Skip to comments.Bishop Obeys Government Order to Remove Cahtolic Teaching On Sinfulness of Homosexual Acts
Posted on 10/19/2013 9:21:37 AM PDT by piusv
Try actually posting some next time.
I gave the link.
The schools are publicly funded.
Once you let the government in the door it devours you.
WHITEHORSE, Yukon, Oct. 18, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Catholic Diocese of Whitehorse has obeyed an order by the Yukon government to remove Church teaching on the sinfulness of homosexuality from its policy on pastoral care for same-sex attracted students in its publicly-funded Catholic schools. Critics have pointed out that even in the title of the new policy, the truth has been removed.
The original policy contested by the government was called ‘Living with Hope, Ministering by Love, Teaching in Truth.’ The new policy title reads: One Heart: Ministering by Love.
The original policy, published in the spring of 2012, sparked opposition from media, homosexual activists, and some citizens in the town of 20,000 last spring because it expounded the Catechisms teaching that homosexual acts are gravely depraved and the homosexual inclination is objectively disordered.
The controversy culminated in then-Minister of Education Scott Kent sending a letter to Whitehorse Bishop Gary Gordon in which he effectively told the bishop that Church teaching on homosexuality was barred from publicly-funded Catholic schools because it violates the equality provisions of Yukon law.
Bishop Gordon, who also serves as the dioceses religious education director, agreed to draft a new policy, which he released in July.
The new draft is facing criticism from faithful Catholics, because, while it stresses forcefully the Churchs teaching that homosexual persons should be treated with respect, it is completely silent about the immorality of homosexual activity.
Bishop Gary Gordon
The policy quotes a 1986 document from the Vatican on the need for respect of homosexual persons, but this same document had stressed that pastoral care for homosexual persons is ultimately damaging to them if it is silent about Church teaching.
We wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral, wrote Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faiths 1986 letter On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
The new policy does mention the call to chastity and points to the Catechism paragraphs dealing with homosexuality, but the policy emphasizes that Catholic schools should value diversity, and aim to offer an environment that is “safe, welcoming, inclusive and affirming of the uniqueness of each and every student.”
The draft policy also says that the schools will promote understanding and tolerance of sexual minorities, and that they will use materials to present homosexual writers, historians, scientists, artists, musicians, and spiritual leaders as positive role models.
At an Oct. 3rd consultation meeting on the policy held by the school councils of the dioceses three Catholic schools, ratepayer Judy Douglas said the draft leaves out Gods standard.
This whole policy should have a higher standard. It should have Gods standard in it, I dont believe it has that, she said, according to Yukon News. It talks a lot about honour and dignity and respect for people with same-sex attraction, which I believe in. I believe all human beings should be valued and honoured and respected.
However, its very unbalanced because it doesnt talk about the sin of it. It doesnt talk about the fact that its immoral, its unclean, she added.
The new policy is also facing strong criticism from the other side, however, for not going far enough in removing Church doctrine. The Ministry of Educations top public servant has expressed openness to their view, even though the draft was developed in conjunction with the government and the governments lawyers had determined it conforms to Yukons Human Rights Acts, Canadas Charter, and the Education Ministrys policies.
According to the Whitehorse Star, the majority of speakers at the Oct. 3rd consultation, which drew about 30 people, expressed concern with the policys reference to Church documents like the Catechism, because they expound Church teachings on homosexuality that are deemed derogatory.
Tjitske van der Eide, a parent whose children attend Vanier Secondary, said the policy was an example of homophobia in the name of religion.
I find it archaic and deceiving. It refers in its footnotes to church doctrine and dogma in which our homosexual brothers and sisters are being referred to as intrinsically evil, she said, according to the Whitehorse Star. How legal is that in our publicly funded schools?
The critics also called for the removal of a provision in the policy that gives the bishop the power to disband a gay/straight student club if he finds it is teaching views opposed to Catholic doctrine.
Many took the criticism even further, however, and called for the government to scrap the policy altogether and instead force the Catholic schools to use the governments 2012 Sexual orientation and gender identity policy.
After hearing the feedback, the deputy minister of education, Valerie Royle, said the government had believed the policy document properly balanced the concern for inclusivity with a respect for the Churchs teaching. But, she said, clearly were hearing that theres still certainly some variation of opinions so maybe we havent struck that balance.
What were trying to do is find a policy, and I still believe its possible, that serves all needs, she said.
Consultation on the policy ended Oct. 11th. Royle said the government, the Catholic school councils, and the bishop will go over the feedback and then release a summary of the responses. From there the three parties will make a final decision about the policy.
Bishop Gordon published the original policy in Sept. 2012, after, he says, it was vetted by the Ministry of Education.
Scott Kent, former Education Minister
That original policy emphasized the Churchs respect for the dignity for those who experience same-sex attractions, but also affirmed Church teaching. It quoted the Catechism and said those who are same-sex attracted, for whom marriage is not an option, are called to chastity. It made no mention of seeking out homosexuals to hold up as positive role models for students.
After a student complained about the policy, however, then-Education Minister Scott Kent ordered that it be withdrawn.
After Bishop Gordon met with Kent on March 5, 2013, the bishop removed the policy from the website of Vanier Catholic Secondary School, the dioceses Catholic high school. But the bishop told the press that the policy would still remain in effect. Homosexual activity is always morally wrong, he said. The teaching of the Church is always going to guide what goes on in a Catholic school.
Kent insisted in a March 19th letter, however, that removing the policy from the website was not enough it had to be withdrawn and rewritten.
The minister said the policys treatment of homosexuality violated the Ministry of Educations Sexual orientation and gender identity policy and may be in contradiction to the Human Rights Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
While the diocese is responsible for teaching the faith in the schools, Kent wrote, the dioceses first obligation in providing such instruction is to comply with the laws in force in the Yukon. Religious teachings that are inconsistent with and do not meet the requirements of existing laws and policies cannot have application in any publicly supported schools in the Yukon, he wrote.
In July, Bishop Gordon told LifeSiteNews that he hoped there would not be a showdown between the Church and the government, even as the government insisted it was not flexible in its stance against Church teaching on homosexuality in the schools.
Asked at the time if he would allow the government to bully the Church, the bishop said, Well were in discussions and everybodys pretty clear that Im a Catholic Bishop and I teach the Catholic faith. I mean what else can I say?
Gwen Landolt, national vice-president of REAL Women, said the Yukon government has no business dictating policy to a Catholic school. Why not send your children to the public schools? she asked of parents critical of Church teaching in the schools.
But she also expressed concern over the Diocese of Whitehorses actions, suggesting that in their draft policy they had capitulated on a matter of intrinsic Catholicism. It seems to me that its appalling that the Catholic bishops and the Catholic board have not stood for the teaching of the Magisterium, she said.
LifeSiteNews.com was unable to reach Bishop Gordon after multiple attempts. Minister of Education Elaine Taylor was unavailable for an interview.
What ever happened to “We aught to obey GOD rather than men!”
That explains the death of Catholicism very well. When the Church refuses to teach the Bible then it’s time to close the Church.
The government can only get away with this because they are taking the “government dime”. So the simple solution is to set up a required class off government controlled school grounds, to teach what is forbidden to teach in a government controlled school.
In such a place, under the sole ownership of the church and not receiving any government funding, they do not have to mince words at all, but can give their oppressors both barrels of truth. In effect, they can tell them that their government oppressors are evil, and should be voted out of office.
It’s the Vatican II church again. Do you think the pre-Vatican II church would put up with this?
The pre-Vatican II church is not in existence today so yes, they agreed to change rather than close their doors.
Thank You. You are very correct.
Pope Frank is saddened by this, but asks who is he to judge? /sarcasm
This has nothing to do with Vatican II. It has everything to do with a single bishop.
this Bishop should be ex-communicated.... do Catholics still do that?
He’s too busy telling us we are too obsessed with such issues.
It seems to me we aren’t obsessed enough.
Wonder if the Bishop ever heard the expression,”No guts,no Glory.” I think it should have a special meaning to him.
Self censorship and the road to death.
He might as well stuff his face with ritalin and poison the wine he gives the congregation.
Why do these people never come out fully outbof closet?
He is a product of Vatican II along with the many bishops (not single bishops) who allow pro-abortion politicians (the government again) to receive Holy Communion.
At some point, we need to wake up about Vatican II. Not sure what it will take, but someday we will.
Intellectual cowards cannot overcome handicaps and ain, they must view their sins as some kind of strength, leveraging it as in faustian deal: you can be successful so long you promise to die for us at a certain date.
This is how suicide bombers get recruited, death is not God’s business to know, it is someone else’s decision.
Your arguments are errors in attribution.
The Church’s teachings on homosexuality have not changed.
This bishop knows that, but has made a judgement to accede to the state, which is wrong.
Vatican II has NOTHING to do with this.
Show me a citation in the proceedings of Vatican II that allows, supports, or promotes this behavior.
One reason I am against vouchers.
Tell the government to keep their money and you’ll run the school.
OR, tell the government the Catholic Church is walking away from the school and the government can figure out how to run it.
Don’t do it at some future date, do it NOW!
They can’t force you to run the school.
So if it is wrong and the Vatican II church believes that it is wrong, will it condemn it?
God hasn’t changed His opinion about the sinfulness of homosexuality. Queers and bishops alike would be well advised to look into why God holds that opinion.
We ought to obey our pocketbook instead of God.
One I never thought of ,but you are right. When you invite a strange dog into your house it isn’t surprising they leave fleas.
There is no such entity as either a pre or post Vatican II church, there is only the Roman Catholic Church.
The local ordinary is responsible to spread the Gospel and the teachings of the Church.
The ordinary, in this article, appears to not be doing this job well.
Finally, a person may have same-sex attraction, but may not be engaged in sexually sinful acts. That person isn’t condemned. What is condemned, are homosexual acts, just like other illicit sexual acts.
Yes, but not often enough. If this was my bishop, I'd treat him exactly as I treat my current bishop (heh heh heh). On camera if the opportunity exists (heh heh heh).
So I ask again, if there is no such difference and nothing has changed, will the Church condemn it? Or will Francis continue to make statements that we obsess over such things like gay marriage?
I’ll be more than happy to apologize if I’m wrong, but I am going to bet that nothing happens to this bishop. Just like nothing happens to all of the bishops who continue to allow reception of communion by self-professed supporters of abortion.
Thanks for posting the article.
1) Bishops make errors. They can also sin.
2) A single bishop does not Catholic doctrine make.
3) The Church wrote, preserved and canonized Scripture. So, yeah.
The price has been negotiated and now the government and the Catholic church are in bed together.
Are you forgetting that practically every bishop in Athanasius' day (with the exception of Athanasius himself, and the Pope) either embraced or tolerated the heresy of Arianism?
Are you forgetting that every bishop in Britain (with the exception of St. John Fisher) embraced the heresy that the King was the head of the Church?
Are you forgetting that the papal bull Sublimus Dei (1537), in which Pope Paul III absolutely forbade depriving the Indian people of life, liberty, or property, was almost universally ignored by Catholics who practiced murder, slave-trading,and land-theft all over the New World territories?
You cannot paint a picture of a "pre-Vatican-II Church" in which all, or even most Catholic people, including clergy, upheld moral law in the face of overwhelming social opinion and political power. Catholic Truth may have flamed brilliantly in the minds and hearts of the saints, but as usual, the saints were in a minority and the corrupt clergy in the majority.
That's the history of the Church. Shocking, but there it is: in the clergy, most of them, prone before the State, sin abounded; only in the saints did grace superabound.
As I always tell me RCIA students, that's why the really important, and really interesting people in Catholicism are not the priests, or even the popes, but the Saints.
Here's something to think about.
All the bishops who participated in Vatican II were products of the "pre-Vatican II church". They were taught, ordained and ministered in that period when apparently everything was rosy with the Church.
The point I'm making is that the "pre-Vatican II church" gave us the "Vatican II church". These two "churches" are not mutually exclusive. They are not two distinct entities. The chaos which arose in the aftermath of Vatican II was perpetrated by men who were formed by the wonderful pre-Vatican II church.
As for the bishop mentioned in the article, his actions are hardly unprecedented. I can think of numerous examples in the "pre-Vaitcan II church" where cowardly bishops have capitulated to the secular powers, Henry VIII's England being a prime example.
Tell me of a single Catholic school in the United States that educates the students that queers live a life of sin. Just one and I might agree with you.
Of course I don’t think everything was hunky dory before Vatican II. We had heretics and bad clergy throughout the Church’s history.
However, we have never had church documents reflect something different than previous church teaching. This is the case with Vatican II. For example, how did we get from the Mohammedan Faith is false and diabolical to Muslims worship the same God as we do? Where did we go from condemning attending non-Catholic services to POPES attending and PARTICIPATING in non-Catholic services?
Now regarding the bad bishops in the past. I’m curious: what did previous popes do about them?
And He said to them, Whose image and inscription is this?
They said to Him, Caesars.
And He said to them, Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb with this suggestion: perhaps it’s time for these “Catholics” to reconsider which things are God’s. Hint: just about everything in our lives and in the world is His.
Who do you want to condemn it? When you say “The Church,” who or whom exactly do you mean? In his diocese, that bishop is supreme, an equal to all other bishops, with the Supreme Pontiff being the first among equals.
If you mean the people of his diocese, that is up to them. If you mean the universal Church, that is 1.2 billion people who would have to render an opinion.
In other words, you are creating a false choice.
Regarding the Pope’s statements, which you take out of context, his meaning was that both clergy and lay alike must teach not only the Gospel of words, but also the Gospel of action. We can’t just sit in the pews and nod “Amen” when we are told homosexual actions, abortion, divorce, and contraception are grave sins.
We need to preach the Gospel with our actions, through the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. We can’t look upon homosexuals, prostitutes, thieves, co-habitors, etc., saying “tsk, tsk,” and walk away.
We need to engage them, insure them of God’s love and mercy, and encourage them to seek it, through conversion.
Regarding the clergy, we need to pray for them, encourage them in their vocations, and counsel with patience. If you find they persistent, then write the Papal Nuncio, and the Pope himself. Look at what William Blatty did.
If you are really concerned, take the action noted above. Otherwise, quit grinding your ax.
So in the Council documents (and sections of the Catechism based on Council documents) there was an opportunity to briefly allude to the things that are legitimately true in Islam, and what we have in common with them (left column), hoping it would be part of a larger evangelization strategy, as you can see in the immediately following sections of the Catechism:
|844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them.
Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation.
I think in retrospect we can doubt that that has turned out to be a good evangelization strategy; nevertheless, nothing said in the Council documents or in the Catechism was false.
Marred by mis-emphasis, no doubt. Scandalous to readers who don't have a clue or a context, we've seen that. But there's nothing false in it.
Don't get me started on Catholics and the bible.
Who was it that said: “The road to hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops”?
He missed a great opportunity to suffer for Christ.
I have no idea where your start button is. Don’t worry about me pushing it but you’re welcome to do whatever JR allows on his forum.
He suffeed, too: deposed, banished, exiled.
To say that Islam worships the same God as we do is false. The Church teaches that all public revelation ended with the Apostles. Therefore Mohammed’s revelation is 100% false because it came after Christ. Mohammed got a revelation, but it wasn’t from God.
No, you can’t say that when popes called Islam diabolical that they meant anything but that (unless Satan is sometimes right). They were not saying they were right on some things and not right on others. They were saying that the religion did not come from God...full stop.
And I still want to hear how the ecumenism taught in Vatican II suddenly makes it okay for Catholic popes (!) to participate in non-Catholic services when doing so was always condemned by the Catholic Church. Did that change to “sometimes” it’s okay too?
Vatican II teaches false ecumenism....heresy.
I don’t know, maybe the Pope who is above all(supreme) in the Church? Supremacy, not just primacy.
And this is the problem SpirituTuo. Regardless of those who wish to continue to say that I (and others) take Francis out of context, he does not speak out against these things. On the contrary, he is sending the message that we spend too much time on them, that we should be spending that time on youth unemployment and the lonely elderly. Why wouldn’t this bishop respond the way he did?
It honestly does appear that way, doesn’t it?
Even in private schools the influence of Bill Ayers and his fellow Marxists are seen. Remember! Nearly every teacher in this nation ( both private and government schools) was trained by godless Marxists in godless colleges and universities.
I pray that God will save our nation and Western Civilization in general. But...Why should He, given that Christians and conservatives willingly turn their children over to school indoctrinators ( oops! "teachers")?