Profiles in Cowardice: Sister Jane Thrown Under the Bus
#1

An update to the thread "Sister Jane Tells it Like It Is," again from The American Catholic:



Profiles in Cowardice
Published Thursday, April 3, A.D. 2014 | By Donald R. McClarey




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.

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.

Vox Wrote:I don't know why people on all sides have to make all this so hard.

Reply
#2
It's not that they're cowards. They just practice a different religion.
Reply
#3
Two weeks after a Nashville Dominican nun spoke to students at one of North Carolina’s largest Catholic schools and delivered a presentation critical of homosexuality, diocesan and school officials offered apologies at a meeting attended by an estimated 900 parents.

“Many said that” the first part of Sister Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation at Charlotte Catholic High School “was excellent and fully in line with the Catholic faith,” said Father Roger Arnsparger, the Diocese of Charlotte’s vicar of education, as quoted on the diocesan newspaper’s website.

“There was unfortunately a misunderstanding about the content of the last part of the presentation,” he continued. “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.”

The school’s dean of students and two assistant principals apologized for not informing parents about the presentation beforehand. (The school’s principal was placed on leave in March amid reports of mishandling of funds.) “Parents should have been better informed,” said David Hains, spokesman for the Diocese of Charlotte, according to the Charlotte Observer.

At the parent meeting, “there were comments from parents who supported the school and the assembly, but most of the comments were critical,” the diocesan newspaper reported. “Many 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,’” the report added. Parents who sought to defend the priest responsible for the nun’s speaking engagement “were shouted down by other people.”

The Charlotte Observer reported that the Nashville Dominicans have canceled Sister Laurel’s speaking engagement at the Diocese of Charlotte’s upcoming youth conference.

“They felt like this just wasn’t a good time for the sister to speak again in the diocese,” said Hains.


http://www.catholicculture.org/news/head...ryid=20998
Reply
#4
News coverage is now available for the resolution of complaints about Sister Jane Dominic Laurel’s controversial presentation at a Catholic high school in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Nashville Dominican sister spoke at a school assembly about Church teaching on marriage, divorce, homosexuality and gay marriage, and on the impact the disregard of Catholic teaching and the natural has on children growing up in broken our unnatural home environments.

Complaints were numerous enough that a special meeting was called to discuss the matter, and diocesan officials decided to apologize for two things: First, that the school had not notified parents of the assembly and its sensitive contents; and second, that Sister Jane Dominic would have been better advised to leave out the data she used on the last portion of her talk, data which shows the deleterious effects on children of aberrant marital arrangements, because the value of that data is debated.

This resolution meets the minimum standard I proposed in my original discussion of this incident, “that any appropriate apology or correction will be accompanied by a clear reaffirmation of the reality of Divine Revelation and the certainty of Catholic teaching on these important subjects.” The apologies made do affirm Church teaching, in that it is specifically stated that the presentation did conform to Catholic doctrine. Problems are acknowledged only in the handling of certain data.

I have no objection to the statement that parents should have been forewarned (even though this may also have been met with a negative reaction). But the second apology is weak for two reasons. The first reason is the one I gave in my original discussion:

[I]t is imperative that nothing be allowed to detract from what ought to become an even more spectacular teaching moment. Therefore, it would be even better to avoid distracting side issues altogether. This means extending the benefit of any doubt to Sr. Jane Dominic, such that the correctness of her presentation of the Church’s infallible teaching is reaffirmed and defended without a single caveat.
The second reason is that the data on the impact of aberrant marital situations on children is overwhelming in showing that these children are far more likely to suffer emotional instability, uncontrolled anger, severe insecurity, and affective disorders throughout their lives. This or that piece of data may be debated, but the only people who contest the massive weight of the data as a whole are those who are championing an artificial vision of reality opposed to the natural law. Lending credibility to this sort of “debate”, which is absolutely unavoidable no matter what sociological studies prove, is one of those distractions which should not have been admitted. I fear that the second apology as phrased by the diocese’s vicar for education gives away too much in an effort to placate those who loudly objected to the talk, though the chaplain who arranged the assembly, Fr. Matthew Kauth, issued a better and more explanatory statement.

As far as I have been able to determine from the limited correspondence I received from some of those who objected to Sr. Jane Dominic’s presentation, the tactic chosen for the formal complaint was to insist that nobody was questioning Church teaching. Rather, the formal complaint was against the presentation of the alleged familial consequences of ignoring Church teaching. Such practical data was referred to in a variety of ways, such as “scare tactics” and “hateful”. Thus, for example, the presentation was deemed hurtful to single parents struggling to raise children under difficult circumstances; and also hurtful in that it indicated that gays could not, in actual practice, be fit parents. In this sense, the objection gave the Catholic officials a way out, and they took it.

A Much Deeper Problem

But it is just here that we recognize a more subtle but also much deeper problem. If you read the news report, you will see that tempers were very high over this problem of “data”, and that those who thought the whole presentation was just fine were shouted down. What this means is that there were many people professing to accept Church teaching (or at least choosing not to object to its presentation in a Catholic school) who nonetheless became extremely upset because the actual demonstrable practical consequences of living in opposition to Church teaching were enumerated.

We have slipped here into a pattern all too common in Catholic life today: The idea that the Church may teach something (yeah, yeah) but it really doesn’t matter. People can do what they deem best, and their way for them will be as good as anything. This attitude is false, and Sister Jane Dominic committed the cardinal sin of demonstrating its falsity. In point of fact, “their way for them” will not be as good as anything. It will not only be spiritually deadening, but also have disastrous concrete, practical consequences, including negative impacts on others which are statistically measurable.

The acceptance of Church teaching must go beyond theoretical assent to a lived commitment, and that lived commitment includes an awareness of the many deeply unfortunate consequences of living in denial of the realities which Church teachings (and the natural law) describe.

It is for this reason that parents who are raising children in the aftermath of divorce, spousal death, or abandonment face such a difficult challenge. Insofar as they bear responsibility for the broken family, this is seriously sinful. Insofar as they do not, it is a heavy cross. They need to know that it will take a life of prayer, heroic virtue and grace to prevent the consequences from injuring their children. They also need to know that with God all things are possible. But the last thing they need is to believe it is no big deal.

The same realities apply to children raised by gay “parents”. It is true that some gay “parents” can be better at some aspects of parenting—for example, ensuring physical safety or helping with math homework—than parents in families founded on true marriage. It is also true that not all gay “parents” will deliberately abuse their children, whereas some real parents will in fact do so. But all of this is beside the point. It is actually intrinsically abusive to place a child in a home to be raised by gay “parents”, or to permit gay “parents” to manufacture children for themselves under any circumstances. In addition to being a deliberate violation of a child’s natural right to be raised by a mother and a father, at the very least gay “parenting” is deeply abusive in terms of the normal affective development of the child.

We cannot “play house” without dire consequences. There is a natural order to things which, when we fail to perceive it in nature, is made clear to us through Revelation and Catholic doctrine. The consequences of evading and denying that order are both naturally and supernaturally grave. Refusing to admit the consequences is a cultural accommodation and a self-deception that actually rises to the level of practical dissent. An authentic recognition and response to reality is an important part of what it means to accept the teachings of the Church.

http://www.catholicculture.org/commentar...fm?id=1178
Reply
#5
Many are called, but few are chosen. There are innumerable citations that indicate the "few" may, indeed, be extremely few, if not rare. It is a fair conclusion that those who criticized the speaker, in opposition to Church teaching, will not be among the chosen. Oh, and those cowardly, apologetic diocesan officials, fearing the loss of enrollments (tuition) and of appearing insensitive by the standards of many today, may very well not be among them either. What does this profit them...?
Reply
#6
Sadly, my nieces attend a parish/school very similar to that.  It is dispicable, to say the least.  Unfortunately. my sister isn't as strong in her faith as she ought to be and won't educate them much more than what they receive there. Pray for them please!
Reply
#7
What, exactly, did she SAY?

The press accounts were vague on this and I haven't come across a transcript yet.
Reply
#8
(04-04-2014, 03:44 PM)Tantum Ergo Sacramentum Wrote: Sadly, my nieces attend a parish/school very similar to that.  It is dispicable, to say the least.  Unfortunately. my sister isn't as strong in her faith as she ought to be and won't educate them much more than what they receive there. Pray for them please!

:(  Hopefully, though, that's where YOU come in and do some catechizing on the side! (And lots of praying!) I hope you live in the same city as they so you can see the girls a lot and fill their heads with good things...


Reply
#9
(04-05-2014, 05:46 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: What, exactly, did she SAY?

The press accounts were vague on this and I haven't come across a transcript yet.

I'd like to know that myself. If anyone out there has a transcript or audio, etc., post it, will ya?
Reply
#10
(04-05-2014, 05:46 AM)FatherCekada Wrote: What, exactly, did she SAY?

The press accounts were vague on this and I haven't come across a transcript yet.

It sounds to me, it must have been:

Something Faithuful to the Teachings of the Magesterium

therefore...

Controversial

ergo...

Cannot be reproduced in a transcript or speech, for fear it might wake up some of the hearts and souls (as well as the minds) of the Dead.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)