UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/nyregion/cardinals-catholicism-same-sex-attraction-gay.html

It's a non issue to me as a parent. At least one of my kids’ teachers at the Catlick HS was a practicing homosexual although he kept it well under wraps.
He also taught English which had nothing to do with dogma. All of my kids still keep in touch with him. I would have gone to the mat for him if he had gotten into trouble and it would have helped, but I can’t say the AB is out of line either here.

The Church knows that all of its teachers sin, and it doesn't inquire as to what they do in their private time.

But, when the teacher went public, she was fired immediately...again, because the issue was not what she was doing privately, it was that what she was doing publicly was seen as advocating against Catholic teaching. I don't think it is unreasonable for a religious organization to require its teachers to not be two-faced about their religious beliefs.

Now I think I understand why.

I mean, I suppose I assume they are still around--something like that doesn't go away as fast as the Tea Party--but I hadn't heard them mentioned recently.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Link: https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2019/05/01/conservative-critics-call-on-bishops-to-censure-pope-francis-for-heresy/

Francis is doing some weird things, but whatever. We've had far, far worse popes than him.

The Pope is the Pope until he isn't the Pope, and I give him the respect he is due. I don't worry about stuff like that. People get too worked up about what any one pope does. Talk to me in a thousand years, and let's see what impact he had.

(no message)

I'm definitely on the orthodox (little "o") side of Catholicism, and I don't know any of them.

(no message)

(no message)

I

(no message)

Since Church leaders covered up for priests who molested, that means that no Catholics should restrict homosexuals from jobs within schools and other Catholic institutions? Given the disproportionate percentage of homosexual males molesting boys, wouldn't the history of the Church and molestation be an argument for this sort of policy?

(no message)

I put three kids through that school, and we may cut our ties. The kids have already vowed to, but I do want to pray about it a bit. I find that clarity comes with patience.

Cathedral is not a Diocesan school, and has always been considered (like Brebeuf, who recently chose to disobey the Archbishop) to be less "hard core" than the Diocesan high schools. In my opinion, this was a considerable portion of its draw. This move could alienate a contingent that CHS cannot afford to alienate. But I could be completely wrong.

(no message)

As I understand it, the Archbishop's demand may have presented an existential threat to Cathedral. Unlike Brebeuf, Cathedral may have lost their non-profit status.
The Archbishop made a choice about what kind of diocese we are going to be. We may opt out. Brebeuf did.

(no message)

That was the "no" part of the "yes and no".

May no longer support the Archdiocese, but will remain in the Church in any event.

(no message)

It’s as if those who discriminate are anxious bout their own latent tendencies. On the other hand I am equally confused about how devoted “Christian” priests could molest young men.

Do you also believe the Church "discriminates" against those who publicly champion heterosexual fornication? Does it "discriminate" against those who publicly promote pornography and masturbation? Because the Church opposes those as well. Is that "discrimination" in your eyes? Or is it only the Church's views on homosexuality that you deem to be "discrimination?"

As to being "anxious about latent tendencies"...do you think everything the Church opposes on moral grounds is a "latent tendency" of priests? Maybe it is. After all, a "latent tendency" is just a temptation, and we are all subject to temptation. Sexual orientation is not a sin, but I suppose it can be a form of (or a manifestation of) temptation.

And, by the way, before the discussion gets rolling, let's note one thing: The Church doesn't fire people who have homosexual orientation. The Church fires those people who engage in public endorsement of teachings that are contrary to Church doctrine when those people are also responsible for teaching Church doctrine. Put another way, it is not private sin that gets these people fired. It is not that they are tempted by homosexual behavior, and it is not even that they engage in homosexual behavior. Rather, it is "public scandal" that gets them fired...e.g., by engaging in a public act. I use the word "scandal" in a very technical sense that the Church has used for thousands of years. A person cannot teach something to the children that they disagree with publicly. There is a conflict of interest. Catholic school teachers commit to this when they hire on...to not contradict publicly (and therefore to the children) that which they teach to the children. Basically, these teachers have violated their contract. And, Church's have a legal right to only hire believers to teach their beliefs. This is a well settled principle.

Oh, and regarding your final unrelated point: The leaders of the Church have never been protected from personal sin. There will always be individuals who take advantage of the system to effect their personal sinful desires. That is not a reason to eliminate or doubt the system which condemns those personal sinful desires.

How weird to create creatures with these tendencies and then condemn them for acting them out. Absolutely nothing is more perverse that telling people they are sinning for having impure thoughts. Of course our PC police are repeating this nonsense today... just not in the name of some fantasy god.

Now, it can become a sin if one embraces and cultivates those thoughts. But, even that would not lead to firing the teacher. Even acting on those thoughts privately would not lead to a firing. It is the taking of a public act condemning Church teaching which leads to the firing.

I certainly understand your point about PC police. Happily, the Catholic Church is not trying to use the power of the state to force people to think like Catholics. And, the Catholic Church is not calling for non-Catholics to be fired from their non-Catholic jobs because they are not Catholic. So, there is a huge difference between the two groups that makes the Catholic Church far more benign than the PC police.

To your point about discrimination: This particular case (the firing of the teacher) is a case of an organization policing its own beliefs, and everyone accepts that that is permissible. We wouldn't make a Muslim school hire a person who is anti-Muslim as a teacher of their children. That would not be considered "discrimination" for a Muslim school to hire only those who do not publicly oppose Islam as teachers. And, it would not be considered discrimination if the Catholic Church fired a teacher who became a stripper; likewise, there is no discrimination when firing a teacher who becomes a public advocate of a gay lifestyle. This is about scandal: a person purporting to promote Catholic teaching but leading people astray from it. This is just the Catholic Church saying what is Catholic and what is not Catholic. Every organization gets to do that.

To your point that you find it hard to believe any god would declare something to be wrong that didn't harm someone: I certainly get your point. When I was an atheist, I too railed against "victimless sins." That is a bigger issue which requires more time to respond.

And by the way: Christ said, “Every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Mt 5:28). This is a violation of the ninth Commandment and a grave sin. “Since they express man's fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 2072).

I looked into all of that years ago. If you are interested, this issue is written about in detail by theologians in almost every century. Millions of man hours have gone into issues such as this.

Regarding Mt 5:28, I think you have placed an interpretation on that passage that may not be warranted in all contexts. Walking down the street and looking at a woman and noticing her sexual beauty and being attracted to it is not, I don't think, sufficient to be "looking at a woman lustfully" within the meaning of that passage. Now, if I linger on her, and undress her in my mind and imagine what I might do to here...that may be looking at her lustfully. In the latter case, an act of the will was involved, which is required for sin. There are other issues involved in determining what is sinful and what is not, or what is mortal sin and what is venial sin, etc. It is not as simple as reciting a laundry list of prohibited acts.

(no message)

Not all teachers who violate their contract are being fired either, as the article indicates.

Note that those molestations were private sin, not public scandal. Either way, most were fired, and the ones that weren't were due to weak and sinful leaders.

(no message)

Those decisions were bullshit. But why do you bring it up? It sounds like you bring it up as a general attack on the Church. It sounds like your position is that the Church cannot be trusted with any decision. Is that your position? In your mind, is the Church evil now?...not just the individuals who acted sinfully, but even the leadership that has not acted sinfully?

Why do I bring it up??? You talked about a teacher being fired for violating a contract. I asked if priests raping young boys was a violation of their contracts. I'm sure it was but they did not suffer the same fate. You cannot pick and choose the church's actions to defend or champion. You ask if in my mind the church is evil now? At times, and for centuries the church has done evil things. It has also done good things, many good things. It is not singularly evil or good. For people to blindly and support everything the church does and every decision it makes is how you end up with no examination, no investigations, little change and a population of Catholics who are becoming more and more reluctant to follow the church and attendance declines. The church is thankful for all the Catholic immigrants. Go to church in LA and notice how many parishioners are immigrants.

I honestly have no idea what is in a priest's contract. A molestation would certainly be a violation of his vows, at a minimum, and a clear violation of multiple teachings of the Church...and he should be removed from his position. Most were. Some weren't. Because some weren't, you don't want the Church to remove anyone else from their position who does wrong according to Church teaching? I assume that is not really what you are arguing for.

Obviously, the failure of the Church to act correctly in past cases should not prevent them from acting correctly in future cases.

You said: "You cannot pick and choose the church's actions to defend or champion." Depends on what you mean by "the church's actions." The Church's teachings are not in question in this discussion, and are easily and consistently defendable. The acts of individuals leading the Church can be questioned, and in some cases condemned. You yourself admit in your post that some of those actions are good, and some are bad. We both defend the good actions, and neither of us are defending the bad actions, so why do you attack me in this highly emotional way?

Complying with Church Doctrine (e.g., by firing the teacher for public scandal) is not the same as violating Church Doctrine (e.g., by defending molesters). Those two things are not equal, so any conclusion you draw from making them equal is fallacious. Sure, in both cases, the object of the discipline (the teacher, the molesting priest) violated teaching, and should be removed. That is the consistency that we should all seek. You should not argue that one violation justifies another violation.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)