bishops – “Weel enough, man, weel enough, I dinna say you’re wrang; but, now, show it to me in the word of God.”

Barbara Jesnsen
Barbara Jesnsen
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 7:28am

The Bishop’s comments indicate the same weak leadership in the Catholic Church evident for almost 50 years now. Do not wonder why the Church is self destructing when Her leaders apologize for the morality of our Catholic Faith. Shame on Bishop Jugis for his failure to step up to the plate and speak forthrightly and clearly. This is what these unruly parents needed and his choice not to do so has only strengthened them in their obdurate refusal to hear and obey Christ.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 7:34am

Given time to reflect, he trades in artifice and evasion and the language of the therapeutic. Worthless Worthless Worthless.

Thomas
Thomas
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 8:17am

Earlier this week, a Muslim friend and I joked with each other that -soon neither a Catholic nor a Muslim would be able to be a CEO of a large company.

And just yesterday, he (a serious Muslim) asked me why: We don’t hear the Bishops and Priests speaking to the Sin of actively engaging in homosexual sex? It is a Sin is it not? What does the Bible Teach he asked?
I read to him the passage from St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

“What is the issue!” he exclaimed! “Is it not clearly written!” “Why do we not hear Bishops and Priests quoting this!”
His demeanor was clearly: 1-a better respect for the Bible, and 2-a frustration for now living in a Christian country where Religion is not taught, and 3- a real anger at clerics who are weak and do not the courage proclaim it.

In our many talks, he and I have never so profoundly agreed on anything as much as this. I almost called him “brother”, which he is of course, but the feeling was so palpable..

James
James
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 8:23am

By my perception, his letter is crystal clear about one thing; mortal sin and hell just do not exist, and these parents and students who embrace so lovingly homosexualism are going to waltz right through the gates of heaven when they die. Hey, if they also embrace abortion (which i think many of them do) they won’t waltz, they will gallop through those pearly gates!

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 8:27am

I stand by my good faith (!) criticisms of some of Sister Jane’s speculations. Presented in such a forum such opinions are too easy to conflate with Church teaching and confuse the faithful. They are also matters on which Catholics are free to disagree, and therefore ill-suited for a Catholic high school presentation, especially without exceedingly careful caveating.

That said, the Bishop’s statement that the content of Church teaching was not a point of contention hardly seems credible. Yes, Sister probably presented her topic inperfectly; yes, perhaps parental notice regarding the topic might also have been imperfect; and yes these imperfections somewhat complicate an appropriate diocesan response. But this response hardly measures up. It seems reasonably plain that many parents and students disagree with Catholic teaching, and the Bishop would rather ignore that fact than use this opportunity to exercise his teaching responsiblity. To be charitable, he perhaps has concluded that first passions must recede before teaching can be received. I can only hope there is such an explanation.

Brian English
Brian English
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 8:49am

Good grief. What has happened to our Fighting Faith? I hate to break it to the Church hierarchy, but this “avoid confrontation at all costs” mentality is not going to work. It just encourages the enemies of the Church.

I know the marching orders from Rome are to use the “Jesus, our best pal” approach to evangelization, but if all you are doing is confirming people in their lost lifestyles and mistaken beliefs, how is that doing God’s work? The purpose of the Church is to save souls. Catholic schools are meant to aid in achieving that goal. They do not exist for their own sake, or to provide teachers with jobs, or to provide a haven for the children of secular parents who don’t want their kids going to the public schools.

Brian English
Brian English
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 8:56am

“They are also matters on which Catholics are free to disagree, and therefore ill-suited for a Catholic high school presentation, especially without exceedingly careful caveating.”

Why? These kids are bombarded every day with the message that homosexuals are “born that way,” despite the overwhelming evidence that refutes a purely genetic explanation. Where else will these kids hear other theories on this issue?

Elizabeth Fitzmaurice
Elizabeth Fitzmaurice
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 9:20am

Man, I couldn’t agree with you more. When I read that official statement, I was utterly deflated. Silly me. The headline actually led me to believe that the Bishop came out in defense of the Sister and Church teaching! What in the world was I thinking? Shameful. As shameful as the reaction of all those ‘c’atholic students and parents to the Sister’s presentation. Actually, more. He is supposed to be the shepherd of souls, isn’t he? Good grief.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 9:23am

Mike,
Keep in mind that the Church does not caveat Romans 1:25-27 when it is read in Mass to all teens and it …sees the active gay choice as to actions ( and in this case SSA) as proceeding from a non sexual PREVIOUS sin…worshipping matter rather than God which may pertain to some teens who should hear it:

” They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural,
27 and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.”

Now we are just beginning to see e.g. in studies of the chimera individual ( when composed of male female genes after fraternal twin eggs fuse) how SSA as a tempting condition can be thrust innocently on someone, so if Sr. Jane neglected the innocent sources of SSA then yes it’s unfortunate but no homilist I ever heard brings them up either as a caveat when Romans is read. As Brian says…normal life is filled with non caveated teachings. I can really see caveats IF the message of Romans one is announced simultaneously and clearly and even Sr. Laurel seems not to have dared that….(it’s probably hate speech in certain countries now and it’s God’s word through Paul).

Dale Price
Dale Price
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 10:13am

He hath sounded forth the trumpet yhat shall ever call “retreat”/
He is puzzling all hearts of men before His bishop’s seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to skedaddle! Be tremulous, my feet!
More fudge is being made…

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 10:15am

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all” ; I trust he means accessible, without gloss or commentary.

However learned or well-intentioned such speculations are not, in St James’s words, “desursum” – from Above nor are they likely to be “pacifica” – peaceful.

ubipetrusest
ubipetrusest
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 10:21am

Thomas, Thank you for a very perceptive and helpful post. Yes, it’s tragic that the truths of the Faith are not taught, and people such as Sister Laurel Jane who speak them are attacked.

T. Shaw
T. Shaw
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 10:29am

Two reasons you daily see thirteen-year-old children proudly proclaim that they are homosexual are: the silencing of good teachers like Sister Jane, and the doubt and confusion daily promulgated by Church hierarchy, e.g. Bishop Jugis’ statement.

Here is uncharity: to assist unrepentant sinners in being consigned to the fire of Hell. An alternative translation of “Spare the rod spoil the child.” is, “Spare the rod hate the child.” See Proverbs 13:24.

Ez
Ez
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 11:14am

And so the here say and speculation continues…

Facts people. Where are they?

What exactly was said at the talk? And what offended? And exactly what needed to be apologised for?

And what on Gods good earth is the point of the Bishops statement?

I don’t get the whole thing.

Pat
Pat
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 11:40am

Jack and Jane are wondering why each and every child enrolled in R. Ed. is lacking a couple of texts, ceremoniously presented. The Holy Bible and a Catechism are what Jack and Jane mean. They see only cartoon representations of the Holy in glossy paper mags or on 8-1/2 x 11 activity sheets copied ad nauseum for the recycle bin.

Ignorance is not bliss in Charlotte and in the rest of the world – a result of the much bandied about undefined word ‘charity’? Jack and Jane are living in quiet desperation as ordered to get along in the voracious confusion.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 12:08pm

I stand by my good faith (!) criticisms of some of Sister Jane’s speculations.

Your criticisms were contrived tripe and there is no reason to believe she undertook any speculations.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 1:23pm

I started thinking about “… Romans 1:25-27 … is read in Mass to all teens” and wondering when I had heard that read in Mass, so I tried to look it up in various listings of daily readings and I can’t find it. The one I found goes up to Roman 1:25, but does not include 26 and 27. I’m sure it must be there somewhere.

Dante alighieri
Admin
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 1:29pm

Lovely use of the passive voice throughout, Bishop.

echarles1
echarles1
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 1:46pm

“I support the continued work of Fr. Matthew Kauth[.]”
This is not in the passive voice.

“I am shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting[.]”
Again, not in the passive voice.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 2:30pm

Again, not in the passive voice.

==

Fair enough. Aside from the wheedling about ‘pain’ and ‘healing’, you will notice his pro-forma expressions of support included the chaplain and three administrators at the school (http://www.ratemyteachers.com/steve-carpenter/995645-t). They did not include the Sister under attack.

It is what you do not hear that is salient, as in

1. In case there is any confusion on this point, sodomy is a mortal sin.
2. Men and women are complimentary; the sacrament of matrimony should not be the subject of burlesque.
3. This is a Catholic school. We transmit the moral teachings of the Church here. We are not going to send home permission slips before we do that. If you object, enroll your brat elsewhere.
4. Sister Jane quoted from the Linacre Quarterly. This does not bother me and should not bother you.
5. Lots of people appear to be misinformed about where the Church stands and what the function of Catholic schools are, as well as being possessed of considerable effrontery and bad manners. Most distasteful.

fRED
fRED
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 3:00pm

So many people are needlessly confused and frustrated because they assume/expect that a primary concern of the RC Church USA is the spiritual welfare of the people. Wake up my people! It is VERY clear that the business side of the Church is paramount. As far as your eternal soul is concerned, you are on your own. That is the way things work today, post V2, and in our Western materialistic soçiety. Why would you even think the Church cares about your soul outside of cash flow and revenue streams.
.
If you are really interested in RCism, then there is Fr Reid at St Ann in Charlotte; and don’t forget Fr Isaac Mary Relyea (too bad he wasn’t at that parents meeting).
.
Got to face up to it folks: much of the RC Church in the West is no longer RC.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 3:01pm

Anzlyne,
I checked multiple Mass cycles and I must have imagined the reading going beyond verse 25 into 26-27. I even checked the separate Jesuit lectionary because I went to their Masses for many years and having read the whole Bible when young and memorizing alot, I probably meshed all the verses together in my memory. Depressing.. because it means that 98% of Catholic teens will never encounter verses 26 and 27 in a time period when it is extremely relevant unless a Catholic High teacher shows it to them in class or assigns Romans to be read in its entirety or they curiously follow up the footnote 141 from the first catechism article. Barring that, they could live and die and never see profoundly relevant verses for our time. And the catechism references those verses (141) but does not openly broach their issue….that worshipping matter rather than God CAN bring on the exchange to gay active life as God withdraws grace ( ” handed them over to degrading passions”). In fact the catechism editorializes that gay inclinations are a trial for most who have them but that position seems to be a guess tinged with wishful thinking. Providentially God willed into scripture’s few comments on gay reality….nothing of the catechism’s editorial on that score.

Mike Petrik
Mike Petrik
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 3:27pm

I too am disappointed by the statement’s lack of express support for Sister Jane. I have been among the few on this blog who have criticized Sister’s interjection of controversial findings from the soft sciences into a talk that probably should have focused exclusively on Church teachings, which teachings are controversial enough, unfortunately. That said, (i) her opinions are wholly compatible with Catholic teaching, (ii) there is no reason to believe that these opinions were disrespectful to those afflicted with SSA or expressed in a mean-spirited way, (iii) disagreement with her opinions did not justify the aggressively hostile response, and (iv) it seems implausible that the disagreement with Sister’s presentation can be fairly cabined to her social science assertions. Instead, parents and students apparently have issues with Church teaching itself, and the Bishop’s apparent fudging of that fact, even if a well-intended prudential decision, operates to the unfair detriment of Sister Jane. The Bishop’s statement could have instead said something like:

“Sister’s speculative social science observations, while not Catholic teaching, are compatible with Catholic teaching and deserve at least as much respect as equally speculative contrary observations offered uncritically every day in the mainstream media. More importantly, Sister’s explication of Catholic teaching regarding the disorder of homosexual attractions and sinfulness of homosexual actions represents authentic Catholic teaching. Families who disagree with Catholic teaching may be welcome at a Catholic school, but such families must tolerate such teaching and accord it respect, and Catholics who disagree with the magisterium should reconsider their self-understanding as Catholics. Finally, to oppose and feign surprise at the teaching of Catholic morality at Catholic schools defies credulity. The fact that it is the job of Catholic schools to impart Catholic moral teaching should not be open to debate.”

Mystified
Mystified
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 3:42pm

Am I the only one who would have been infuriated if my children had been forced to sit through something like that in mixed company with no forwarning? I’m sorry, but I remember high school, and I would have been mortified if my public school had ever put me in a situation of sitting around my male teenage schoolmates hearing about how males masturbating together causes homosexuality, etc, etc. Honestly, I do not want my teenage daughters exposed to conversations about masturbation, porn, and homosexuality in the mixed company of teen boys. Parents should have been forewarned. I personally feel that this is a topic that should be discussed in much smaller, single sex groups, and given by people the teens (and their parents) already know and trust—not some stranger in a huge auditorium talking about masturbation and porn to a mixed-company group of teens.

I am hardly a prude. And I believe in Church teaching. But the idea that this whole situation was just hunky-dory fantastic and that the only parents who would dare complain about such a thing are the ones who are heretics and Church haters is ridiculous.

I thank God I never had to sit through such an experience myself as a teen. If I were subjected to it now with a mixed-sex group of peers, I’d get up and walk out, But those teens did not have that choice, and their parents were never given the opportunity to make that choice for them.

In any event, the entire thing was an epic fail–a bunch of teens were just turned away even further from Church teaching. What a debacle.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 4:16pm

Mike,
When young, I once had an entire pool room filled with thugs yelling for my head to a felon who pulled a pool cue on me simply because I told him he owed for the game because I won. He had already served time for cracking a guy’s head with a pipe. The way I reciprocated his drawing of a weapon told the whole twenty of them that it wouldn’t be good to be first to go for me. They grew silent. Once downstairs in the night, I knew to get lost before they conspired and regrouped and I ran for miles to my home area. Sr. Laurel feels worse than that now…but she’s got other nuns to help her. But a part of her is running in the night alone…for miles. And I’ll bet she had a death threat…and they are awful at the front end especially. Let’s hope she feels Him running right next to her…because He’s there and proud of His Asian daughter even with any imbalances she might…might of had. She’ll have wounds from this …about humans including about the Bishop.

Micha Elyi
Micha Elyi
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 4:19pm

All of this sturm und drang had absolutely zip to do with notification…
Donald R. McClarey

 
That was also my immediate assessment. Weren’t many protest signs bewailing lack of notification among the protestors.

Greg Mockeridge
Greg Mockeridge
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 4:43pm

I agree that prior notification should have given, considering the sensitivity of the subject of sexuality and some of the specific things discussed (e.g. masturbation etc.). If I were one of the parents, I would have liked a heads up perhaps requested permission to attend the talk myself. Otherwise, I would have no objections.

However, this responsibility rests with the school, not Sister Jane. And it seems to me that all the vitriol has hurled at Sister Jane and the whole parental notification concern (again a legitimate concern I think) has been another excuse to attack Sister Jane.

These are the matters the Bishop should have addressed directly. I also think attendance at presentations where Church teaching on matters of morality (sexual and other wise) should be mandatory for parents as well as the students, given the confusion about Church teaching.

Anzlyne
Anzlyne
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:13pm

Thank you for researching it bill bannon. I am disappointed – actually sick and tired of being disappointed with the leadership of our Church. I used to think there were just a few bad apples…but when it comes to sexuality the lavender people got there before us. I don’t accept it as coincidence that those very important verses were left out of the mass readings.
Also the lack of firmness in the CCC. No wonder so many Catholics, teachers and otherwise don’t know those verses. Relatively few have ever shown your interest and energy in reading for themselves .
A lot of changes happened in the liturgy, as you know, that we’re not required in Vatican 2. the translation only being part. I had been taught that the calendar of readings would give us a good understanding of scripture over a 3 year period.
The bishop is apparently trying to walk a line of non controversy, like so many others. But our Faith IS controversial. As part of that Scripture you referenced, Paul declares he is Not Ashamed of the Gospel.

John Ward
John Ward
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:22pm

His Church of Nice was fed the truth and he couldn’t handle it. What worries me is that Sr. Jane was merely stating the Church’s teaching and the diocese didn’t recognize it!

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:25pm

I’m sorry, but I remember high school, and I would have been mortified if my public school had ever put me in a situation of sitting around my male teenage schoolmates hearing about how males masturbating together causes homosexuality,

You must be my mother’s age. I was compelled to sit through ‘health’ classes, one of which featured a 53 year old lady gym teacher give a lecture on contraceptive devices, complete with an IUD as a prop. That was about 35 years ago.

Paul W Primavera
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:40pm

So I guess I was too nice in my communication to the Diocese. Well, it included a link to this blog post, so maybe someone at the Diocese will read it and realize that conciliation has gained them nothing.

bill bannon
bill bannon
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 5:48pm

Anzlyne,
We are living during a pendulum swing that is the opposite of the Inquisition period and is often tinged with an opposite public relations pitch and shouldn’t be. Remember the Sears ad campaign…the “softer side of Sears”. Well….we’re in the softer side of the Church period and it will be a mess until you get a very gifted administrative Pope who neither wants the Inquisition nor its soft opposite. Lol….he’ll not want heretics killed but he will want gruesome cartel murderers executed instead of watching tv for life on our dime.
Thesis…antithesis…synthesis. That third one is not even in sight in our lifetimes. No recent pope was a good administrator. A future pope will be. He’ll want what Dietrich von Hildebrand called ” between the two extremes and above them”….not middle…but exalted middle.

Art Deco
Art Deco
Thursday, April 10, AD 2014 7:04pm

Mystified, etc. The text of the petition circulated by one Emma Winters is here:

http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com/2014/04/02/pope-francis-comments-on-homosexuality-abortion-and-contraception-brings-protest-by-parents-and-students-at-charlotte-n-c-catholic-high-school/

There is not one phrase in it on parental notification. Those of you who fancy it wrong for the sister to have quoted the Linacre Quarterly might note that the adolescents who circulated it and the various parties who signed have some assertions to make of their own about human behavior (without any citation to the Linacre Quarterly or any other authority). Its the recitation of a very contemporary credo. Adults doing their job remind the young that moral discourse is ancient and moral knowledge is not a technology which accretes, much less a consumer’s technology that the young have a peculiar affinity for; a great many of them are not doing their jobs.

Michael Paterson-Seymour
Michael Paterson-Seymour
Friday, April 11, AD 2014 1:46am

Bill Bannon wrote, “We are living during a pendulum swing that is the opposite of the Inquisition”

The Church is still suffering from the calamity of Lamentabili and Pascendi. In the aftermath, the Church was left without a voice in apologetics, revelation and the history of dogma. Above all, she suffered what Abbé Henri Brémond called “the flight of the mystics.”

I believe Maurice Blondel was right, when he said, “[U]nprecedented perhaps in depth and extent–for it is at the same time scientific, metaphysical, moral, social and political–[the crisis] is not a “dissolution” [for the spirit of faith does not die], nor even an “evolution” [for the spirit of faith does not change], it is a purification of the religious sense, and an integration of Catholic truth.”

Alas! a century later, we are still only in the springtime of the recovery.

TomD
TomD
Friday, April 11, AD 2014 6:45am

I stand by my good faith (!) criticisms of some of Sister Jane’s speculations.
Why is this a problem? It is entirely proper to speculate as long as you make it clear that you are speculating. This is easy to do, just say “may” instead of “is”. No one has proved that Sr. Jane did not do this.

No, there are multiple issues here about “speculation” in this case:

1) The idea that hard biological science has proven beyond debate that all SSA is genetically, gestationally, or otherwise physiologically predetermined is frankly not true. All we know is that some SSA may be predetermined, from a single genetic study by a homosexual (hence biased) researcher that has not been replicated. So, it is simply not true that speculation is inappropriate.

2) The proper and improper uses of speculation, and the identification of such, are part of a well formed education. Closing off something just because it is speculative is not conducive to education. Evidence is what is used to evaluate the value of a speculation.

3) To repeat, evidence is what is used to evaluate the value of a speculation. Is the evidence against the speculation attributed to Sr. Jane equal to the evidence against, say, a Holocaust-denier? Obviously not (see #1 above).

4) The real problem for Sr. Jane’s critics is that such speculation is a threat to the pro-homosexual orthodoxy that all SSA is biologically predetermined. Gays and their enablers have, if no one has noticed, a great deal of emotional investment in this orthodoxy. Dissenters must be destroyed to ensure the orthodoxy can be accepted without qualms.

The issues listed above just scratch the surface. Here are more:

5) If SSA is entirely predetermined, that still does not negate Church teaching regarding free will and the formation of conscience. However, Sr. Jane’s critics definitely want to use the concept of SSA pre-determinism to negate these Church teachings. All throughout these debates on sexual morality – yes, with heterosexual attractions also – are the ideas “people can’t really help themselves” (i.e., sexual impulses are too strong to deny) and “people become really unhappy when they deny their sexual impulses” (as if they aren’t unhappy when they surrender to them). It is obvious: if gays and horny straights are to be saved in this world and the next, then the Church’s moral theology needs to change, because people really can’t change.

6) This is just the tip of the iceberg regarding biological pre-determinism. In the coming years science will more and more show us the genetic and neurological bases of morality, free will, and consciousness itself. The Church will rise to the occasion and show why this changes nothing, but will anyone listen? Once pre-determinism is accepted as an alternative and a legitimate challenge to moral philosophy then anything could happen. Free will really does not exist? Then the value of a free vote in an election or on a jury is diminished. Consciousness is an illusion? Then modify it to make people happy. Brave New World style dystopias will move much closer.

The Planster’s Vision
by Sir John Betjeman

Cut down that timber! Bells, too many and strong,
Pouring their music through the branches bare,
From moon-white church-towers down the windy air
Have pealed the centuries out with Evensong.
Remove those cottages, a huddled throng!
Too many babies have been born in there,
Too many coffins, bumping down the stair,
Carried the old their garden paths along.

I have a Vision of The Future, chum,
The worker’s flats in fields of soya beans
Tower up like silver pencils, score on score:
And Surging Millions hear the Challenge come
From microphones in communal canteens
“No Right! No wrong! All’s perfect, evermore.”

Poor Sr. Jane. She probably knows full well what she is up against.

TomD
TomD
Friday, April 11, AD 2014 7:19am

I do want to offer a defense of Bishop Jugis. I believe he has actually approached this particular situation with a very appropriate response.

Sr. Jane’s critics are wrong, and if they are in good faith then they are wrong because they have decided that charity requires them to excuse immorality (charity requires us to understand and forgive immorality, a distinction the critics are confused about). Again, assuming they are acting in good faith, their moral confusion is due to a misapplication of charity. It follows that charity is important to the critics.

So, when Bishop Jugis tells these people rather bluntly that they have been uncharitable he is attacking the very root of their error.

Sr. Jane spoke to these people (she spoke directly to the students and thus spoke a step removed to the parents). Their ears were closed. One can guess that Bishop Jugis knows their ears are closed, and so he knows that a ringing restatement of Church moral teaching will not be heard. The appeal to charity, however, might open some ears.

Much of the criticism of Bishop Jugis on this thread seems to be due to a tactical difference of viewpoint: people wanted a Marquis of Queensbury knockout, and the Bishop made a jujitsu move instead.

Phillip
Phillip
Friday, April 11, AD 2014 8:23am

“Those of you who fancy it wrong for the sister to have quoted the Linacre Quarterly might note that the adolescents who circulated it and the various parties who signed have some assertions to make of their own about human behavior (without any citation to the Linacre Quarterly or any other authority).”

Yes indeed. It looks like the problem is not that Sister Jane quoted a scientific review, the problem is that the scientific findings do not support the homosexualist faith of the parents and students. This anti-science faith was then defended by the parents and students by attempting to silence the truth.
Unfortunately, the Bishop is contributing to the silence with this letter.

Discover more from The American Catholic

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Scroll to Top