Nun UNDER The Bus

UPDATE 8 April: Bp. Jugis (D. Charlotte) endorses Sr. Jane Laurel and talk at High School


You probably saw my post Sister explains the situation. Spittle-flecked nutty, bullying, intimidation ensue.

Sr. Jane Laurel, OP, gave a talk at a Catholic High School.  Hell broke loose.

If you want to sample her talks, go HERE. Her talk at the High School was “Masculinity & Femininity: Difference & Gift”.  Presentations with that title are on that website. Listen to a few.  At the High School, Sister included comments about homosexuality, divorce and single parents. Some people lost their minds. Read more here.

I suspect that what happened, to build this up into such a thing, is that parents heard vague reports – I say vague because teens are such great sources of accuracy in reporting – about her remarks from their politically-correctly conditioned children and, stung in conscience, got out the pitchforks and torches.

The nutty built up into grand mal nutty in the form of the increasingly inevitable “town hall” meeting.

Am I entirely off base here?  Did Sister actually say things that were so outrageous, so unacceptable, so lacking in truth and in charity, that the resulting furor was appropriate, proportionate and justified?  Really?  Go listen to some of her talks using that link, above.  Does it seem likely?

Now I read that Sister is going to have a sabbatical.  HERE

It looks as if Alinsky’s Rules were at work here. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. … Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

Look.  This is just the starting line for some observations.

It seems to me that this sad episode is one of many which reveal the building in our midst of a mob mentality akin to that which drove the Salem Witch Trials. If you speak in public now with any clarity about the Church’s teachings on sexuality, marriage, etc., or avert to conclusions which rational people reach about the same derived from the Natural Law, you will be met with fury. “I saw Lizzie Procter speaking with the devil!” Well… bad example, since most of the people who will join the snarling pack likely don’t believe in the devil.

There is a new and twisted “normal” coalescing. This new “normal”, violating the dictates of reason, will prompt the more aggressive and ideologically driven to impose iron norms, which, when violated, will spark vicious attacks from the now easily manipulated mob.

Watching episode in Charlotte build, I had the image of one of those mobs protests a G8 meeting. In these mobs there are professional instigators, anarchists and so forth, who are dedicated to getting the crowd of the curious, the young, the dumb, the enthusiastic, etc., whipped up into a frenzy. Then, as the frenzy rises, someone pitches a garbage can through a shop window and the havoc begins.

What is happening in our society that accepts so readily the hounding to ruin of the head of some business because he says that he supports true, natural marriage and does not endorse homosexual unions?

Surely there is something of a mob mentality building, and swiftly. The speed is driven by the new phenomenon of social media arriving in your hand 24/7. It is also driven by the erosion of the ability of many to reason (thanks to decades of poor education) and incessant mass media exaltation of self-satisfaction and base carnality, which also switches off higher functions.

But there is also something of the demonic in this present movement.

Some of you readers will remember back in the 50’s and 60’s the benign anti-littering campaigns. “Don’t be a litter bug!” It was really bad to be a “litter bug”. Remember the TV ads with the weeping Indian looking at garbage along the roadside? YOU made that Indian cry when you threw your bubblegum wrapper on the ground.  It was even patriotic not to litter.  “Keep America Beautiful!”  It took a while for the campaign to get real traction, a couple decades, but, given the tools of communication at the time it was pretty successful. It was big in schools.  I’m sure that kids turned their homes into re-education camps once teachers in schools were daily pounding on their empty-skulls heads about “pollution”. That campaign was probably also an outgrowth of the early ecology movement and neo-Malthusian efforts, but, hey, cleaner streets and roads were good.

Gramsci got it right: get control of the schools and, over time, you’ll control everything else. Have an agenda? Focus on school curricula and teachers.  Extirpate anyone who doesn’t conform.  Silence any discordant voice.

The campaign that we are seeing now, however, anything but benign. It is brush fire fast and there is in it something of the demonic.

Combox moderation is ON.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'..., Liberals, New Evangelization, One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Coming Storm, The Drill, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, The Olympian Middle, Wherein Fr. Z Rants and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    My hunches are almost exactly like unto yours, but hunches don’t cut it in the kinds of battles around us now. No one who has not heard (apparently there is no recording) or who has not read (apparently there was no text) Sister’s talk CANNOT weigh in on what she said, for the simple reason that they don’t KNOW what she actually said. Lesson: Keep a record, people.

  2. StJude says:

    Agreed… there is something demonic about all this.
    How else is this happening in America?
    There is a woman in Oregon that is opening a non GMO grocery store, but… she likes Palin on facebook and supports traditional marriage… her business is now ruined before it even opens.
    Keep praying.. this is probably just the beginning of what we are in store for.

  3. thomas tucker says:

    Excellent analysis.
    Add poor, if not absent, catechesis to the mix and it is no wonder that our youth, and many of their parents, adhere to the morality of Oprah and Ellen rather than to the teachings of the Apostles. In adition, add the feeling that reasoned disagreement is an attack on your person and the emotional stridency escalates to violent levels.

  4. bremersm says:

    Father, thank you for covering this. It seems that the story is really picking up steam and as the Church Militant we must not let it be perverted.

    This happened at my wife’s alma mater. The town meeting was full of those that were shouting very hateful words at our Bishop and the school Chaplin. Both of these men are very Holy indeed, These parents send their children to a Catholic school and show shock and disgust when a speaker speaks the truth about Mother Church’s teaching? How ignorant. If they don’t want to follow the teachings of our Church then they need to go to another private school.

    I believe that more can be done to stand beside Sister Jane. My parish had 24 hours of Eucharistic Adoration for the reparation of sins committed by these parents and will be having a holy hour for the same cause this weekend.

    May we keep Sister Jane, Bishop Jugis, and Father Kauth in our prayers.

    Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us.

  5. benedetta says:

    The notion that it is acceptable for mobs to enslave others to their wills is but a construct of evil.

  6. jbas says:

    I don’t think even Goebbels could have convinced people there is no difference between men and women. Further, I think we’re now beyond the Pius XI “Mit brennender Sorge” stage, and into the Pius XII “keep your head down and quietly save as many as you can” phase. The Nashville Dominicans need to begin identifying safe havens to which they can flee in the near future.

  7. Paulo says:

    For what is worth, I believe someone over the school put together a “counter-petition” entitled “all those who signed Emma Winters’s petition against Sister Jane Dominic’s lecture: Stand up for Catholic Beliefs.”
    The link follows: HERE

  8. norancor says:

    CCHS is near, and populated by, parishioners of the massive mega-suburban parish of St. Matthew. For indication, “massive” “mega” and “suburban” should tell you all you need to know. I emailed the chancery at this morning to reiterate my support for Catholic Identity and the Catholic sexual ethic, and tell Bishop Jugis that my family was praying for him and Sister Dominic and the other good priests we know in the Charlotte Diocese.

    Please so the same.

    I can only recommend one thing: home school and pick SOLID (and tradition, IMO) well-regarded Catholic curriculum. You can pick your children’s friends, and your life must revolve around a well-chosen parish. If you don’t have any of this, find a way to get it. Even if you have to move and uproot yourself to do it. Is it more work? Yes.

    The narrow path has a concrete application: real world choices on how you structure and live your day to day life, and those of the children you are commanded to raise properly.

    The world, the flesh, and the Devil are encroaching more every day. If you don’t protect yourself, you too will run, for fear of the wolves.

  9. amenamen says:

    George Orwell said,
    “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”

    The daily frenzy of “two minutes of hate” in Orwell’s 1984 was not far from the reality of Alinski-style propaganda. It seems that Sister Jane encountered this kind of irrationality.

  10. Charles E Flynn says:

    Arthur Miller’s play, “The Crucible”, never loses its relevance.

  11. Sword40 says:

    I wish the good Sister could get sent to our Diocese. Of course the Liberal’s out here are probably just as demonic as those back in NC. But still I, for one of many, would welcome her.

    I believe our Archbishop has a real blood sister who is a Dominican from that same Order. And I know for a fact that he could use some real time help. The Hunthausen crowd still controls things, but until they all retire…………………

    Pray for the Sister and for our Archbishop.

  12. benedetta says:

    Charles E Flynn, Certainly still relevant, but is it still understood?

  13. mike cliffson says:

    I worry about people caving in to this
    What about the spirit that supported chickafilla?
    In a quite , civilized, non-demonic fashion.

  14. Siculum says:

    Thank you, Father, for covering this as quickly as you did, and revisiting it today. Sister Jane Dominic seems like just a real sweetheart for (and of) Christ. The dissenters’ reactions are deplorable. Unfortunately, they are also foreseeable in this day and age. And yet Sister did her job.

    I would have really liked to hear that particular talk, and so I’ve gladly dived into Sister’s other media via the links Father Z and Google provided. It should show us all where she was coming from, if there is to be any question. Indeed, while we haven’t heard her particular presentation in Charlotte, her curriculum on authentic love demonstrates she has things packaged together about as lovingly as one could have.

    Within Sr. Mary Sarah, OP’s glossy statement on behalf of Aquinas College, she writes of Sr. Jane Dominic’s talk: “Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.” I’m quite disappointed to read this. Again, I don’t know what Sr. Jane Dominic said in NC, but does one have to have a degree in sociology or anthropology to question the direction mankind is going in as it pertains to these moral issues? If so, it would seem that no Catholic educator or personality who lacks such anthropological or sociological credentials is ‘expert’ enough to touch on these issues in any commentary accompanying a presentation of Catholic teachings — at least, according to Sr. Mary. For all intents and purposes, neither Our Lord, the prophets, the Gospel or Epistle writers, the Church Fathers, Pope Francis, nor many of our clergy or educators have degrees in anthropology or sociology, and yet they comment continually on subject matter which could well be said to relate to these subjects. Our Faith impels that. Indeed, anthropology and sociology are intrinsic parts of our relationship with God and one another. Sr. Jane Dominic’s online media — and indeed, our Faith — underline this implicitly. If St. Jane Dominic cited studied facts or statistics in her talk from “authoritative” anthropological or sociological sources, and then expanded on, interpreted, or applied them through a Catholic lens, then she was fully within her rights — and duty — to do so.

    “There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments.” Whose comments is Sr. Mary talking about? Sr. Jane Dominic’s or the comments of the dissenters? Just trying to be clear.

    Respectfully, I give everyone the benefit of the doubt here, but knowing how these things go, Sr. Jane Dominic may have been pressured to “request” her own sabbatical from teaching at Aquinas College. (Obviously the two parties don’t… see eye to eye.)

    It ought to be the hope of Aquinas College that the students of Charlotte Catholic High School apologize to Sr. Jane Dominic as they themselves “begin [that] process of healing and renewal.” Are we to understand that the students need a “process of healing and renewal” after hearing the ‘offensive’ Truths presented in Sr. Jane Dominic’s talk? “He who has ears ought to hear.” I can’t imagine how Sr. Jane Dominic feels following her white martyrdom.

    Indeed, the only healing that needs to take place is within the hearts, minds, and souls of offended students, parents, faculty, and administration who have made it clear they are not open to God’s message of authentic love. “Renewal” in the school must be only one kind: a renewal in fidelity to the very Truths Sr. Jane Dominic — and the Church and the Holy Father — espouse.

  15. veritas76 says:

    A comment from the counter-petition that refutes (from a first-hand source, I might add!) those who suggest that she may have been speaking truth, but simply conveyed herself poorly, or did so uncharitably….. Parce Domine. Prayers for Sr. Jane Dominic!

    “If I had not attended the talk and just read Emma Winter’s petition I probably would have signed it. However, I was there and the things the petition is claiming Sister said are just plain wrong. The people who are responsible for the petition and signed it after having attended the talk are extremely closed minded. They went into the talk looking for a reason to be offended and horribly misquoted Sister Dominic to be able to justify the “offense” they took.”

  16. Del says:

    From the announcement of Sister’s sabbatical:

    “Sister Jane Dominic has cancelled her speaking engagements and, at her request, is preparing to begin a sabbatical from teaching at Aquinas College.”

    We can hope (and ardently pray) that Sister is not discouraged by these events. Rather, she will take some time to do more research and maybe even prepare more talks.

    These events have shown us that the message is much needed and a careful mode of bringing the message is also needed — because the current mood resists the truth, very much. Reality is out of fashion, as they say.

  17. Qwikness says:

    Wow. How weak. The president of her school didn’t back her up at all. Saying, “no words that are able to reverse the harm,” and “this is not something the College condones.” I had so much respect for the Dominicans Sisters of Nashville. This makes me feel so disillusioned, I thought they were going to be a little pocket of resistance but they just rolled over.

  18. amenamen says:

    Who can forget the Crying Indian ad?

    It was for a rather innocuous cause, and yet, it set a precedent for phoniness in public service announcements. It also set a precedent in limiting public moral outrage to selected, peripheral moral issues. It is officially acceptable to be against litterbugs, but not acceptable to be against same sex marriages or abortion.

    The Crying Indian’s ancestry was as phony as the glycerin “tear” rolling down his cheek. The actor’s name was Espera Decorti (stage name, “Iron Eyes Cody”), and his parents came from Italy.

  19. Liam says:

    It is all mimetic violence. Rene Girard is the prophet of our times.

  20. TMKent says:

    Here is the statement presented at the meeting by the CCHS Chaplain:

  21. jhayes says:

    The representative of the diocese said that the problem was that she had added a new section to the presentation she had given in the past. Fr. Knauth said he hadn’t known of that when he invited her.

    “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….”


    Everyone seems to agree that the first part of her talk (on faith and morals) was fine. It was the introduction of the Linacre material in the second part that raised the uproar.

    In announcing Sr. Jane’s sabbatical, the President of her college said that:

    Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.

  22. wmeyer says:

    I am just a sinner who reads the CCC and tries his best to live the teachings of our Church. But from my perspective, and the available reporting, I would take Sr. Jane Dominic over Sr. Mary Sarah, hands down. As I recall, we are here to afflict the comfortable, not cater to their delusions.

  23. benedetta says:

    The Holy Spirit does not operate on the terms of any alinky-esque orchestrations, ever.

  24. The Masked Chicken says:

    I posted a long comment over in the parent post from which this post was spun-off.

    “My hunches are almost exactly like unto yours, but hunches don’t cut it in the kinds of battles around us now. No one who has not heard (apparently there is no recording) or who has not read (apparently there was no text) Sister’s talk CANNOT weigh in on what she said, for the simple reason that they don’t KNOW what she actually said. Lesson: Keep a record, people.”

    Some of the students are posting first-hand accounts. You can read them in the comments at the AbbyRoad Blog:

    As I said in my long post, this whole situation frosts me. Sr. Jane Dominic did nothing wrong that I can see. These are not the actions of Catholic parents in a truly Catholicly-minded married relationship. They would try to be charitable. The people throwing Sr, Jane Dominic under the bus are, ironically, proving her whole thesis. What other argument does she need to make?

    The Chicken

  25. Siculum says:

    Sister Jane Dominic’s online content, which Fr. Z links us to, presents the information in a careful, delicate, refined, and frankly more holy and loving way than I am able to.

  26. Siculum says:

    @The Chicken You’re exactly right, both in this post and your long one. The people throwing Sr. Jane Dominic under the bus are proving her whole thesis. In one of her online videos she talks about how a lack of communication can be one of the causes of divorce and/or broken homes. Discord and disunity, she points out, go hand-hand-in-hand with that. Sort of like “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Logic.

    Sounds something like this situation — and that of much of the Church. We are faltering. We are all split off in different directions in terms of what we believe and how (or whether) we practice it. Our schools and parishes are closing as a result. Am I reaching to the choir here? Yes. :¬)

    Being on the front lines — as Sister was/is, and as our clergy and educators are — is nothing short of daunting.

  27. The Masked Chicken says:

    “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….”

    No, this is exactly why they should have been presented. Good grief, if we aren’t teaching our kids how to evaluate data, then we are failing them as educators.

    The Chicken

  28. Legisperitus says:

    I was in the first grade in 1973 and remember having it continually drilled into me that the reason the whole wide world was in such a mess was because I threw my candy wrapper on the ground! … Notwithstanding the fact that I had never thrown a candy wrapper on the ground in my entire short life. Never mind… my teacher had a poster of the Ecology Flag on her classroom wall and the message kept getting reinforced through various media over the next five years of public school, to the point where I would have welcomed arguments in favor of pollution just to relieve the monotony.

  29. WesleyD says:

    Fr. Z and Dr. Peters’ “hunches” are usually correct, as history has often shown. But in this case, I’m not sure. According to both Fr. Kauth’s statement and the archdiocese’s newspaper article, Sr. Jane Laurel included an additional section in her talk which does not appear on her website, nor was it in the similar talks she had given before. According to Fr. Kauth’s statement, it was this part alone that caused the uproar. Fr. Kauth indicates in his statement that he strongly supported her previous similar talks, and supported her current talk except for that section.

    Now, except for some very vague references in these articles, I have no idea what was in this section. However, Fr. Kauth’s statement is very detailed in his timeline and analysis, and unless his memory is completely gone, it seems that she has previously spoken clearly on Catholic sexual teaching with his support.

    So there are two possibilities: (1) Sr. Jane Laurel’s previous talks didn’t include the truth about sexuality, but this time she added a new section that told the truth, and for this has been thrown under the bus by this priest as well as the entire Nashville Dominican order. (2) The section she added this time included something that wasn’t simply the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality, and this section was the cause of the trouble.

    [In the videos of her speaking, entitled with the same title as her HS talk, see cites, for example, a study from Harvard. Can’t do that either?]

  30. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    The Masked Chicken, thx, but it’s hearsay. If I don’t accept a teenager’s account that spells disaster, why accept one’s that suggests goodness? No record, no case, for OR against. Supposedly, St. Thomas has a passage (in the Summa?) about what evidence can be used heresy trials. Excluded per his passage? Student notes, because students never get it quite right. :)

  31. ckdexterhaven says:

    Sister Jane Dominic spoke at my parish in the Diocese of Raleigh this fall. I did not hear her speak, but it was advertised at the same speech topic. There were students from a private, non diocesan Catholic school in attendance, as well as other high school students. As far as I know, there were no complaints lodged.

    My child attends this same high school. This high school is solid in the teaching of the Catholic faith. The kids graduating from this school are prepared ( as well as they can be) to face the coming onslaught and stay strong in their faith. I know that Thomas Aquinas would like to have more graduates from this high school attend their college. After reading this letter, and knowing they threw Sister Jane Dominic under the bus, I will actively discourage my children from attending this college. I will bring up this episode with other parents if they express interest in the school. Sister Jane Dominic deserved better.

  32. NBW says:

    Prayers for Sister Jane.

  33. BLB Oregon says:

    There is an organic grocery opening in Portland, Oregon, and someone dug up information from one of the owners’ Facebook pages that a) she opposes same-sex marriage and b) she’s a libertarian who thinks no one ought to be forced to serve anybody. Someone local to the new business posted this information to the internet, advocating a pre-emptive boycott.

    To say there was a spittle-flecked nutty over this, fueled by the “journalists” at the Oregonian, is a gross understatement. What is interesting is the number of people, including gays, who are expressing offense at the treatment being given to a business that hasn’t opened by people who have never met the owner.

    Even the World has people not willing to sell their souls to the forces of Right Think. It is somewhat encouraging.

  34. BLB Oregon says:

    BTW, nobody who visits prisons on a regular basis thinks that married parents don’t matter to their children.

  35. Gail F says:

    Dr. Peters is right: Document EVERYTHING. Take video or make audio records. Site only reputable sources (they’ll be argued too, but don’t let anyone say you exaggerated or made things up).

    We don’t know what she said — only what people SAID she said. Even if everything the detractors say is true, it is hardly reason enough for the reaction to it. If a person spoke about the death penalty and said some disputed things or things that were not true, would 1000 parents be there complaining about irreparable harm done to their children? I don’t think so.

    I don’t think this will be the end of such things.

  36. Dave N. says:

    All we have to go on is hearsay and educated guesses as to what Sister actually said. It would be nice to have a transcript or video.

    But here’s what makes me very suspicious about the protesting students’ claims. In this day when teens record EVERYTHING, there’s not one video or audio record of what was said? Not even a snippet on YouTube? Don’t think that if there were actual evidence that it wouldn’t be splattered all over social media by now.

    If you do some digging on the school’s website it’s clear there are lots of other very unrelated things going on at Charlotte Catholic:


    The principal was placed on leave back in March, which you can read about in the article. Some of the protesting parents blamed the content of Sister’s talk on the fact that Principal Healy was not longer there to screen it. I’m guessing there are probably conflicts that have nothing to do with Sister’s talk, but she happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Which is sad.

  37. benedetta says:

    It seems simple really. Sr. Jane and her superior and the chaplain have responded with Christian charity towards the people who raged that they were offended. I expect this to be a much more lasting lesson on Catholicism for the students and families, as well as some rather energized and undisciplined or unethical activists, than any assembly talk could ever be.

  38. CrimsonCatholic says:

    I will pray for the sister. This situation is so sad, and she has not given her side of the story. We don’t really know what was said as the Masked Chicken has stated.

  39. jhayes says:

    The section she added this time included something that wasn’t simply the Catholic Church’s teaching on sexuality, and this section was the cause of the trouble

    Fr. Kauth mentioned that the added material came from Linacre. The booklet on homosexuality on their website is here and sounds like some of the points mentioned in the complaints

    It seems to be sociological speculation about causes of homosexuality rather than Catholic teaching.

    [And the Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Some people say that the Church’s teachings on this and many other issues are just “policies”, which changes the terrain from doctrine to… something else.]

  40. Quanah says:

    Very sad. The reaction from some of the students and their parents is not surprising, but the statement from Aquinas College is a real shame. It’s one thing to make a statement acknowledging confusion, hope for healing, and announcing that Sister Jane is taking a sabbatical at her request without passing judgment positively or negatively. It is quite another to present all of that in such a way as to make it look like Sister is in the wrong. At least it read like that to me. Very sad.

  41. lisajulia says:

    i haven’t finished reading all the comments yet, but this one caught my eye: “Wow. How weak. The president of her school didn’t back her up at all. Saying, “no words that are able to reverse the harm,” and “this is not something the College condones.” I had so much respect for the Dominicans Sisters of Nashville. This makes me feel so disillusioned, I thought they were going to be a little pocket of resistance but they just rolled over.”
    I just want to say as someone who actually lives in a Diocese where the Sisters operate 2 schools, including a high school, that not everything is as it seems. I respectfully believe any harsh criticism of how the Sisters are handling this should be reconsidered. I can say with pretty strong conviction (without going into any personal details i may have in this regard) that the Sisters would like very much for the situation to be removed from the glaring spotlight. There is a reason there have been only 2 public statements about all this, even though they are actively on various social media including their own website and the websites of every school that they staff. The more we talk about it, the more we risk the continued fury of those who are critical of Sister and the Truth. It might SEEM like it’s helping them to publicly defend Sister Jane Dominic, but the bottom line is there are a lot of nutjobs out there, and if you know anything at all about the Sisters or have any personal, long-standing relationships with any of them, you would know that they are first and foremost concerned with the safety and well-being of all the Sisters. Imagine that Sister Jane Dominic is your daughter. Would you not want to do anything in your power to protect her, even if it means downplaying a situation they *never* imagined possible? Trust me when i tell you, the sooner this story dies, the sooner the Sisters can go back to doing what they do best…in safety.

  42. ChristoetEcclesiae says:

    Sister came to my Diocese last year and gave a talk with the very same title to a packed room of people who ranged in age from high school students to senior citizens. Her talk was beautiful. She is a very witty and engaging presenter. She tells the truth, but is in no way derogatory to anyone. And I can’t imagine that she presented on anything outside the bounds of her knowledge. Sister knows her stuff! After the presentation, many people, including young people, stayed to ask her questions or chat with their parents about things too seldom discussed. There was a real buzz of interest and learning in the room. As far as I’m concerned, Sister is a born teacher.

    If it is true that a few of the teachers left the presentation in tears, one would have to wonder why. Perhaps it is because sometimes the truth is uncomfortable, though no less true: sometimes the truth hurts.

  43. tcreek says:

    Father Krauth
    “Right before she began she asked me once again, are you sure you want me to give the same talk with the discussion on same-sex attraction? I said yes. Here is where two ships passed seemingly in the sunlight but actually in the night. What I didn’t know was that Sister has a section that she sometimes inserts into her talk that focuses on the leading studies of the CMA (Catholic Medical Association) on same sex attraction. She simply assumed that is what I meant for her to do. Now I understand her initial hesitation. I didn’t know such a section existed. In that sense I was as stunned as anyone. I was not stunned by what she said per se as I had read similar things in various medical/theological journals.”
    Question for those who criticize Sister Jane Dominic for using the CMA studies.
    Would it have been more suitable to use studies by the many universities who support homosexual lifestyles? Those studies would not be subject to sociological speculation?

  44. Lin says:

    Catechesis, catechesis, catechesis! In the 50’s and 60’s it was mandatory! By the bishops? The pastors? Or was it just my family that made it so?

    We have a follower of Hunthausen as a pastor. One who has no problem telling the parish that Ratzinger set the causes back decades. I pray for his retirement!

  45. thomas tucker says:

    If anyone left her talk “in tears,” may I suggest a mental health evaluation? Or a course in “the stiff upper lip?”

  46. CrimsonCatholic says:


    The College and sisters threw Sr. Jane under the bus with a statement like this, “There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments. The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome and wishes to reiterate that this is not something the College condones or desires to create. ” They have brought this on themselves for not defending Truth.

  47. PostCatholic says:

    ” I say vague because teens are such great sources of accuracy in reporting ”

    My experience is that the teens in my life do their best to be accurate. They may not always remove their emotions from their experience, or clearly see the motivations or reasoning that lead adults to say the things they say, and nuance is often lost. Those are skills learned in time, and learned more quickly when adults try to encourage their development. Do want to have teen readers here? Do you already? If so, how would they feel about your dismissive statement?

    I’ll save a copy of this for posting elsewhere.

    [You do that. And if that is going to be your style around here, Addio!]

  48. Cantor says:

    I’ll agree with Dr. Peters that, without a recording of what was said, the accusations against Sister Jane Laurel are inherently without verifiable foundation. But one sees in her published work that she can be controversial. This is excellent in the college or grad school environment when there is open discussion, but dangerous with a younger audience expected to be in “receive” mode only.

    In her recording “Masculinity and Femininity Part IV: Stage 3 – Adolescence” she addresses homosexuality. But rather than teaching the Church’s position that “[i]ts psychological genesis remains largely unexplained”, she presents as fact its origin involves either sexual abuse or parental disaffection.

    Her recording (at least parts 1 through 4) doesn’t address divorce or single parents, equally hot topics which she evidently inserted into her presentation. I would hope that her words reflected CCC 1651 wherein these individuals are encouraged, among other things, to pray, attend Mass, and bring up their children in the Faith.

  49. LarryW2LJ says:

    These arguments, situations, dilemmas – whatever you want to call them, are always difficult to win, as the two “sides” do not play by the same rules. One side uses reason and calm, thought out explanations. The other side usually employs emotion, hysteria and sensation.

    You can argue your case to the emotional side until you are blue in the face, but it rarely does any good. When emotions cloud reason, there is no getting through. Add to that a little denial and it’s almost hopeless. The emotional side digs in it’s heels and no matter how much you insist the sky is blue, they’ll insist you’re wrong because they feel it’s green.

  50. Kathleen10 says:

    Ugh, there is so much that is troublesome here. Like all of you I have not read what Sister said, but doubt with all my heart she opened with “We should all hate homosexuals and beat them relentlessly with pointy sticks”. Given the state of PC thought that is right this minute being enshrined in the prevailing zeitgeist, it is no longer optional or tolerable to have a “different opinion” on homosexuality, single parenthood, divorce, or it seems, on even sexual differences between men and women, as in, are there any? Again, if the church had zealously guarded the right to teach on these truths without cowering into a cobwebby corner, we would not be here. The truth, when asserted boldly and with confidence, will not be easily intimidated and then it can be passed down generation to generation. But someone, many someone’s, faltered, back-pedaled, began sweating, got nervous, and looked it. The crowd smelled fear and heard capitulation and indecision. Their eyes twitched. They rushed the stage.
    So now poor Sister is on “sabbatical”. Aquinas has apologized. And they should. They allowed unpleasant “truth” to be disseminated, and the truth is not wanted. Shame on Sister. The priest is busy placating and appeasing. If Sister gets flogged or disappears all will be well again!
    The reaction of Aquinas has positively ensured a bigger and more dramatic reaction by the overly dramatic participants the next time that pesky old “truth” is mentioned again. These ill-informed Drama Queens are apoplectic any time their new-found religion is questioned, so, it won’t be long. Oh, how they suffer! Well, maybe it will be long at Aquinas, as they clearly will avoid truth now after this debacle, but, it will be happening somewhere else fairly soon where the informed but unaware will fall into the same hole. It will keep happening until all those who dare to speak the truth are silenced. Discussion, debate from opposing sides, these are unknown concepts to the self-righteous tyrants who may be all of 16 years old. Little tiny fascists. Their parents have no greater amount of appreciation than their children do for freedom of speech, diversity of opinion, agreeing to disagree, or quaint ideas such as Catholic teaching. The parents are dullards as well, and an outraged dullard is a nasty thing. If only Aquinas had moral courage, they could do the right thing, support poor Sister, and make a stand for truth and authentic Catholic teaching! But, they are without spines, lacking the courage of any convictions about Catholic truth, so they cannot stand. The crowds will be emboldened next time, growing accustomed to victory. Other crowds of dullards hear about this incident on social media and how glamorous it all is and how they too can be John and Joan of Arc by defending against the terrible Catholic church teaching and lo, behold the tears of admiration in the eyes of their children…for the first time seeing their parents as just…so…cool.

  51. Joseph-Mary says:

    I have to wonder if she was requested to request a ‘sabbatical’.
    Yes, we shall see more of this as the few bold enough to speak the truth in the public square are ‘thrown under the bus’ with everyone else apologizing for them. Think of the priests set up by lesbians at funerals and then running to the press and the bishop punishing the priest.

  52. MichaelBoston says:

    Malcolm Muggeridge, the great Christian apologist, warned many years ago of “the Consensus”. The Consensus is an approved, collectivist body of acceptable views. Any divergence from the Consensus results in a pack of wolves being set on the dissenter. The Consensus has been in operation for at least two generations. However, it has now become so predominant that people are beginning to enforce the Consensus within their own ranks and without outward coercion by the State, media, or other social or civil pressure. We may be entering an “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” period of social and politcal conformity. BTW, Muggeridge was a close friend of George Orwell and his “Consensus” is similar to Orwell’s “GroupThink” . It is frightening that a group of Catholic parents would pounce like this.

  53. anachy says:

    As others have noted, we don’t know for sure what Sister Jane did or didn’t say. But, regardless of whether she did or did not “speak outside her area of expertise” by citing sociological/anthropological data that some might take issue with, the outcome would have been the same given the agenda-driven purposes of the protesters. Does no one remember the firestorm a couple years ago when Mark Regnerus, a sociologist, published research that was less than favorable to the idea that SS parenting is just great for children? The lavender mafia went wild and tried to get him drummed out of academe. They put him through the ringer and are still after him. So, it really doesn’t matter whether one speaks in or outside of their area of expertise when it comes to this; the activists will brook no dissent of any kind. And, lisajulia, while I get that the Dominican Sisters might be rightly concerned about their own safety, isn’t this a lesson for us all – and isn’t it supposed to be? We are being shown that we must either support what the Church has always opposed, or shut up about it and they’ll leave us alone. Of course, they won’t really as they won’t be satisfied until everyone ENDORSES things like SSM, single-parenting, divorce, etc. St. Thomas More, pray for us!

  54. Long-Skirts says:


    You can run on
    For a long time
    Run on for a
    Long time
    Run on for a long time
    Sooner or later
    God’ll cut
    ‘em down
    Sooner or later
    God’ll cut
    ‘em down

    These rotten wicked
    Heinous men
    Found foul and guilty
    Again and again
    All are depraved
    Like nuns on the bus
    Approve their boils
    Then suck their pus

    Sent a Prelate
    Dressed in white
    To warn that the dark
    Will be brought to the light
    His cassocked clergy
    Teach the Faith truthfully
    But scourged like the
    Man from Galilee

    Defilement diseased
    The man in the dome
    Makes a mess to delay
    Optimistic his fruits of decay
    We’ll obey

    And now a true bride
    Of Christ, Sister Jane
    Spat upon by superiors
    Spat upon by the vulgar
    Of Charlotte
    Man, woman, child
    Each one is a harlot

    You can run on
    For a long time
    Run on for a
    Long time
    Run on for a long time
    Sooner or later
    God’ll cut
    You down
    Sooner or later
    God’ll cut
    You down!

    [Channeling our inner Johnny Cash, are we?]

  55. The Astronomer says:

    See Luke 18:8 – But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth?

    Of all the apocalyptic statements in the New Testament, this one question by Our Blessed Lord is the most profoundly disturbing, as He already knew the answer. The reaction to Sr. Jane is only the beginning. Gramsci and his disciples have done their work well.

    Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for Us.

  56. aegsemje says:

    Father is absolutely right about them wanting liberals in schools to promote social change. As a brand new, naive convert, I went to a Catholic college in Minnesota to get a teaching license to teach high school science. As part of the program, someone from the state interviewed us on our beliefs. He told me I was too conservative to be a teacher in Minnesota, and that they would never let me get a license…..they would find some way to disqualify me. My professors repeatedly bashed the Pope and Church teachings every chance they got. I was brave (or stupid?) enough to stand up to them an ended up not being a teacher as a result.

  57. mrshopey says:

    Following what Dr. Peters said, IF nothing can be proved, for or against, then how can being sent on a sabbatical be justified? IF her talk wasn’t the same as the one online, and she doesn’t have notes, and no one recorded her, then this seems like too much because they are punishing because what someone heard?

  58. jhayes says:

    I think Cantor has found the answer.

    If you watch the first 8 minutes of this video of Part IV of Sr. Jane’s “Masculinity and Femininity”, you will see that there is no theology or Church teaching there.

    As opposed to CCC 2357, which says of homosexuality: “Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.” Sr. Jane presents a detailed psychological explanation of causes of homosexuality, starting with inadequate bonding with the child by mother and father.

    On these matters, you may personally agree with her views or not, but they are not Church teachings.

    She is a qualified theologian but, as her superior said, “Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.”

    Some of the views she presented would have been offensive to people in the audience. And were, as you can see from the response.

    [Absurd. When Catholic speakers speak on matters of faith and morals they commonly refer to facts, studies, etc., which are not in the CCC. Again, absurd.]

  59. Elizium23 says:

    There is a moral here, the bottom line, the real message, the nitty gritty, a conclusion that few people have drawn yet. It has nothing to do with what she did or didn’t say in the talk. It has nothing to do with petitions, counter-petitions, town hall meetings, angry parents. What is it? Her obedience.

    If this were a Nun on the Bus, she would proudly stand up and continue broadcasting her message, without a slightest thought to the naysayers who say she should rethink her views. She would go to the press and hold media interviews about how she was wronged and nobody can silence her. Well, she won’t be doing that. [Probably.]
    She has graciously obeyed when asked to take a break, she has stepped down willingly and immediately, and she will permit the system to work. There is every indication that, if she did stray into uncharted waters, if she did say a few inaccurate or insensitive things, that she will correct her course and be back to preach the truth to those who are willing to hear it.

    Bravo, Sister, thank you for your strong witness and your courage.

  60. tcreek says:

    I do not believe sister’s sabbatical was causwed mainly because of the content of her talks but rather to protect her from further verbal abuse. Sister Jane Dominic was scheduled to give a talk to a Home Schooling group in my area but it was cancelled. Her presentation would be welcomed here as it has been in 25 states where she has given more than 80 talks.

    Also, (if you read between the lines) I believe the statement of Sister Mary Sarah, president of Aquinas College was critical of Sister Jane’s adversaries more so than of the presentation.
    “The events around the recent talk by Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, O.P. in Charlotte, NC have produced a great deal of speculation from many sides…”

    “Among the commentators, there are few who were actually present to hear the talk…”

    “In her presentation, Sister Jane Dominic spoke clearly on matters of faith and morals. …”

    “There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments.” (Sister Jane’s comments?)

    “The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome …”

    “The events and discussions that have transpired over the last two weeks reflect that there is something in this that surpasses an ordinary high school assembly.”

  61. lisajulia says:

    CrimsonCatholic: “The College and sisters threw Sr. Jane under the bus with a statement like this, “There are no words that are able to reverse the harm that has been caused by these comments. The community of Aquinas College is saddened by this extreme outcome and wishes to reiterate that this is not something the College condones or desires to create. ”
    I respectfully suggest you look deeper and read the entire statement again…it is my belief that Sister Mary Sarah was referring to the ‘comments’ against Sister Jane Dominic, and the ‘extreme outcome’ is referencing the meeting of 1,000 poorly catechized folks who showed up at the meeting…err…i mean witch hunt…and what Aquinas College doesn’t condone is what happened to Sister Jane Dominic and those who support her…just my 2 cents ;-)

  62. benedetta says:

    Was thinking how the whole thing reminded me of La Sapienza, 2008…remember that? Good times…

    Hard to find any humanist success stories, current or past, among the societies enslaved by mob hate. I’m sure it benefits certain entities…of course there is a reason why this topic of history is not really dwelt upon in, say, the Common Core. Students who do not comprehend its dynamics are helplessly victimized by it and exploited for its own designs. Does the mob care what the detritus will look like, and how it will impair, those whom they instrumentalize for their own selfish interests? No. They will be long gone, and won’t be there with a hand out or a tender word. Meanwhile the Church will always be there, as it always has, to listen, to comfort and heal, and to help pick up the pieces. If the secular agenda is all so great why do the success stories and the ones who lived the dream seem to be committing suicide in such great numbers. Clearly it is not the Church telling people that there is something they lack…the secular poster children themselves cry out for God and the communion of humanity that is God’s Church.

  63. anav.tru says:

    I am the student of Sister Jane Dominic’s who commented in Fr. Z’s original post about the situation.

    Believe me, I share in the disappointment of many in regards to what seems to be a weak public stance of the College. I know that it gives the impression that it is capitulating. No doubt, faithful Catholics parents have their eye on the every move of the school, carefully scrutinizing whether its actions conform to its mission statement and orthodox reputation. But please — remember that even us students, despite the smallness of our community, don’t know what is going on behind the scenes. The Sisters are under a vow of obedience, and also work together with media relations personnel and College administrative authorities who are outside the St. Cecilia Congregation.

    So we do not know how much of the College’s handling of the situation is directly the will or the doing of the Sisters

    I know Sister Mary Sarah personally. She is a very attentive and diligent President. She is a VERY GOOD, loving and respectable person. Rest assured that she supports Sister Jane Dominic.

    If it doesn’t come across that way — remember that there is a lot going on behind the scenes! Pray for the Sisters! Pray for the school! I have no doubt that Sister Mary Sarah is carrying a lot of pain and conflict, and I am sure she is very carefully discerning everything. So please, give her the benefit of the doubt. Take it from someone who knows her.

    Aquinas College is in the planning stages of growth and has been wanting to attract more students. Perhaps this whole incident is God’s will in order to present us with a crossroads, in response to which we are being called to take a bold stance.

    Pray, pray, please pray!

  64. acardnal says:

    “Nothing in Sister’s talk opposed Church teaching,” Diocese of Charlotte Communications Director David Hains told LifeSiteNews in an email. “Sister would be welcomed to speak in the diocese in the future.”

  65. anav.tru says:

    One more thing —

    I have discussed the possibility with Sister Mary Sarah of a public, official statement of support for Sister Jane Dominic published by students of Aquinas College. I will be following up with Sister Mary Sarah soon to discuss this possibility further. There are no guarantees yet. Just hope! I know that such a statement would be carefully reviewed by someone or other above since it bears upon the public image of the College.

    Of course I favor taking a strong stance that explicitly affirms the Church’s teaching in all is fullness and supports Sister Jane Dominic work, while acknowledging the lamentable nature of the controversy that has followed her. However that controversy which is an isolated incident among the numerous talks around the nation that Sister has given, should not DISTRACT from the bigger issue which is who stands with the Church and who stands against her?

    I stand with the Church and any statement on my part must reflect that.

    Please pray for us!


  66. Joel says:

    I am so frustrated by this situation that I probabaly should not be posting. However, I will quickly note that we have had Sister Jane give talks in our parish, supposedly this same talk, and we have always been pleased and happy to hear her. In fact, her talks while good and insightful, are far from earth shattering here. She reinforces the cathecism we are recieving from the pulpit and what we are teaching our children.

    It would be nice to send Col Jessep over to Charlotte right about now for a “You can’t handle the truth!” talk.

  67. The Masked Chicken says:

    “The Masked Chicken, thx, but it’s hearsay. If I don’t accept a teenager’s account that spells disaster, why accept one’s that suggests goodness? No record, no case, for OR against. Supposedly, St. Thomas has a passage (in the Summa?) about what evidence can be used heresy trials. Excluded per his passage? Student notes, because students never get it quite right. :)”

    Dr Peters,

    This is a little complicated. There are varying standards of evidence from discipline to discipline. Just in passing, because I don’t know the answer, so I’ll ask: how can eyewitness testimony be considered hearsay? I thought that hearsay was transmission of original source material through a second party, but hearsay may have a legal definition of which I am not aware, so I defer to your expertise. Certainly, from a legal perspective, everything should have been documented, as you say (but who knew?). I do not trust the attention-span of many modern high school students, either. In the 1950’d and 1960’s before the advent of tape recordings, talks would have been listened to much more attentively and notes taken, maybe in short-hand.

    From a scientific perspective, we have even tighter standards. We like dry, unemotional data, so a recording would have been optimal.

    From an historical perspective, however, things get a little dicier. Sometimes, in reconstructing a historical narrative, we are lucky just to have an eyewitness (we do not consider that hearsay, although we may have to consider it malicious, depending upon circumstances). Some of the Church Fathers materials are based on nothing more than eyewitness testimony (such as the death of St. Polycarp, if memory serves, as well as the life of St. Benedict), as are the Gospels (although this is a special case, being inspired by the Holy Spirit). If there are many witnesses and the event is fresh, it is now possible, with the development of modern mathematical techniques, to use data-mining of the eyewitness accounts to tease out a highly probably record of the events. I know this hasn’t made its way into the legal process, yet, but I am sure that someone will try it within this decade. It would be interesting to collect all of the complaints (and I am sure that some of them are based on mere hearsay of what happened) and try to separate the testimony into primary, secondary, and remote sources using data-mining (specifically, lattice-based techniques). Then again, I am a data hound and I suspect that no one is even thinking in these terms.

    We can get copies of her written presentation, presumably. That should be reasonably close to what she said, unless, she, as I, has a penchant for going off on tangents in talks, but I doubt it. What is odd, as someone mentioned, above, is that the school did not videotape or DVR the talk.

    Be that as it may, I am a little stunned that serious, “wounds,” could have been generated by the quotation of material from journal articles. The people listening and those who have over-reacted, simply are not prepared to make rational arguments. Its that simple. Again, almost no one is trying to refute what Sister said. They are just condemning her hypotheses without a hearing. Charlotte is not a small town and these are not bumpkins and, yet, they behave like bumpkins who have never had their pet opinions challenged. So much for reasoned debate.

    I find it a bit disingenuous of Aquinas College to write: “Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.” Nonsense. I do scientific research and science is, basically science. I expect to see the same rigor in physics, chemistry, and biology and any scientist can read the papers of others. If they need help they can always ask experts. Unlike the person (the president of the college) who issued that statement regarding Sister’s expertise, I am a skilled interdisciplinary researcher (my research having made the cover of Science News and NPR Science Friday – the Discovery channel wanted to do a piece, but I was working out of nine different unrelated labs at once, so they couldn’t afford the traveling around – that seems to be enough to prove interdisciplinary credentials). I have to cross boundaries into different fields, all of the time. I spend months studying each discipline, consulting with experts, checking and double-checking my research though them and by the time I am finished, I have a pretty good knowledge of that field. You know what? Pretty much everyone plays by the same rules. I could pick up a sociology or anthropology book, get caught up on journals, and be prepared to discuss research-level material with graduate researchers within a few weeks. I may not be able to do research, but, as I say, science is science, so, I already know at least the techniques in-the-large for how to do the research. I just need subject-specific knowledge (which can modify some of the techniques). It is not that hard to become expert enough to make presentations in areas that one does not have a Ph.D in. Seriously, does anyone have a Ph.D in humor studies (answer – no). By that measure none of us doing the ground-laying research are experts. is that it? I do not have a Ph.D in neuro-science, but I have published papers in peer-reviewed journals on the neuro-mathematics of humor respiration. True, I have studied neuro-mathematics with one of the best neuro-mathematicians in the country, but he is not a neuro-scientist, either. Welcome to the modern world of interdisciplinary research. I could, totally, see a theologian crossing over into sociology or antropology. To dismiss what they say (and they are merely quoting others, not even doing original research, to boot) is silly. Interdisciplinary research is one of the major innovations in research, today. The president or whomever wrote that press-release simply should know that what they say does not correspond to what is expected of modern researchers.

    This is all back-peddling, pure and simple. I am embarrassed by it. Will no one stand their ground and fight? Did not Jesus say, “If I have said anything wrong, produce the evidence, but if not, why do you strike me?” Ask Sister for her paper and tear it apart. It seems to me to be the only reasonable thing to do if the people yelling think they can refute the science.

    The listeners seem to not be able to emotionally distance themselves from the topics being discussed. What really takes the cake, however is that none of these, “Catholic,” parents or students seem to want to quote any Papal encyclicals, or writings of the saints to back them up. Oh, they might be tempted to point to the DSM-IV’s weaseling out of calling homosexuality a disorder (all politics), or some contrary research that seems to say that homosexuality is fine, but this gets into the intersection of science ans theology and I am pretty sure that none of these parents are ready to discuss that. Really, do they think they are good Catholics in using the approach they are taking? They seem to not be good scientists, charitable Catholics, or, in any sense I am aware of, seeking the truth. I should not make blanket statements, but rhetoric is never a good substitute for good experimental design.

    I, really, wish that someone on the ground would tell these people to shut up, do some real research, and come back when they are ready to discuss the subject calmly and intelligently. I have no time for adults and children behaving like overly excited neurons in a basal tumor (see, non-experts can make descriptive statements outside of their fields).

    The Sister deserves better and the people attacking her deserve to do better. What I do not want to see is Sister bowing under to public pressure. Let the science (and theology IS a science) go where it must, but for Goodness sakes, can’t we keep egos out of this?

    The Chicken

    P. S. are there any sociologists or anthropologists reading these posts out there who want to chime in??

  68. The Masked Chicken says:

    P. S.,

    There are only a small number of things that Sister could have said on the family, sexuality, etc.,, quoting secondary material, so, unless she were fabricating things from whole-cloth (very unlikely), it, actually, is not THAT impossible to make a probable conjecture on what she might have said. In any case, if the parents had not gone all ballistic, someone could have calmly asked her what she said or meant to say, but, alas, that time has passed.

    The Chicken

  69. lsclerkin says:

    We live in demonic times.
    Those blinded, dumbed down or just plain given over to the demonic have grand mal freekout nutties when they are presented with even just a little truth.
    No reason then not to just go right for the unvarnished undiluted truth in conversation with friends, family, etc. If you’re going to get crucified by your own for speaking truth, you might as well just go straight for it. Immediately.
    In charity. But full octane, pure truth. Said and lived with confidence and conviction.
    And then prepare for the roaring mob of the Coliseum. Cuz that’s already here.
    ..and watch for angels with flaming swords come flying out of the clouds.. Sometimes I think THAT can’t come soon enough.

  70. Sonshine135 says:

    Father, my son attends this school and my wife and I were in the parent meeting. The cognitive dissonance in the room was overwhelming. People who were preaching love and tolerance had none for Father Kauth. Father Kauth is a Priest in residence at my church as well as the Pastor of Charlotte Catholic HS. He has been at Charlotte Catholic for two years. I watched as the crowd of Dissidents berated him and told him they lost confidence in his abilities. They yelled at the tops of their lungs. The rest of the faithful were outnumbered 70% to 30%, and I will say, I was sickened! When I got up to speak, I turned to Father and said, “I kept waiting for someone to yell out- Crucify Him!” and I told him that “I appreciate all that you have done for Charlotte Catholic High School and for my son personally”. See, Father has inspired my son to be more Catholic, and has planted seeds of a vocation in his head.

    Father openly admitted that this was his fault. He stated that he had asked Sister to provide the talk after the success of talks held in the fall with boys and their Fathers and girls and their Mothers. Those that went to the talks found them so interesting, they asked Father to have Sister back to present it to their fellow classmates. Sister was reluctant to do the talk for the large crowd of students, but went ahead on Father’s insistence. What Father didn’t know is that Sister did insert some facts from a 2011 Catholic study on Homosexuality that were still in debate between scientists (in fact, very little is settled about homosexuality). This study hammered on risk factors of single parent homes. The teens took the data as a personal attack on themselves, and went home and told their parents their interpretation of what happened. That is where the outlandish accusations came from. Father openly admitted and apologized that the talk was not appropriate for the assembly. It would have been better for smaller groups with opportunities to ask questions. He stood behind the validity of the doctrine presented. He also apologized for the insensitivity. It is true, and I agree, the information could have been presented better. There are a lot of students who live in single parent homes, and we as Catholics do not support abortion or birth control, so it is true that we cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth.

    The biggest issue of all, however, is the insinuation that Father Kauth and Sister Jane Dominic Laurel had it out for these teenagers. My son was at the assembly and the outlandish accusations are just that- outlandish accusations. Also, this is a Priest of God. Should we not give him even the smallest benefit of the doubt? This is a man who forgives our sins in the confessional. The only possible explanation for these parents are that they are out to oust him, because they are Dissidents. They were out for blood that night from a Hard-Catholic Identity Priest. They probably will not stop until Father Kauth is removed from the school either.

    As the night closed, I told Father that I have his back, and I was pulling many a knife from it that night; not only from “c”atholic parents, but from “c”atholic clergy that sat out in the audience and said nothing. It has me inspired and working with a few people to start a counterinsurgency to the faith. I am resolute. I want my church back and out of the hands of these Dissadents. Enough is enough .

  71. Maria says:

    Dear The Masked Chicken says:
    7 April 2014 at 8:29 pm

    God’s blessings of peace and joy!

    You have a very good point to counter Dr Peters and at the same time, Dr Peters have a point. My background was electronics and communications (satellite, antenna and the likes). I was in this field for a year only more than 25 yrs ago. Currently, I am in the construction field but mostly I do management. I am in a field with no prior studies but I make do. I think the difference is that technical field is easier to study (for me) since it does not involve feelings or emotions, it is just data. I can handle 7 projects but I can only talk to 3 people with problems. It is very exhausting to talk to people as I have to put myself in their situation, what are the motivation behind the problem, what are the root causes and history of the problem. Neither did I like this: “Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.” It is already time to stand for truth, regardless. The problem today is we are scared of hurting people’s feeling and what we do or speak is calculated at the expense of truth. We need to be nice because we might be sued (we could lose everything) or be branded as bigot, judgmental, hater, not pastoral, not merciful and not charitable. At the end of the day, we are accountable ONLY to our Creator.

    The only thing I have in this issue: what is happening to Catholic education in general? It is in education that we can form the consciences of the future Catholics. Card Ratzinger is right that we will become small.

    God’s blessings of peace and joy!

  72. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Yes, Masked Chicken, hearsay is complicated, and it has a zillion exceptions, all of which is worsened by us using the term loosely here. It still boils down to this: relying on people’s narrations of their memories of what they think they heard. No where near enough data to draw any sound conclusions on complicated subjects.

  73. jhayes says:

    Fr. Kauth says the problem was that Sister presented the views of the Catholic Medical Association.

    What I didn’t know was that Sister has a section that she sometimes inserts into her talk that focuses on the leading studies of the CMA on same sex attraction. She simply assumed that is what I meant for her to do. Now I understand her initial hesitation. I didn’t know such a section existed. In that sense I was as stunned as anyone. I was not stunned by what she said per se as I had read similar things in various medical/theological journals. What I was stunned by was its inclusion in that venue. Why? Because without a small venue, a gentle hand, parents, a calm approach, good will, and most importantly the opportunity for follow-up questions this discussion exposes and unnecessarily prods at a wound that everyone has to some degree or other


    The CMA positions on inadequate parenting as the reason some persons but others have same sex attraction and on the effectiveness of reparative therapy to change same sex attraction to opposite sex attraction are highly controversial in the fields of sociology and psychology.

    The church has wisely avoided taking any position on the causes or treatment of homosexuality. It is clear in saying that homosexual acts are sinful.

  74. LauraL says:

    A couple of things really, really disturb me about this situation:

    1. “In announcing Sr. Jane’s sabbatical, the President of her college said that:

    Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.”

    What? Theology is supposed to happen in a vacuum with absolutely no relevant interconnectedness to any other dimension of life? I’m sorry – that’s an attitude that screams that religion is mere mythology and not worth bothering with. – I say, Theology intersects with every single discipline of study and every facet and dimension of human dimension, and to try to tease them apart is a grave, grave error of judgment.

    2. A woman was pictured in a Charlotte area-based gay website, handing out bracelets with the slogan “We are all God’s children.” Said woman was identified as an alum mom AND president of the local PFFLAG (Parents, Family, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). So… the Powers That Be, in organizing this little kaffeeklatch last Wednesday didn’t anticipate interference by the various arms of the gay lobby? Are our priests really that naive?

    3. The school is in a mess, already –
    a. the principal/headmaster is on leave because of some financial issues… I’m not sure who’s in charge but I’ve been told by a friend in Charlotte that the school is being administered by a sort of committee, including Fr. Kauth. If there is a committee, and the lines of responsibility haven’t been thoroughly delineated, there are going to be more problems. Better to have an interim Head appointed, probably.
    b. the faculty and staff evidently aren’t exactly well-vetted in Catholic identity; when I called the school to get some contact information for the Head (not knowing about the aforementioned problems), I mentioned to the woman who answered the telephone that I was sorry for the controversy, and I wanted the Head and the chaplain to know of my support for the school’s continuing presentation of Catholic moral theology. The woman suggested that I had no idea what that nun had actually said… It was quite clear that she had not approved of Sister, herself.

    4. The Diocese of Charlotte is still recovering from the liturgical and pastoral — I’m sorry, I’ve got to say it — mismanagement of Bishop Curlin, who preceded Bishop Peter Jugis. I discovered the Church in one of the parishes of the diocese, thankfully not too far off course, but I have since visited other parishes that were more akin to Baptist services than Catholic Masses, and catechesis was allowed to go all loosey-goosey, too. What’s more, Bp. Jugis, a kind and gentle man and a faithful shepherd, was a priest of the Charlotte Diocese. JPII didn’t do him any favors with that appointment in his home diocese; there are still a number of priests who resent his “promotion” and who fight him at every turn and … well, my personal opinion is that there are at least a couple who need to be taken to the woodshed, still.

    All these issues are part of the fabric of the current … is it too exaggerated to call it a catastrophe? and need to be looked at all at once. The situation is not going to be easy to remedy.

    However… my first thought when I read of Sister going on Sabbatical was, “just like so many saints — and may she be proven one, too!”

    I continue to pray for the school, the kids… everyone involved — because, Fr. Z, you are absolutely right when you point out that there is a diabolical element in the whole extended episode.

  75. donato2 says:

    I feel we have reached a tipping point. The Mozilla incident brought me to that conclusion and this reinforces it. The roof is caving in. The silence of our current pontiff greatly exacerbates the entire situation.

  76. lisajulia says:

    Ana it’s great that you are so supportive of Aquinas College and the Sisters, but it is not up to Sister Mary Sarah to decide if any further statements will be made. As i have said in my previous posts, the Sisters know what is best. They are not backing down from the Truth and they are still the best teaching Order in the world, and this situation hasn’t changed that.
    And for those saying Sister Jane Dominic hasn’t shared her side of the story, she has indeed….with the one person to whom she is obliged….Mother Ann Marie, her Prioress General. The Sisters don’t owe the public anything further than what they’ve already stated, because no matter what they say, there will still be those who will be critical. Consider that they are taking Jesus’ advice to shake off the dust and move on when encountering anyone who doesn’t want to hear the message.

  77. Pingback: The Greatest Historical Miracle You’ve Never Heard Of -

  78. Tamquam says:

    I very much admire Sister’s presentation, I’ve done a deal of teaching but was never that good. Her sin is that she has uttered heresy against the unholy doctrine of Totalitarian Leftism. For this she must be Silenced.

    I seem to recall having read somewhere that when evil is weak it pleads for tolerance. Once it gains the upper hand it’s arrogance demands that it destroy all opposition. At this juncture in history the Collectivist Totalitarian Marxist Leninists are feeling their oats.

    Another error, another persecution. Ho-hum. True, many souls are being and will be lost, which is tragic beyond telling. But, new Martyrs, new Apologists, new Virgins and new Doctors. It promises to be exciting.

    I have to wonder about their sanity, though, launching crusades and convening inquisitions against the very Church that invented those things. Poor sods have no clue what they’ve unleashed.

    Christus vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus imperat!

    Yeah, baby!

  79. Norah says:

    In a public document Sr Jane Dominic’s principal showed no support for her and discounted information from the Catholic Medical Association. Sister has “requested ” to go on a sabbatical” – possibly to meditate on her daring to state the results of research. That will send a clear message to any other Nashville Dominican who is thinking of presenting the results of Catholic research which happen to offend and possibly scar forever some parents and students (will there be litigation for pain and suffering and psychological damage caused by Sr’s talk?).

  80. Bob B. says:

    @ aegsemje
    The same type of thing occurs in CINO colleges in CA – the (mostly Jesuit) schools are well known for evocating or downright rejecting the Magisterium with parochial schools hiring teachers who are pro-SSM and pro-abort, etc. The PK-12 schools here are now mostly staffed by people who have gone to these colleges, hence there is, at present, a syphoning effect where principals and education departments all have similar views and will probably lie and sign whatever changes or documents they are asked (could you expect less from these CINOs?).
    I understand standing up for the Church – as a teacher, though, these people “cut off your legs” to a point where you are forced to leave (this can be amplified by clergy who don’t defend Catholic teaching too).

  81. Pingback: Father Z On the Silencing of Sister Jane | The American Catholic

  82. frjim4321 says:

    It seems pretty clear that what got her into trouble were her excursions from Catholic teaching.

    This has been a profitable object lesson for anyone who teaches this subject to impressionable Catholic youth.

    [You had better look at the most recent update. Bp. Jugis of Charlotte is backing Sr. Jane and her talk. She did nothing wrong, he says. And so this is indeed a profitable object lesson. Thanks for stressing that point. Very helpful.]

  83. Scott W. says:

    Let me get this straight. Some people want us to believe that Sister Jane was addressing an auditorium full of students faithful to the Magisterium, believing that homosexuality, abortion, divorce and remarriage without annulment is wrong, and didn’t get offended until she brought in non-Catholic studies. Is that what you are saying? Seriously?

  84. wmeyer says:

    So let me see whether I understand things properly. It’s ok for LGBT groups to send speakers to high school “health” classes (it was done in California, in my daughter’s high school), but if a religious sister, speaking in a Catholic high school offers a message based on Church doctrine with references also to professionally conducted studies, that’s a huge problem?

    My head is spinning.

    Are we content, then, that our children receive the PC message of the public schools, with all thought of right and wrong expunged?

    Friends of mine in California lost their granddaughter last year–she killed herself at the age of 18. From a local priest I have heard that the urge to suicide is very common among teens today. Shall we ignore the warning signs, in preference to risking unkind words which may offend someone?

    The road to hell….

  85. Spade says:

    “We want our children to remain Catholic, but we are being pushed away by the climate of what is going on here.” Said one parent at that meeting quoted at Life Site News.

    Hey, if authentic Catholic teaching pushes them away I’m sure the Exit door is clearly marked.

  86. Jim says:

    Please everyone, for the sake of your own souls beware of detraction. Think before you comment.

    Remember the words of our Blessed Lord in the Gospel according to St. Matthew (12:35-37):
    A good man out of a good treasure bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of an evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned

    It would do us all good to examine our conscience and go to confession if required. This should help:
    Seven Ways to Sin By Detraction

    May the Lord have mercy on all of us.

  87. Ben Kenobi says:

    “Her deviation into realms of sociology and anthropology was beyond the scope of her expertise.”

    Translation, “she’s not a follower of Freud.”

  88. Giuseppe says:

    @jhayes – I suspect that you are correct re. references to the Catholic Medical Association. Click on the pamphlet above – it summarizes what many orthodox Catholics believe, but what few in medicine, psychology, sociology take seriously. I also think many ‘casual’ Catholics would buy it. Orthodox Christianity now seems more on the fringe, both to mainstream (i.e. poorly catechized) Catholics as well as society at large.

  89. benedetta says:

    Scott W., that’s right. This is likely the next wave attack on religious liberty…no religious freedom of conscience, and, if you speak publicly on Church teaching you may not relate it to any current or real world application…you may go to your little church on Sunday if you choose, though you may be monitored, and, when you come out you may not speak to anyone…Or else, the frenzied mob which isn’t a mob at all just people being instrumentalized by the hateful program of a few to make it look bigger than it really is.

    So say if we point out to impressionable youth certain data…? Then what. The Church’s teaching, jhayes, frjim4321 and all else trying to justify the mob attack, is that sex outside of a sacramental marriage is sinful. On that score, even secular authorities concur that young people who do not jump on the libertine cultural bandwagon of the elites enjoining them to empty sex at earlier and earlier ages are healthiest. So, here on a Catholic blog I mention secular studies…what you going to do, now, come after me?

  90. Pingback: The Mob Gets What The Mob Wants – Sister Jane Dominic Laurel Takes Sabbatical…

  91. benedetta says:

    And when the dissenting ‘catholics’ teach that abortion is great, that the pill is a-ok, that divorce is no big deal in a family, and so many other things, what is that grounded in exactly? Could it be ‘secular wisdom’? Our youth are certainly entitled to consider the stark contrast between a life in abundance that Christianity offers as opposed to what is being foisted on them, apparently to justify the elitist choices of a small but vocal and empowered group, and not just with respect to homosexual acts, but even premarital sex, how to live their domestic churches as spouses, etc. Is it hateful and judgement when homosexuals dress up in drag and mock women? They say it is not. Many of us take that at their word and pay good tuition money on ‘catholic’ campuses that say they must have events such as that in the spirit of diversity. Why then cannot this organized group accept that when we need to reflect critically that all the aftermath of the sexual revolution may not have been so great for all involved,? It is neither hateful nor judgmental to state the obvious. What is the interest in telling families to reconsider divorce and the incitement to experimental sex for younger and younger people? Even the seculars concede that the pornification of our young people, the sexualization of them by the culture, has not worked out too well for their overall well being.

  92. benedetta says:

    N.B. Do the families who desire that the Church speak on theology and its practical applications just automatically get second class status? If I were a tuition paying parent at that school, I would then ask for a discount since if you desire that your child be taught Catholic teaching you are de facto going to get second class status due to the mob. What makes it ok as Catholics to scream at fellow parents who get up to speak at a town meeting in which all seemingly have the right to be heard? Sounds like the teaching on sexuality is not the only teaching these families need some help with.

  93. The Masked Chicken says:

    “It seems pretty clear that what got her into trouble were her excursions from Catholic teaching. ”

    Oh, please. The Big Bang theory is an excursion from Catholic teaching. Are we not allowed to suggest that the universe might just have happened that way?

    In the area of sexuality, one could couch some of the scientific controversy in the form, “According to X, Y is true. According to Z, W is true. There is an on-going search for the truth, but you should be aware of both positions.” That way, you have exposed both sides and people will gravitate towards whatever they think supports their already- formed conclusion. We call these, “weasel words,” in science and every scientist has to learn to master them, especially in controversial areas where funding is at stake. That way, you can claim to only be presenting someone else’s position, so they can go off and attack them. Ah, shifting the blame.

    “Please everyone, for the sake of your own souls beware of detraction. Think before you comment.”

    From the CCC:

    2477… He becomes guilty:
    – of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

    These are public hearings and a public talk. No one I have seen is disclosing another’s faults or failing that have not already been made public. There is a maxim that a public sin requires a public rebuke, especially in areas of speech (to avoid scandal). Although, to my mind, Sister did nothing objectively wrong, there might be some people out there with poorly formed consciences who, subjectively, think that she did. They are, misguidely, trying to correct what they mistakenly perceive to be a sin. They are not guilty of detraction, but of rash judgment and crass negligence in the formation of their consciences.

    Now, calling people names or, more politely, describing the public actions that they make in a public arena is not, usually, detraction. Sometimes, it has to be done. Am I detracting from the mob of haters by saying that they are acting like children? No. Sometimes, bad behavior warrants such a description, otherwise, we could not correct politicians without fear of detraction.

    It would be different if the talk had been in private or a closed session and you are a man on the street.

    It would be more proper to say that the sin is unjust anger – anger beyond the bounds of reason. I am guilty of that, fairly often on the Internet, which is one reason I write under a nom-d’Internet to remind me of my bad habits. Still, my temper gets away from me at times, even now. I am not sure if my anger in this case is just or not, but what has been done to Sister is an injustice, in my opinion, from the facts as I have them. That calls for some response. Still, perhaps I could get more information, but, as I mentioned, above, this does not seem to be a subtle matter, hinging on the interpretations of words. The broad information available, I contend, given the restrictive content area, is, in fact, enough to form a highly probably opinion of what happened. According to St. Thomas, even a probable opinion is not enough to act on, but he does make the comment that for some people, who have experience, e the judgment moves closer to fact than probability.

    Regarding this aspect of rash judgment, from the Summa II.II.Q. 60 art. 3:

    “I answer that, As Tully says (De Invent. Rhet. ii), suspicion denotes evil thinking based on slight indications, and this is due to three causes. First, from a man being evil in himself, and from this very fact, as though conscious of his own wickedness, he is prone to think evil of others, according to Ecclesiastes 10:3, “The fool when he walketh in the way, whereas he himself is a fool, esteemeth all men fools.” Secondly, this is due to a man being ill-disposed towards another: for when a man hates or despises another, or is angry with or envious of him, he is led by slight indications to think evil of him, because everyone easily believes what he desires. Thirdly, this is due to long experience: wherefore the Philosopher says (Rhet. ii, 13) that “old people are very suspicious, for they have often experienced the faults of others.” The first two causes of suspicion evidently connote perversity of the affections, while the third diminishes the nature of suspicion, in as much as experience leads to certainty which is contrary to the nature of suspicion. Consequently suspicion denotes a certain amount of vice, and the further it goes, the more vicious it is. ”

    The Chicken

  94. benedetta says:

    If the premises of this agenda, the points of this mob, namely that sexual libertinism is all good, true, and righteous, and no criticism of it ought ever to be made or its effects analysed, then, why would it necessitate the use of various tactics of an unethical or hate generated nature? In other words, if the points are so righteous, good, and true, in debate in an open, literate society, a pluralistic one, with a democratic framework, then, they should be capable of being made without threats of various sorts. If an agenda needs to employ certain tactics, then, what does that say about the truth and goodness of what it wishes to “persuade”?

    The whole thing reminds me of something that happened to me at secular college when I wrote an analysis of how abortion undercuts the goals of feminism, and how an authentic feminism (in the tradition of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and many others) would necessarily be prolife. I never once mentioned any religious or theological argument, arguing on completely secular terms and citing secular data. The “backlash” (euphemism alert) from the academic freedom group was shocking, and after enduring the effects of the unethical tactics, I really came to appreciate the picture of a fully empowered group skilled, accomplished, degreed, awarded, paid, published, in the arts of debate, dialogue, tolerance, and persuasion, resorting to draconian and harsh tactics, unethical, even civilly actionable, on one lone student, in order to silence any inquiry on one topic out of myriad. It always begs the question, how convinced of the truth of your argument are you, how confident that it is correct, even from, especially from, a secular vantage, if you feel compelled to squash a little fly with rage and violence? Apparently the lesson of the generation of love (Chicken…I’m not saying they are the only ones but they seem to do it per force) is use militaristic and violent methods when it suits, given the occasion, and appear rational and ethical the rest of the time. The lesson they took away from watergate and its aftermath was that the only problem with dirty tricks was that the wrong party used them. Cf. Weather underground et al.

  95. Vecchio di Londra says:

    So it seems nobody can now explain the law of chastity and the harmful consequences of breaking it, without a riot breaking out?!

  96. anav.tru says:

    Everyone! Listen!

    Have you considered that the sabbatical and canceled speaking engagements could be born out of the Dominican Sisters’ concern for Sister Jane Dominic’s safety?

    Please pray for all of us at the school, and especially them okay?


  97. LauraL says:

    Scott posted: Let me get this straight. Some people want us to believe that Sister Jane was addressing an auditorium full of students faithful to the Magisterium, believing that homosexuality, abortion, divorce and remarriage without annulment is wrong, and didn’t get offended until she brought in non-Catholic studies. Is that what you are saying? Seriously?

    Hey, Scott (and anyone else) — let me throw THIS at ya: A whole bunch of parents who don’t mind homosexuality being presented to their kids via Glee and other media madness suddenly develop a conscience about what is “appropriate” for their kids to know.

    How’s THAT for Other Side of Stupid?

  98. anav.tru says: sabbatical … born out of the Dominican Sisters’ concern for Sister Jane Dominic’s safety?

    That is a good point.

    I have in mind the sort of email and threats I have received, even lately, from homosexuals. Pretty nasty and threatening.

  99. Scott W. says:

    The problem with the safety defense is that it doesn’t square with Aquinas College’s actions. If we have learned anything from the sexual abuse crisis, it’s that diocesan offices and school administrations are not the police. You might go on sabbatical after receiving a serious threat, but not before you call the friggin’ cops. In the face of shadowy threats you shine light everywhere. But instead of something like, “Sister Jane is going on sabbatical for serious safety concerns. If anyone has knowledge or evidence of threatening behavior, please contact the police.” instead, we get a long-winded groveling apology.

  100. Urs says:

    I am very sad to see that it was so easy for the devil to silence the truth in this matter. It seems to me that this is an a good indication that the LGBT agenda will have no trouble in silencing Truth even in the Catholic school systems…
    and the devil wins the battle….far too easily.
    I am sorry to see how quickly both Aquinas College and Sr Jane have given in to demonic intimidation and acquiesed to ‘cultural demands’ of silence in regards to the Church’s sexual teaching. At least, that is the way it looks to me…

  101. Pingback: YES! What Is Going On IS Demonic | Peg Pondering Again

  102. lisajulia says:

    I have been saying this all along! Nobody is listening! The sabbatical and lack of more than 2 statements from the Sisters themselves are NOT because they are wimping out and backing down from the truth. This is why i keep praying this will be removed from the spotlight as soon as possible…the Sisters DON’T want the attention! Fr. Z you are exactly correct (as always lol!) when you reflect on the things that have been sent to you; now imagine you are 1 of 300 Sisters in a very traditional Order that is not accustomed to being in such a position….and if you want to email me for more details i would be happy to comment further. But for now, thank God the Bishop made his statement and lets pray for the Sisters and let them continue to handle this THEIR way. =)

  103. anachy says:

    The Chicken said, “P. S. are there any sociologists or anthropologists reading these posts out there who want to chime in??”

    I already did. Like everyone else commenting here, I don’t know what Sister actually said. But anything she might have said that wasn’t a ringing endorsement of “alternative lifestyles” meant that the activists were going to come down on her like a ton of bricks. They have no interest in debating or even considering the actual merits of any evidence. See the Regnerus case I cited above.

  104. frjim4321 says:

    [You had better look at the most recent update. Bp. Jugis of Charlotte is backing Sr. Jane and her talk. She did nothing wrong, he says. And so this is indeed a profitable object lesson. Thanks for stressing that point. Very helpful.] – Rev. and Dear Host

    Yes, I was aware of this as I am also aware that the college president where she teaches pulled her immediately leaving me to believe that she had already been counseled with respect to promoting psychological and sociological views that are not part of Catholic teaching nor part of her area of competence.

    Indeed no text or recording of the talk is available, however she has a series of videos that are published and the material is much the same as she was reported to have included in her talk to the high school assembly.

    She may have already been treading on thin ice with her college because of the video series or other such topics and these additional (though admittedly unsubstantiated) reports led to the tipping point.

    With respect to this woman religious and her destiny, the ordinary in question really has nothing to do with it, that’s really up to her order and her college. I don’t know the Bishop of Charlotte from from his Wikipedia entry it would see that he already stands pretty far to the right of the main stream of the U.S. episcopate, which is saying a lot. So who’s going to be surprised that he supported her? Again, it makes no difference.

    Some of the comments that we can be fairly certian that she made since (1) there have been reports of such, (2) others have heard her say such things, and (3) they are found in her video series, state that there are certain personal practices and certain family types that lead to homosexuality. Also that this or that person became gay because her/his mother/father did not love him/her. This kind of nonsense is found nowhere in Catholic teaching.

    [It was the – she didn’t do anything wrong – part that bothers you, I’ll bet.]

  105. Tamquam says:

    Benedetta, you’re on a roll, girl! What you said, exacta-mundo.

    Evil is by nature totalitarian, it will not abide any ray of the light of truth that would expose it. Because it is intrinsically ordered (so to speak) to the destruction of men and the effacing of God’s image in him, it must convince poor miserable sinners that neither the Divine Law nor the Natural Law either exist or are applicable. Further, because man is imbued with the Law by his nature evil cannot rely on mere argumentation to lead men astray, it must resort to violence. That violence can take many forms; lying, misrepresentation (a form of lying), hiding the facts (another form of the same), seduction, blackmail, intimidation, threats, naked force and on and on. We all have experienced violence most of which does not involve shedding blood.

    If evil is the absence of good, those who have given themselves to evil, knowingly or not, are relatively empty of good. This emptiness is too painful to be acknowledged, and must be continually “medicated” by recourse to whatever substance or process (sinful acts) they use to distract from it. The cannot endure the truth, for it exposes their total moral bankruptcy, and they cannot endure it.

    I am minded of how the crowd martyred St. Stephen, how he laid out the case for Jesus as the Messiah then accused his judges of of murdering Him. Ultimately the crowd was incited to fury, and, “at this they covered their ears and yelling at the top of their voices, rushed at him, dragged him out of the city and began to stone him.” Acts Ch 6 and 7, culminating in verse 57. It is in the next verse, 59, oh, so interestingly, that we meet Saul. Looks to me like Sr. Jane Dominic is in good company. Makes me want to join them, truly it does.

    Lo there do I see my Heavenly Father, Lo there I see Jesus, the Lamb Who was slain, Lo there do I see my Blessed Mother, my sisters and my brothers in Faith, Lo there do I see the line of Saints and Martyrs, back to Golgotha, Mount Tabor and the Creation. Lo, they do call me, they bid me stand firm, keep the Faith and take my place among them, among the Heavenly Host, where the Blessed live and rejoice forever.

    And, yes, Liam, unanimity minus one; Girard is indeed a prophet for our times.

  106. frjim4321 says:

    [It was the – she didn’t do anything wrong – part that bothers you, I’ll bet.] – Our Congenial Host

    Not really.

    He’s not my ordinary so really nothing he says or does has any bearing on me.

    On the other hand, on reflection I would say that what bothers me is that here and elsewhere I hear people gleefully reporting that this bishop thinks she did nothing wrong which means their eyes are closed to the reality of the situation which is that this woman religious was promoting as church teaching theories of individuals on the fringes of the sociobehavioral sciences.

    [I refer the reverend gentleman to my previous observation, which you quoted above.]

  107. benedetta says:

    “Outside the scope of expertise” neither means that she did something wrong, nor that she did not accurately present information relevant to the topic.

    I guess frjim4321 you too could be accused of stepping outside of your scope of expertise, possibly on a daily basis…? I would not support such tactics, although I frequently disagree with your take on Church teaching, sociology, and current events as you articulate same here, because I do think that free speech is a value and because I believe that tolerance has meaning, and further that it can be amply reflected by magisterial Catholics, despite portrayals to the contrary.

Comments are closed.