Cleansing Fire

Defending Truth and Tradition in the Roman Catholic Church

avatar

Fr. Edward F. Salmon, SJ Allows Gay Couple to Attend McQuaid Prom

March 28th, 2013, Promulgated by Dr. K

It’s all over the local news. Here is McQuaid Jesuit president Fr. Edward F. Salmon’s letter announcing that the Rochester Catholic high school will allow gay couples to attend the junior prom.

March 27, 2013
McQuaid President, Fr. Edward Salmon, SJ

McQuaid President, Fr. Edward Salmon, SJ

Dear Sisters and Brothers of our McQuaid Jesuit Community: Our new Holy Father, Pope Francis [He’s hiding behind Pope Francis, a man who has spoken publicly against gay marriage and adoption as evil], in the homily for his Inaugural Mass, had encouraging and inviting words: “Today amid so much darkness we need to see the light of hope and to be men and women who bring hope to others. To protect creation and to protect every man and every woman, to look upon them with tenderness and love, is to open up a horizon of hope, it is to let a ray of light [watch how many times he uses this phrase] break through heavy clouds.

”Darkness and heavy clouds have gathered here at McQuaid recently because of misinformation, fear, misunderstanding, and even anger. That misinformation, fear, misunderstanding, and even anger came about after two of our brothers asked whether they could attend the Junior Ball together. Into the darkness of misinformation, fear, misunderstanding and anger, together with Pope Francis [Again], I invite and encourage each and every one of us in the McQuaid family to be men and women who bring hope to one another. I invite and encourage each and every one of us in the McQuaid family to be men and women who look upon one another with tenderness and love. I invite and encourage each and every one of us in the McQuaid family to open up a horizon of hope, to let a ray of light break through heavy clouds.
I myself would like to let a ray of light break through by correcting some misinformation. It is simply not true, as was reported and as many seem to have assumed, that a decision had been made by McQuaid authorities not to allow the young men in question to attend the Junior Ball. No decision had been made.
I would like to let a ray of light enter into the darkness of fear. I, together with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who in their Pastoral Message, “Always Our Children,” “. . . call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality [So it’s not the two men choosing to be a homosexual couple against God’s design that’s in the wrong, it’s us?] and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment.”
I would like to let a ray of light enter into possible misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching. In that same message, Always Our Children, the Bishops are clear –“Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors.” The Bishops continue: “It is also important to recognize that neither a homosexual orientation, nor a heterosexual one, leads inevitably to sexual activity. One’s total personhood is not reducible to sexual orientation or behavior.” In that same message, the Bishops refer to a 1986 Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which emphasizes that “Respect for the God-given dignity of all persons means the recognition of human rights and responsibilities. The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them [How far do we go? Could you then argue that we should promote gay marriage because it might not necessarily result in homosexual acts?].”
The Bishops continue, “It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons ‘must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2358). They, as is true of every human being, need to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously. This includes friendship, [brotherhood] which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development. It is one of the richest possible human experiences. Friendship can and does thrive outside of sexual involvement.”
Lastly, I would like to let a ray of light into the darkness that anger can bring. Based on the misinformation circulating and a certain misunderstanding of Church teaching, some people began posting prejudicial and humiliating comments in the social media. Speaking or writing or acting out of anger is not usually helpful. Others, however, deeply concerned for the dignity and respect of all persons, wrote thoughtful and encouraging e-mail messages to McQuaid officials [Translation: “Those opposed to a gay couple attending the prom are angry and prejudiced. Those who support it are thoughtful and encouraging. If you hold to the Church’s teachings on homosexuality, you’re a bad person”].
In conclusion and in the hope that I and all of us at McQuaid Jesuit will let a ray of light break through the darkness and the heavy clouds that have surrounded us, I have made the decision that, if our two brothers who have asked to attend the Junior Ball together wish to do so, they will be welcomed.
With this decision I am not contradicting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to human sexuality [Yes, you absolutely are contradicting the teachings of the Church! You’re putting unnatural homosexual relationships on an equal plane with heterosexual relationships.]; I am not encouraging nor am I condoning homosexual activity just as I do not encourage or condone heterosexual activity at a dance. I am not contradicting the Church’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage. With this decision I invite and encourage us all, as Pope Francis does [Unless he has official word from the Holy Father that he supports this, don’t hide behind the pope], to exercise care, protection, goodness which calls for a certain tenderness “which is not a virtue of the weak but rather a sign of strength of spirit and a capacity for concern, for compassion, for genuine openness to others, for love. We must not be afraid [Typical ploy of the homosexual lobby: imply that opposition to gay marriage is out of fear (they use the term “homophobia”)] of goodness, of tenderness.”
Sincerely in the Lord,
Edward F. Salmon, S.J.
President”

 

It would seem that McQuaid Jesuit High School has abandoned its Catholic identity. Please consider informing our Apostolic Administrator through one of the following methods below:

Bishop Robert Cunningham
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Syracuse
240 East Onondaga St.
Syracuse, NY 13202

Phone: (315)422-7203
Fax: (315)478-4619

Or, contact these high ranking officials in Syracuse to relay a message to our administrator:

Rev. Msgr. J. Robert Yeazel (Vicar General): ryeazel@syrdio.org

Rev. Timothy Elmer (Chancellor): telmer@syrdio.org

If Fr. Salmon’s decision stands, it might be time to pull your son out of McQuaid.

Update:

There is reason to believe this whole thing was a premeditated stunt intended to stir the pot. Check out the following links:

1. An online petition was created: http://www.change.org/petitions/let-the-two-openly-gay-mcquaid-students-go-to-the-prom-as-a-couple

2. The student called a sleazy local radio host to garner public support:

“Earlier this month, a McQuaid student called into “The Wease Show” on 95.1. The Brew, saying he had asked permission to attend the Junior Ball with another young man.”

http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/McQuaid-gay-couple-prom/oADh9zG0A0a7EZq8ZDT5aQ.cspx

Update 3/29/13: In response to the many requests for appropriate contacts in this matter via comments and e-mail, here are a few contributed by our readers.

Very Reverend David S. Ciancimino, S.J.
Provincial, NY Province of the Society of Jesus
39 East 83rd Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10028

Office Telephone Number: 212.774.5500
FAX: 212.794.1036
E-mail: nykprov@nysj.org

– and/or –

Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller.
Prefect for The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
[Secretary: Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, S.J.]
Piazza del S. Uffizio ll
00l93 Rome Italy
Europe
phone: 011.3906.69.88.33.57
phone: 011.3906.69.88.34.13
fax: 011.3906.69.88.34.09

– and/or –

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia
Pontifical Council for the Family
Palazzo San Calisto
Piazza San Calisto 16
00120 Vatican City
Italy

– and/or –

Archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, Prefect
Congregation for Catholic Education
Office of Schools
Palazzo della Congregazioni
Piazza Pio XII, 3
00193 Roma, Italy

Tags: , , ,

|

184 Responses to “Fr. Edward F. Salmon, SJ Allows Gay Couple to Attend McQuaid Prom”

  1. avatar annonymouse says:

    Dr. K – bravo on your commentary. McQuaid is saying by this action that a homosexual relationship is equivalent to a heterosexual relationship. And what’s the point of sanctioning homosexual “dating” if anything further than that is gravely sinful? Fr. Salmon is either naive or disingenuous, and I doubt he’s naive.

    This is a good time to ask “What Would Jesus Do?” Jesus always showed compassion and mercy but also always firmly called sinners to repent. He most certainly would not, in the name of “goodness and tenderness,” turn a blind eye to activity that puts the eternal souls of two young men at risk, not to mention the thousands (if not millions) who will be scandalized by media attention to this decision.

    And particularly sickening is the way Fr. Salmon misappropriates our Holy Father’s recent words, completely out of context, to insinuate that our Pope would somehow condone this decision. Shame on Fr. Salmon for this dishonest, deceitful tactic. And shame on any Catholics that remain affiliated with “McQuaid Jesuit” in light of this decision.

  2. avatar Ron says:

    Sadly, the Good Friday Stations of the Cross for Life begin with a prayer service at McQuaid tomorrow.

  3. avatar Scott W. says:

    Tell ya what. If the two “gay” students publicly affirm verbally and written that any sexual contact between two people of the same sex is an offense against chastity and a grave sin and furthermore that they fully resolve never to engage in sexual contact with members of the same sex for their lifetimes, I won’t complain about them going to prom. Think they will bite?

  4. avatar Dr. K says:

    It’s worth pointing out that this stunt was premeditated by the homosexual teens:

    1. An online petition: http://www.change.org/petitions/let-the-two-openly-gay-mcquaid-students-go-to-the-prom-as-a-couple

    2. The student called a sleazy local radio host to garner public support: “Earlier this month, a McQuaid student called into “The Wease Show” on 95.1. The Brew, saying he had asked permission to attend the Junior Ball with another young man.”

    http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/McQuaid-gay-couple-prom/oADh9zG0A0a7EZq8ZDT5aQ.cspx

    It seems to me that these young men are trying to agitate, similar to how homosexual couples will “test” Christian business owners after a gay marriage law is passed (recall what happened in Massachusetts to wedding photographers).

  5. avatar annonymouse says:

    Thanks for the additional color, Dr.K – that puts the whole situation in a clearer light, and makes obvious that this is not at all about goodness or tenderness – it’s about divisiveness – I would hazard to say it’s diabolical. And whether Fr. Salmon cares to admit it or not, McQuaid is institutionally embracing serious sin, for Fr. Salmon is simply not a naive man.

    The prince of this world is working overtime these days. Happily, we celebrate in these days that Our King has the ultimate victory over sin and death.

  6. avatar annonymouse says:

    Scott – great idea. Wonder if Fr. Salmon will take you up on it and require the students to so affirm. I won’t hold my breath.

  7. avatar Kelly says:

    Heard about this today on WHAM 1180. Sadly, I’m not surprised. I am sharing a link to this story in various on-line circles to draw attention to it. Our family is currently in the middle of the Boy Scouts of America fiasco, and as our son is planning to begin his Eagle project over the summer, we’re anxiously waiting for the association’s May announcement. The decision will affect all of us as our family is involved in Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, and American Heritage Girls (who has an agreement with BSA). Interesting times. We have a record number of people on food stamps, yet our focus is directed to sexual perversion. Maranatha!

  8. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Mouse, Sadly the whole world is cooperating in sin. If Jesus comes, will there be anyone left?

  9. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    One more thing. The homoheresy is alive and well in Ra Cha Cha

  10. avatar BigE says:

    Do you have to be Catholic to go to McQuaid? I looked at their admissions form and saw boxes that could be checked for other faith traditions (muslim, jewish etc).

  11. avatar Dr. K says:

    Do you have to be Catholic to go to McQuaid?

    No.

    Before a follow-up comment/question is made related to this I will say the following: McQuaid is a Catholic institution and one would expect that they would uphold Catholic values and teachings. Think of a Catholic hospital. Do they treat non-Catholics? Yes. Does that mean they should offer abortions because their patients may not necessarily subscribe to the same beliefs? No.

  12. avatar BigE says:

    @Dr. K
    Sorry Dr. K. – I still need to followup (you know me :))
    1) Your analogy sounds like a big non-sequitor to me unless you had the principal putting the boys up in a hotel room for a night (ie: refusing to perform an abortion on someone is much different than refusing to treat someone who you think one day may have an abortion because of their beliefs or current attitudes. Catholic hospitals do the former. I do not think they do the latter.)
    2) If Non-Catholics should have to uphold Catholic teachings before they can attend a school dance: does that mean Jewish and/or Muslim McQuad students must acknowledge the divinity of Jesus before they could attend the dance?

  13. avatar HTfamily says:

    If I chose, as a Catholic, to enroll my sons at a Jewish school, I would never request or demand the school serve pork at lunch just because my boys desire pork. I would not see it as discrimination that my boys weren’t allowed to eat pork at that school. I knew the school’s basic beliefs when I enrolled and wouldn’t expect them to change for my beliefs. Maybe not the best comparison, but I see it as similar to this situation.

    Why isn’t a private school allowed to follow its long-held beliefs without the public crying discrimination?

    The McQuaid handbook states:
    “The registration of a student is considered an agreement on his part, his parents or guardians,
    and the administration, faculty and staff of McQuaid Jesuit that they will work cooperatively to
    promote an environment that is vibrant both academically and spiritually. By enrolling their
    sons at McQuaid Jesuit, parents agree to abide by the regulations stated here and to recognize
    the school’s right to regulate student behavior and enforce those regulations.”

    Where in Rochester can we send our sons for high school where the Catholic faith WILL be taught in its fullness?

  14. avatar BigE says:

    @HTfamily
    1) Again a non-sequitor. In what way have the boys supposedly demanded that McQuaid HS physically or actively do anything against their beliefs? If your sons went to that Jewish school, do you believe it would be ok for the school to ban them from the lunch room (or a dance) because your sons happen to like pork?

    If McQuaid wants everyone that attends the dance to be Catholic and 100% support Catholic teachings – then ANY and ALL non-catholics should also not be allowed at the dance. Or, Non-Catholics should not be allowed to enroll in the school in the first place. Otherwise, it’s simply being discriminatory.

  15. avatar Thinkling says:

    McQuaid HS has come to this? Ugh

    Dear Fr. Salmon, I think you mixed up your metaphors: ray of light ——> nose of camel

  16. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    SOrry E. This is about SIN. Promoting it and enabling people to foster sinful conduct. And scandlizing others, leading them to think it’s OK for homosexual males to be a couple, especially at a Catholic event.

    Sorry. This is about Catholic teaching. McQuaid should uphold Catholic teachings. They are not.

    That you cannot see the error in 2 males going to a dance speaks volumes about your moral make-up.

    It’s wrong. It promotes the idea that homosexual couples are as normal as heterosexual couples. It contradicts God’s laws. It fosters sinful conducr or at least gives the notion that dating among homosexuals is OK.

    This whole affair stinks to high heaven and lowly hell

  17. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE – I am not shocked that you would weigh in on the side of divisiveness. You embrace divisiveness. It’s who you are, and I’m afraid, it’s whose instruction you choose to follow. Pray about that, will you?

    It’s not very difficult – a Catholic High School should uphold Catholic teaching, which is unmistakable – people with a same-sex orientation should be taught/counseled to live chaste lives. Encouraging same-sex relationships that by our moral teaching can proceed no further without leading to objective, mortal sin, is not teaching chastity. This is the part of “Always Our Children” that Fr. Salmon conveniently left out of his letter.

    You, E, have made clear that this is one more area of Church teaching that you disagree with. At least you’re consistent – for your to embrace same-sex relationships (which by nature can not be procreative) as morally equivalent to heterosexual relationships is really no different than your embrace of heterosexual relationships that have been intentionally rendered sterile through artificial contraception.

    If this were McQuaid Episcopal High School, I would not be shocked. But for a high school that purports to be “Catholic” (even if not in its name), regardless of the faith expression of its students, to embrace a lifestyle that is unnatural and intrinsically disordered (and therefore, NOT good), is an outrageous matter.

  18. avatar Bruce says:

    BigE- do you understand the concept of scandal? Secondly, do you understand why the Church opposes cohabitation? Third, do you understand why homosexual acts can never be condoned? Fourth, do you understand why it pastorally a terrible idea, given the occasion for sin and the tremendous scandal? If so, then the answer is obvious. I know you are trying to be obtuse and are attempting to trap individuals here, but you have failed spectacularly. Homosexual acts and marriage are sinful and impossible. Giving approval to homosexual dating and dancing places these boys in an uncharitable and unwind able position. It is temptation for mortal sin. Now, you will say the same for normal kids in terms of fornication, but the analogy fails since there is also a good end for normal kids to do it.. Dating and dancing are preparation for a vocation in marriage. Homosexual dating cannot lead to anything good, which is exactly why this does not hold up morally and goes against Church teaching and sound pastoral practice. If my kids were there, they old no longer be there now. This is simple. No need for your false arguments and misdirection. You lose.

  19. avatar Ludwig says:

    “to promote an environment that is vibrant both academically and spiritually”

    I am so freakin’ sick of the word “vibrant.”

  20. avatar Bruce says:

    Ah thanks mouse. I did not know he was a supporter of heresy. Now it makes sense.

  21. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE- in answer to your first question to HTFamily, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with a Jewish High School banning the eating of pork in its lunchroom. I would expect it. I wouldn’t think it was a Jewish school if it allowed such an abomination. And if I sent my kid there, I would have no basis to complain about such a school upholding its traditions and values. I could choose to send my kid someplace else, but I would have no basis for arguing with a private school’s prerogative.

    I must say – you usually argue more persuasively than your arguments on this thread.

  22. avatar Thinkling says:

    I earlier responded to the post only. Upon reading the comments, thanks for the work uncovering the Klandestine subterfuges involving the petition and the radio station. Diabolism is alive and well.

  23. avatar BigE says:

    @annonymouse
    You need to read my responses more carefully. I didn’t ask if was ok for the school to ban the eating of pork in a lunchroom. Of course that is ok. I asked if it was ok for the school to ban “the sons” from the lunchroom (or from a dance) because they happened to like pork? What is your answer to that question?

  24. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE – I’ve got an idea. Why don’t you tell us something that you consider to be gravely, mortally sinful (catechism lesson – a willful, sinful act that puts at peril your eternal soul) and we’ll construct an analogy that isn’t a non sequitor to you.

  25. avatar Dr. K says:

    “I earlier responded to the post only. Upon reading the comments, thanks for the work uncovering the Klandestine subterfuges involving the petition and the radio station. “

    I’ll add the information to the original post.

  26. avatar BigE says:

    @annonymouse
    So you didn’t want to answer my question?

  27. avatar Scott W. says:

    So you didn’t want to answer my question?

    He’s postponing it by asking a question to establish common ground . Answer his question please, as I’d like to hear it as well.

  28. avatar Bruce says:

    Me too, E, since we all like sin but choosing to place ourselves into temptation, or leading others to sin is a terrible thing. Your pork like analogy is a non sequitur.

  29. avatar BigE says:

    @Bruce
    Just so I understand your position. Would you further advocate both boys also being expelled from the school? And would a Muslim or Jewish boy, who denies Jesus divinity, the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Faith, and most of what we believe in – would it be less scandalous if they came to the dance? By allowing a Muslim or Jewish boy into the dance, does that have to signal Catholic approval of their beliefs? I don’t understand why letting a homosexual into the dance has to signal a belief/approval of homosexuality while allowing a Jew/Muslim/(Pick your non Catholic belief) does not. Please explain the difference to me.

  30. avatar Bruce says:

    It failed because they are not just “liking pork” but are bringing it to the lunchroom to piss off the others and have been given the okay by the school to do it, knowing that they will be tempted to eat it and will scandalize all the others. It gives the impression that eating pork is not a big deal and it is lost mocking the etching by flirting directly with the sin. Likewise, there is no good outcome for our pork likers, since by being allowed to bring it, they will either waste it or eat it. Similarly, our homosexuals are allowed to perform all of the prep for marriage and sex, without getting to do either one in a non-sinful manner. There is no objective good for them, only sin. For the straights, they do have an objective good to pursue. The two situations are not the same, with only the latter being licit.

  31. avatar Bruce says:

    Easy- just like someone who openly denies the divinity of Christ (and does o in front of other students) should be expelled, so should these boys. They are to be taught chastity -no sex outside marriage -and since marriage is impossible for them, there is no reason for them to “date.” It only sets them up for an immoral end, as nothing objectively good can come from there actions here. They could stay in school only if they uphold Church teaching on marriage and sex. If they cannot, and seek to make that public, they cannot continue here.

  32. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE – if the school finds that the desire to eat pork is gravely disordered and that the eating of pork is objectively a mortal sin, and the students wish to publicly flaunt this disorder (as well as, I’m willing to bet, their partaking of pork flesh) as good and normal, by creating a national news story if possible, by bringing a spiral ham into the lunchroom (even though we don’t know if they’ll ever eat it), and the school wanted to make certain to all who would learn of it that the eating of pork is not morally equivalent to not eating pork, then the school would be well within its rights to exclude the students from the lunchroom and even kick the students right out of school if they desired.

    If you can’t see that, you’re truly hopeless.

  33. avatar Bruce says:

    I teach non Catholics the faith. They never publicly deny or disagree. They learn it and move on. these boys are not interested in that, for if they were they would not seek to date or dance, since the Church teaches that homosexual relations a re disordered. These boys are doing that, with approval.

  34. avatar Bruce says:

    In other words.E, yours is a false analogy.

  35. avatar annonymouse says:

    Wow, Bruce, I often disagree with you, but you’re hitting it out of the park today.

  36. avatar y2kscotty says:

    Ho-Boy!!!! This will make the national news, eh? My own opinion: Fr. Salmon really should not have allowed the two young men to attend the dance as a self-identified homosexual couple. It would have been wiser and praiseworthy if the young men ahd teamed up with other guys and their dates (or just guys – heterosexual) to attend as a group. Neithe Fr Salmon nor the two boys behaved properly. Instead of the stupid dance, all those McQ kids should just go out an do some community service – like painting a schoolroom in the city.

  37. avatar annonymouse says:

    y2kscotty – you can’t see that making national news is exactly what these boys wish to accomplish? This is called “pushing the envelope” and it works as long as cowardly people willing comply.

  38. avatar y2kscotty says:

    One more thing: if you’re going to complain, how about complaining to Salmon’s superior in the Society? He has one, right?

  39. avatar Bruce says:

    Mouse, you and I are Catholic. I believe it all. I fail all the time at living it. But I’m trying and with the grace of God, I can do it.

    Not trying would mean going back to cohabitation, for even though the general Catholic public would not and could not know whether we were fornicating, it would be a huge temptation for sin and a source of terrific scandal. That is why it is a no-no. What the principal has done in this case is allow a similar situation to occur. At the very least, a cohabitating couple could actually be reconciled and marry. In this case, these young men cannot naturally progress from dating – dancing – engagement – marriage – sex – family, because they suffer from same sex attraction. There is no point to any of that. What they need is love and truth – lessons and support on living chastely. Dating and dancing are not for them if they do not want to do it with the opposite sex.

    I can’t carry a baby. I’m not a woman. Some things are just true whether we like it or not.

  40. avatar Bruce says:

    BTW, sorry about the typos – I hate hand-held devices that attempt to correct your writing as you do it. Hence the “stroke-like” sentences above.

  41. avatar BigE says:

    @Bruce
    1) If the scandalous part is the two boys making a public spectacle of the situation. Then I actually would agree with you.
    2) If your saying you would have been ok with them coming to dance quietly “as a couple” without all the publicity then we are on more common ground than you might think.

  42. avatar Bruce says:

    E – 1.) yes, but that is only part of the problem. I would argue that the extreme temptation to sin and the lack of an objectively good end are bigger problems. Dating and dancing in the Catholic Church is preparation for marriage – a way of interacting with the opposite sex and finding the one you will share the rest of your earthly life with if you are called to marriage. There is no reason for persons of the same sex to date, as they do not have the same ultimate end. It only creates a situation, I would say sinfully, that sets them up for moral sin. The fact that it scandalizes the others is a problem too.

    2.) No, I do not think they should be “dancing quietly as a couple” ever. Such activity is ordered again toward eventual engagement, marriage, and sex. They cannot do those things, so the activity is either useless (at best) or a temptation for moral sin (at worst). It should never be condoned in a Catholic school, or I would argue, anywhere.

  43. avatar Bruce says:

    It is a lot like cohabitation, only worse. Cohabitation is wrong because of the massive temptation for mortal sin and the public scandal. But even without the latter, it is still wrong. Individual souls are what the Catholic Church is all about. As such, pastorally-correct behavior would be to teach others to avoid temptations to sin. The only difference is that at least a cohabbing couple could reconcile and marry. A homosexual couple does not even have that option.

    There is nothing good that can come from this. It was a bad decision that may have eternal consequences.

  44. avatar Giovanni says:

    I agree with BigE… These boys don’t seem to be forcing/asking anyone in the Catholic Church to do anything against their beliefs. They are simply asking people to be tolerant of their own beliefs/way of life.

    The school can make clear the views of the Church (and should) and still be understanding that when you’re school accepts all children (ones who are not Catholic) we cannot reasonably expect the kids to hold every belief of the Church or live their lives in a Catholic manner.

  45. avatar Bruce says:

    No, Giovanni, we Catholics are not supposed to tolerate evil or temptations to sin. We do not tolerate active homosexual lifestyles, and dating and dancing not only imply that, they lead directly to it.

    No, we are to love homosexuals and help them live chaste and celibate lives.

    We can, and do, expect all students at a Catholic school to learn and to (at the very least) not publicly flout or deny what the Church teaches.

    That is what these boys and their headmaster have done. Sorry, you’re wrong on this John.

  46. avatar Mary says:

    My letter to Bishop Cunningham is printing along with a copy of this letter and will be mailed out this afternoon. I’ve had enough of this stuff!

  47. avatar Bruce says:

    Mary, please include some of our concerns:

    1.) No objectively good end can come of homosexual dating or dancing, even if the dating and dancing is free from homosexual acts, since such activity is naturally-ordered toward courtship, engagement, marriage, and sex.

    2.) The huge public scandal akin to ignoring cohabitating couples.

  48. avatar Giovanni says:

    Bruce… we live in a pluralistic culture… everyone has different beliefs and ideas… I agree we need to evangelize and help others to gain faith to live life according to the will of God… However, we need to understand that not everyone has that gift of faith, that people will disagree with us and live differently. We can control only ourselves. Our time should not be spent trying to rule everyone else’s life. They need to make the right decisions by their own free will, not because we have made rules that give them no other choice.

    You sound like Mayor Bloomberg… you’ve determined how everyone should live… now let’s force them to live that way.

  49. avatar Giovanni says:

    Mary… I don’t believe the Jesuit’s take orders from local Bishops… I may be wrong on that though.

  50. avatar Scott W. says:

    you’ve determined how everyone should live… now let’s force them to live that way.

    No one is forcing them to go to the dance.

  51. avatar Bruce says:

    Giovanni said: “Bruce… we live in a pluralistic culture… everyone has different beliefs and ideas…”

    Right, and therefore we can too as Catholics. We have our own schools which teach and live out those beliefs and ideas. No one is forced to attend them. If these young men hate Catholic teaching on homosexuality, they are not forced to stay. If they want to change it by flouting it, they will be asked to leave.

    Giovanni said: ” I agree we need to evangelize and help others to gain faith to live life according to the will of God… However, we need to understand that not everyone has that gift of faith, that people will disagree with us and live differently.”

    They are free to do so, but not free to do so in our Churches and schools and homes. If they want to attend our schools, but have no faith at all, they are free to do so as long as they do not make a public spectacle of themselves, give us reason to believe their souls are in danger by being public, or by deliberately sabotaging our efforts at teaching Christ. That is what these young boys are doing, with consent of their misguided and possibly-heretical headmaster.

    Giovanni said: “We can control only ourselves.”

    Yes. We ask the same of these young men. Unfortunately, they are not playing along. Is that fair to us Catholics? We control ourselves, but they don’t have to?

    Giovanni said, “They need to make the right decisions by their own free will, not because we have made rules that give them no other choice.”

    Yes, but they do not have the right to flout Church teaching in our schools. They agreed to play by our rules, and they are not. So what should we do? Not have rules? Deny the truth of what we teach? What would make you happy?

    Giovanni said: “You sound like Mayor Bloomberg… you’ve determined how everyone should live… now let’s force them to live that way”

    No one forced them to attend a Catholic school, just as no one is forced to live in NYC. BTW, I did not determine how people should live.

    That would be Jesus Christ.

  52. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    E and Giovnni,

    I am NOT tolerant of sinful behaviour. I will not tolerate it at a Catholic Church or school. Toleration of sin means there is no objective morality. There is no longer good and bad. Good and bad are what we think is good and bad. That is absolutely wrong.

    I will not be tolerant of any children or teenagers conducting themselves in a manner that is sinful. And it would be wrong if I never confronted them on the subject. It would be putting my light under a bushel basket. And as far as this priest who is condoning this action, he is an anathma. A Satan. Plain and simple. And if this is the conduct tolerated at McQuaid, I would pull my children fro the institution.

    But the moral climate in the DOR is so bad, that there are many parents who are tolerant of this behaviour and will allow their children’s minds and consciences to be formed by this scandalous and heretetical conduct and teaching.

  53. avatar Bruce says:

    The best thing to do is to choke off this school from funds, just like heretical parishes. Anything you can do to make their coffers bare, while giving that money to worthwhile places, is encouraged.

  54. avatar JLo says:

    Could someone please set me right about that letter Always Our Children…. I thought the bishops disavowed that letter; that it was put out there by staffers without the USCCB’s stamp of approval? Am I remembering rightly or wrongly? +JMJ

  55. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    J Lo,

    I heard it was released with the names of at least 6 Catholic bishops, including Mattlew Clark and the Cardinal of Washington DC. I thought the paper was disavowed but, unfortunately, it is always quoted by organizations like Dignity, Fortunate Families, and any other pro-homosexual organization. The damage done was that it was released in the first place.

  56. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    I have sent emails to the vicar general and the
    chancellor of the Syracuse Diocese.

    My confident hope is that investigations
    into the McQuaid High School Junior Prom
    will be conducted by the Apostolic Administrator.

    It is beyond reason to think allowing two
    males to attend as a couple a Catholic School dance
    gives good witness to Catholic faith in Our Lord
    Jesus Christ.

  57. avatar annonymouse says:

    JLo – this might be useful:
    http://www.wf-f.org/alwaysourchldspr98.html

    A brief search shows that a draft was released (perhaps slyly) but that the final version was much stronger than the draft, and the changes that were made change drew the ire of at least some pro-homosexual groups.

  58. avatar Dr. K says:

    “I thought the bishops disavowed that letter; that it was put out there by staffers without the USCCB’s stamp of approval?”

    I think that was the pastoral on women, which failed to earn the necessary votes.

  59. avatar Dr. K says:

    “No objectively good end can come of homosexual dating or dancing, even if the dating and dancing is free from homosexual acts, since such activity is naturally-ordered toward courtship, engagement, marriage, and sex. “

    You hit the nail on the head, Bruce. Well said.

  60. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    So many Jesuits are dissenters that they should change the SJ from the Society of Jesus to the Society of Judas.

  61. avatar Ron says:

    Richard – Remember, Pope Francis is a Jesuit!

  62. avatar Ron says:

    McQuaid is run by the Jesuits and a board, not by the Diocese of Rochester. I beleive the school does required the permission of the Bishop to operate in the diocese as a recognized Catholic school, and the Jesuits can only serve in the diocedse with the permission of the bishop. I don’t know what Bishop Cuynningham can do about this right now. Any reall pressure is more likely to come from parents or financial supporters. But based on my experience with the kinds of folks who sent their kids to McQuaid, few will really care enough to take action. Many will be fine with the gay couple.

  63. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    I know. Forgive me. There can be no universal condemnation. I am sorry

  64. avatar pat says:

    Just a couple of thoughts. Is homosexuality a choice or are some people predisposed that way or born that way? If some people are predisposed or born that way then is it right to impose celibacy on them? (Priests make a conscious choice to lead a celibate lifestyle).

    I personally lean toward either people are predisposed or born that way or have had some previous experiences early in life that imprinted such a predisposition on them.

    I realize what the Church teachings are but I also remember that Jesus was not one who was dogmatic about the rules of the religion he was born into and who also stated that he who is without sin go and cast the first stone.

  65. avatar Bruce says:

    Pat said, “Just a couple of thoughts. Is homosexuality a choice or are some people predisposed that way or born that way?”

    There is no homosexual gene. So being simply born that way has been proven false. However, uterine environment and life experience post-birth do play a role that takes it out of the hands of the child. Some of it is preventable (such as the presence of biological mother and father who are married and in the child’s life, monitoring of mom’s hormone levels when pregnant, etc) and some of it is not.

    That being said, Christ as well as human reason have affirmed the proper place and use of the human sexual faculty. It is tied to how we define human beings – made for gift. The marital act is the total giving of oneself to another in the one flesh biological union of bodies, hearts, and minds. This is not possible in non-intercourse sexual activity or homosexual acts, which are opposed to the natural law and to God’s law.

    Christ was clear on this when He spoke of a man leaving his father and mother (male and female) and clinging to his wife (female) and the two (male and female) become one flesh. This is a matter of infallible doctrine in the Church – meaning it has been defined and must be adhered to as a matter of faith. This was done through the ordinary magisterium.

    Christ gave the Church the power to bind and to loose – what she says on earth in interpretation of His teaching is what goes in heaven as well. This is Church teaching and there will be no change in it. Further developments have already happened, but it is clear that they have reached the end. These include NFP (starting with Casti Conubii and reiterated in Humanae Vitae and other documents) and the theology of the body as laid out by John Paul II. Approval of homosexual acts would not only overturn Church teaching in the catechism, it would also negate all of these encylcicals and writings of the ordinary magisterium (deemed infallible). In short, it would mean the negation of the Church as the bulwark of Truth.

    It is not possible. And thanks be to God! For Church teaching on sexuality is beautiful. If you are not familiar, Pat, I would recommend that you begin reading, starting with the documents I mentioned.

    If some people are predisposed or born that way then is it right to impose celibacy on them? (Priests make a conscious choice to lead a celibate lifestyle).

    I personally lean toward either people are predisposed or born that way or have had some previous experiences early in life that imprinted such a predisposition on them.

    I realize what the Church teachings are but I also remember that Jesus was not one who was dogmatic about the rules of the religion he was born into and who also stated that he who is without sin go and cast the first stone.

  66. avatar Bruce says:

    As for those who struggle with same sex attraction, we are to love them, respect them, and help them live a chaste life. Sex is not required for survival. Close friendships among friends and family are vital. There are men and women who live chaste lives and have ssa. They are in my parish. These are great people and great Catholics! They understand and live by Church teaching on human sexuality and they live chaste lives. They are anything but lonely.

    Don’t be disturbed by the vocal minority on this issue, particularly when the majority of that minority are heterosexuals with a victim-complex.

    Church teaching is beautiful and it is true.

  67. avatar militia says:

    Hey “pat” — here’s a flash for you. Regardless of the reasons someone is a certain way or not, homosexual activity is a sin. People might like to start fires, but arson is a sin. People might be kleptomaniacs, but stealing is a sin. But when it is sex then it is so uncontrollable that they can’t help themselves? Can’t be obedient to God’s word?

    It doesn’t matter what you personally lean toward, and don’t blame Jesus. He said “Go and sin no more.” He didn’t condone the adulteress. Why does that always get missed by the gay crowd?

    You gave your opinion; here’s my opinion: that the advent of the pill contaminated women’s bodies and the environment and their sons in particular had an overdoes of female hormones in the womb which distorted their sexual orientation. Maybe reparative therapy works, maybe it doesn’t. But the real repair needed is to see the sin and abstain. Period.

    My opinion is worth as much as your opinion. But it is only Church Teaching that matters.

  68. avatar Bruce says:

    True, militia, I forgot that addictive behaviors ARE often genetically-linked – meaning persons who struggle with addiction may have a predisposition for it.

    Yet we do not say it is okay to be addicted to alcohol, drugs, porn, or sex. Acts are still chosen freely.

  69. avatar Ron says:

    First – sorry for the typos in my earlier post. Typing too fast, not proofing enough.

    Homosexuality seems to have a variety of causes. Some folks may be born with a predisposition – but that does not mean they have to act on it. I’ve also met people who fall into homosexuality through some elements of choice and life circumstances. Whatever the case, homosexual acts are still disordered, and I suspect Jesus, while he would forgive, would also say “go and sin no more” – not simply invite them to, oh, a dance with a subtext of seeming acceptance of the behavior.

    Imposing celibacy? Before I married I was expected to be celibate. There are people who never marry – life-long celibates who have had happy, productive, fulfilled lives. Are you implying that homosexuals are somehow weaker and not capable of being celibate like heterosexual people? (Then we get back to the disordered condition description!)

    The line about casting no stone is sometimes used in conjunction with comments about not judging others. But the Bible also says that we should admonish and correct – which implies that we must judge. If we say don’t judge, then we are really saying that we can’t judge any action – so anything is moral or acceptable!

  70. avatar Giovanni says:

    Most people who are gay identify being so from a very early age… and I think that people exist on a range… meaning some are more gay or straight than others and some of our feelings are beyond our control… People don’t (always/if ever) choose to be gay. The Church seems to accept this in it’s teaching that homosexuality is not a sin. However, the Church does teach that acting out homosexual acts is sinful.

    I’ve always found this to be ironic. The Church says that if you’re homosexual that’s OK, but you must live a life of celibacy.

    The Church also teaches that celibacy is a gift from God…

    So does this mean all gay peoples have/or are able to receive the gift of celibacy?

    @Bruce you say that you don’t make the rules and that it is Jesus the Christ who does. You and I both know Jesus did not say one recorded word on homosexuality. I know bible does but there is a good bias in how we interpret those very few scripture passages around the topic.. especially the old testament that says many things we clearly don’t follow.. (eating shell fish, clothing of two woven materials were forbidden…

    St. Paul writes about it but he’s writing to the Romans who were a promiscuous people.. I don’t think he was referring to those with a homosexual orientation that are looking to be in a committed relationship.

  71. avatar pat says:

    Hey Militia, thanks for the flash, not so sure it enlightened me though. You stated, “People might like to start fires, but arson is a sin. People might be kleptomaniacs, but stealing is a sin”. Well, don’t those sins either harm other people or their property? I am not so sure that two people of the same sex having sex harms anybody else. They really do not bother me.

    I remember something I read from one of Gary Will’s books. Paraphrasing he said something to the effect as to why doesn’t the Church regard sex as something akin to another human appetite such as eating. Now, he did mention about responsibility that goes along with sex. Think pregnancy for those who are not homosexual.

    And when I equate eating with sex I am not advocating free love no more than I would advocate gluttony. Every action comes with a responsibility. Sex should come with commitment. Marriage is a wonderful institution for that commitment.

  72. avatar annonymouse says:

    (Sister) Pat –

    First of all, you are arguing not about the matter at hand (McQuaid Jesuit’s decision) but about the Church’s established and 2,000-year-old teaching. Let’s get that straight.

    Second of all, is Fr. Salmon the competent authority, established by Christ Himself, to determine moral teaching? I think not. If so, perhaps Annonymouse can establish moral teaching too.

    Next, please cite what scientific studies (not the “opinion” of the APA, please) support the notion that same-sex attracted people are “born that way.”

    Could it be that same-sex attraction is really an attraction disorder and an example of stunted psycho-sexual development? Could it be that same-sex attraction is no more than one more of concupiscence rearing its ugly head, and aren’t we all called to overcome our concupiscence throught the power and grace of Our Lord, Jesus Christ?

    Finally, with respect to your 6:32 post, you obviously see no connection among marriage, sex and PROCREATION, is that not correct? You seem to view pregnancy as merely an accident of heterosexual sex versus a God-designed PURPOSE of the sex act.

    Given that you, I and Fr. Salmon have no authority to establish the Church’s moral teachings, do address the problem at hand – McQuaid’s decision to place a homosexual relationship on equal footing with heterosexual relationships.

  73. avatar Mary says:

    Pat, they are hurting their immortal souls. That hurts all of us in the body of Christ. It hurts God (though takes nothing from him) to see His creatures not living the lives He created them to live: to know Him and serve Him and love Him in this life and to be happy with Him forever in the next.

  74. avatar RochChaCha says:

    Bottom line is that this decision by the president was wrong, his letter to the parents was not only poorly written and weak, but this decision by a catholic school was scandalous. There’s an old saying, if you want to have your kid lose their religion send them to Catholic school, if you want them to fight for their faith, send them to public school. As a faithful catholic, I have a bit of a guilty feeling for not sending my kids to Catholic school. My oldest is at the right age for McQuaid. I no longer feel the need to enroll him at a Catholic school, especially McQuaid.

  75. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Giovanni,

    I think that if we are single, we are called to celibacy. God will provide the grace to be celebit although the effort in some people might have to be heroic to achieve that goal.

    Psychologists like Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons say homoswxuality is caused by improper parenting at an early age. Children at that age, when suffering catastropic events, do not do well. They are harmed on a deep level. But Fitzgibbons and other psychologists say the condition can be ameliorated with counceling.

  76. avatar Ignatius says:

    A bishop has the authority to expel a religious order from his diocese.

    Pressure from within the Society will probably be more effective. Here’s the contact information for the provincial of the New York province:

    Very Reverend David S. Ciancimino, S.J.
    Provincial, NY Province of the Society of Jesus
    39 East 83rd Street, N.Y., N.Y. 10028

    Office Telephone Number: 212.774.5500
    FAX: 212.794.1036
    E-mail: nykprov@nysj.org

    Fr. Salmon’s repeated use of the phrase “ray of light” has Masonic overtones. There’s more here than meets the eye.

  77. avatar pat says:

    annonymouse 6:40, I would strongly recommend to anybody who engages in sex for the purpose of procreation that they be married to the person they are having sex with. And I would strongly recommend to anybody that is having sex with someone of the opposite sex and are not married to use artificial contraception so as to prevent pregnancy.

    I know, some people state that the only purpose for having sex is for procreation. And, also the Church is against the use of artificial contraception. But what I find confounding, is that when I went for compulsory Church counseling before getting married myself I was informed about how the rhythm method can be used to avoid pregnancy. I see no difference between the rhythm method and artificial contraception since the objective is exactly the same.

    I think Fr. Salmon is placing more emphasis on having these students accepted into the school community rather then treating them as outcasts due to their beliefs. Remember, these students are not harming another person or damaging property.

    Nobody has yet to comment on one of my earlier statements. All I ever see on this site is the Church and its rules. Yet Jesus was not dogmatic about the rules of the religion he himself was born into. The rules of the Church everyone on this site invokes were formulated well after his death. These rules of the Church were made by men who claimed they were inspired by the Holy Spirit. I guess that is why one of my favorite apostles is Doubting Thomas.

  78. avatar militia says:

    doesn’t hurt anybody? what about their own souls? what about the scandal? what about the children hijacked into an unnatural family environment? It is not marriage and can never be marriage no matter what it is called and no matter what tax breaks the gov’t awards. Next there will be 3-somes and 4-somes and people marrying their parents or their dogs. This is the result of the contraception/abortion slippery slope which removes reproduction from sex, and there is absolutely no reason to think it stops here. The slippery slope is getting slipperier by the day.

  79. avatar militia says:

    oh, one more thing…..this would be an excellent moment for any students at McQuaid who have been abused to come forward….it will be much easier to believe them now than it would have been a week ago.

  80. avatar Ron says:

    Pat – you recommend they use artificial contraception??? Seems as if you are missing something about Catholic teachings – which helps to explain some of your other comments.

  81. avatar Giovanni says:

    I don’t doubt your motives and many of you make valid points… but I have a tough time with this issue and just don’t see it as black and white… It’s hard for me to swallow and I know that is the case for many Catholics. Pray for me and for the whole Church as we face these issues. Regardless of my feelings on this issue… I do pray that God’s will be done.

    On another note, it was nice to see a long break in the comments… It shows that many were spending time with the Blessed Sacrament. May Christ Jesus speak to us.

    Blessed be God.
    Blessed be his holy name.
    Blessed be Jesus Christ, true God and true man.
    Blessed be the name of Jesus.
    Blessed be his most Sacred Heart.
    Blessed be his most Precious Blood.
    Blessed be Jesus in the most holy sacrament of the altar.

  82. avatar Bruce says:

    Giovanni, I will quote Father Charles Grondin:

    “It has become somewhat popular today to claim that because Jesus never said anything about homosexual sexual activity that Christianity is wrong to claim it is sinful. However there’s a good reason Jesus never directly mentioned it: no one disputed it was wrong in ancient Israel. Numerous sources from ancient Judaism reject homosexual relations. There was no debate in ancient Jewish society and thus it was probably never an issue/question that was posed to Jesus. If Jesus wanted to challenge this aspect of Jewish theology He most certainly could and would have done so.

    Jesus does, however, say quite clearly that God created man and woman for each other in marriage (Matthew 19:4-5). The only time Jesus mentions sexual activity as part of God’s plan is within the marriage of a man and woman.

    On the other hand, this was an issue in various Gentile societies. That is why St. Paul, in his writings to different Gentile Christian communities, makes clear that homosexual relations are considered wrong by Christian theology (Romans 1:24-27; 1Corinthians 6:9-10; 1Tim 1:10). “

  83. avatar pat says:

    Ron, I do recommend artificial contraception for those who are not married and are engaged in sex with the opposite sex so as to prevent pregnancy. Unwanted pregnancies sometimes lead to abortion. Isn’t it best to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?

    Like it or not, Church rules or not, people engage in sex. That is the reality of life.

    I spend a third of the year, each year, living in a 3rd world country that is very Catholic. I see the consequences of not using artificial contraception. I have heard the priests give sermons to a packed church in that country rail against the use of artificial contraception. And then I see children sleeping in groups on the sidewalk but no priest in sight.

    Sorry my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but I live and see the consequences of some Church teachings.

  84. avatar Bruce says:

    Pat said “Ron, I do recommend artificial contraception for those who are not married and are engaged in sex with the opposite sex so as to prevent pregnancy.”

    So you treat them as animals and not human beings? Why not spay and neuter them? Either way, you’re not treating them as dignified human beings. You’re also setting them up for abortions (if the pill works, it can cause them, and if it doesn’t, they will get them) and you’re teaching them that sex is about pleasure and not tied to children, which is also an affront to their human dignity. In short, you’re treating them like garbage.

    Pat said “Unwanted pregnancies sometimes lead to abortion. Isn’t it best to prevent the pregnancy in the first place?”

    3.2 million pregnancies in the United States (home of more contraception for free than you can shake a stick at) are unintended and the DIRECT RESULT of contraception failure. You’re giving people something that will destroy their lives AND doesn’t work. That is hateful.

    Pat said, “Like it or not, Church rules or not, people engage in sex. That is the reality of life.”

    Like it or not, people kill people. We should just make sure they use guns so they do it accurately and quickly.

    Pat said, “I spend a third of the year, each year, living in a 3rd world country that is very Catholic. I see the consequences of not using artificial contraception. I have heard the priests give sermons to a packed church in that country rail against the use of artificial contraception. And then I see children sleeping in groups on the sidewalk but no priest in sight.”

    Yes, because according to the best research, children cause societies to collapse. Oh wait, its the other way around. Really, you need to study this more. You’re on the wrong side of charity.

    Pat said “Sorry my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but I live and see the consequences of some Church teachings.”

    As do I – its called saints and happiness. Your methods lead to disease, the destruction of marriage, the death of children, and the collapse of whole societies. Good work out there. I’m sure they love you.

  85. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Answer to JLo:

    As best I understand, there are two versions of “Always Our Children.” The first, in 1997, was rejected by most bishops although written under the auspices of the USCCB. Bishop Clark and a few other liberal bishops and dissident groups like Fortunate Families almost always use and mean the 1997 version. It was revised virtually on an emergency basis and appeared in the revised version in July 1998. It was improved but still impaired. There is a review of the problems on the second draft by Fr. John Harvey at http://couragerc.net/Articles,_Homilies,_and_Talks/AOC_Revised.pdf

    It is a shame the titles were the same as they get sometimes [deliberately] confused. We also must remember that no action of the USCCB can be binding on bishops unless all act in concert and in faithful unity with the Pope. Actions by groups of bishops, except on the most mundane pronouncements, are fraught with problems, not the least of which is infringing on other bishops rights.

    What was wrong with the 1997 version? Here is what the highly respected Bishop Bruskewitz had to say about it:

    On Always Our Children

    by Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz

    Last October 1st, a document entitled Always Our Children: A Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children was published by the Committee on Marriage and the Family of the US bishops’ conference.

    Although this document was evidently “approved” by the Administrative Committee of that conference, and it would seem the correct procedures outlined in conference rules were followed, it should be made clear that the document was composed without any input from the majority of the American Catholic bishops, who were given no opportunity whatever to comment on its pastoral usefulness or on its contents.

    As almost always happens when such procedures are used by committees of the conference, the illusion is given, perhaps deliberately, and carried forth by the media, to the effect that this is something the US bishops have published, rather than the correct information being conveyed to the public; namely, that most bishops had nothing to do with this undertaking. I believe one would be justified in asserting that in this case, flawed and defective procedures, badly in need of correction and reform, resulted in a very flawed and defective document.

    The majority of America’s Catholic bishops were allowed nothing to say about this document. Still less were they permitted any suggestions or comments about the “advisers” and consultants used by the committee, who, by their own boasting and the ordinary “rumor mill”, have been detected to be people whose qualifications in this area of moral conduct are highly questionable. The document, in a view which is shared by many, is founded on bad advice, mistaken theology, erroneous science and skewed sociology. It is pastorally helpful in no perceptible way. Does this committee intend to issue documents to parents of drug addicts, promiscuous teenagers, adult children involved in canonically invalid marriages, and the like? These are far more numerous than parents of homosexuals. The occasion and the motivation for this document’s birth remain hidden in the murky arrangements which brought it forth.

    Not only does this document fail to take into account the latest revision in the authentic Latin version of The Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, but it juxtaposes several quotes from the Catechism in order to pretend falsely and preposterously that the Catechism says homosexuality is a gift from God and should be accepted as a fixed and permanent identity. Of course, the document, in order to support the incorrect views it contains, totally neglects to cite the Catholic doctrine set forth by the Holy See which teaches that the homosexual orientation is “objectively disordered”. Also, the document’s definition of the virtue and practice of chastity is inadequate and distorted.

    The character of this document is such that it would require a book of many pages to point out all its bad features, which sometimes cross the border from poor advice to evil advice. For instance, I believe it is wicked to counsel parents not to intervene, but rather to adopt a “wait and see” attitude when they find their adolescent children “experimenting” with homosexual acts. Parents have a grave moral duty to prevent their children from committing mortal sins when they can. It is certainly and seriously wrong to counsel parents to “accept” their children’s homosexual friends. In my view, parents should be vigilant about the friends and companions of their children. Of course, the document deliberately avoids distinguishing minor children from adult children in its advice to parents and seems to delight in this ambiguity, just as it confuses the acceptance of a person who does immoral acts with the acceptance of such a person’s immoral behavior.

    Sinners are always the object of Christ’s love and so they must also be the object of ours. Loving sinners while hating their sins must mark the followers of Christ even when dealing with homosexual people. However, true love is never served by obfuscating the truth as this document appears to do. Homosexual acts, insofar as they are deliberately and freely done, are mortal sins which place a person who does them in the gravest danger of eternal damnation. The document says to parents, “Do not blame yourselves for a homosexual orientation in your child”. Many scientists and psychologists say that the orientation is likely and often due to certain parental defects, which are usually unconsciously present, and proper therapy requires that these matters be confronted. The document claims that something is “the common opinion of experts” when in fact it is no such thing. One critique of this document says that it is really an exercise in homosexual (“gay and lesbian”) advocacy. It is difficult not to see it as such.

    “Calamity and frightening disaster” are terms which are not too excessive to describe this document. It is my view that this document carries no weight or authority for Catholics, whom I would advise to ignore or oppose it.

    Bishop Bruskewitz was the ordinary of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska when this editorial appeared in the March/April, 1998 issue of Social Justice Review.

  86. avatar JLo says:

    Thank you, Diane. That clears it all up for me re that “Always Our Children” thing.
    Pat, you are anchored completely to this world. Comment after comment from you shows absolutely no understanding of the Church that Jesus established, the NEW covenant with God’s creation. Your core is not at all Catholic but completely worldly, so you have no understanding of what Bruce and all the others are trying to tell you. To see nothing wrong with homosexual living and unmarried sex is so outside all Christ came to do… SAVE US!!… that I doubt conversations here at CF will benefit you at all. Pray, please, for the grace of the Lord to open your eyes to the very basis of salvation history… to get all of us from the temporary here to the eternal There, the There being where we get to live in glory with God forever. I must say, your preaching about the horrors of the third world are nothing when compared to what those who preach like you and live like homosexuals might experience in the ultimate Hell, which is what we should live to avoid!! Pray for a light to go on in you, else one day the horrors those children in the Third World live with might actually look good to you! +JMJ

  87. avatar annonymouse says:

    There seems to be a misappropriation of Jesus’ teaching these days, a heresy actually, that portrays Jesus as teaching a gospel of permissiveness, that Jesus would let anything go, without any sort of “judgment” (oh what a terrible thing to do these days – make moral judgments!). Jesus came to forgive our sins so that we may TRANSCEND them, to become, with His grace, “perfect as my Heavenly Father is perfect.”

    People hear the Gospel where the adulterous woman is to be stoned and somehow think Jesus was permissive. He was not. He was forgiving. Why do “progressive Catholics” conveniently lop off His admonition to the woman “now go and do not sin any more?”

    Fr. Salmon is encouraging these two boys, not to mention any who will follow after them (for this sets quite a precedent) to gravely sin, despite his statement to the contrary. The message he SHOULD be teaching, which he will find in “Always Our Children,” is that homosexuality is a cross that must be borne. Instead, he is choosing to teach them to indulge their lustful inclinations – not what a Catholic priest, entrusted with the care of souls, should be teaching (there I go again, being “morally judgmental!” – forgive me, Father).

  88. avatar pat says:

    Bruce, the most charitable response I can give you is that you and I live in entirely different worlds and realities. Enjoy your peace.

  89. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Pat,

    All I can say is that 50% of couples using birth control will divorce. 3% of couples using the more effective natural family planning will divorce. 50% divorce rate with broken relationships and the emotional traume to the children. And the impoverishment of single mothers who must become the bread winner and are forced to spend less time with their families.

    Are you familiar with the prophysies of Pope Paul VI concerning contraception? He said:

    1. Morals will be lowered. Anyone living in the 60’s and 70’s will agree that morality has tanked.

    2. Men will respect women less and will treat them as objects. That is also true

    3. Nations will use birth control for the purpose of population control. That’s being done in China, Peru and now in the US.

    If you make “love making: more of a recreational event and not open to the possibility of procreation then you will have these problems.

    I think the word is SELFISH. Partners think of their spouse or significant other as sexual objects,whose purpose is more to fufill their own sexual needs.

    As far as sex for singles: Yes the world says yes. But is you live together brfore marriage, 75% will either never marry or, if they do, will end in divorce.

    Contraception even alters the emotional makeup of a woman. God is in the selection process of spouses. Women are affected by their hormonal make-up and are attracted to males that are complementary to themselves. It’s all God’s plan. It’s incredible. But when you take birth control, that chemical balance is altered and women are actually attracted to a partner that is not in their best interest. SO when they get off birth control and their natural hormones are allowed to take over, they often realize they married the wrong man and they are not at all attracted to him. These marriages often end up in divorce.

    God knows best and when we try to play God, we will loose.

  90. avatar Bruce says:

    Well Pat, ever read Germain Grisez, Janet Smith, or Mary Eberstad on the issue? Heck, I did a masters thesis on it. Quite frankly, Church teaching on contraception is not only true, it is really the only way to handle the problems you cite from “mysterious lands overseas where you work.”

    Contraception will not solve poverty. It will not solve hunger. It will not end violence. The overpopulation meme has been proven false so many times that it is difficult to keep up with it…and yet folks like yourself just keep beating that dead horse.

    Sorry, Pat, but your “charity” is nothing but hatred for people you look down upon and believe should not reproduce. Margie Sanger is pleased.

  91. avatar y2kscotty says:

    Thanks to Ignatius for providing the address of the Jesuit Provincial. He will get a note from me.

    BTW, I agree with Pat’s analysis for the “artificial contraception” in the cases he cites. The fornicators are already sinning -, so they might as well avoid conception – but also be told to mend their ways and sin no more.

  92. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    If contraception is so good, why is the United States and the UN forcing contraception and abortion on third world countries in order for them to receive economic aid. Economic blackmail.

    In third world countries, much more is being spent on contraception than vacinnations and basic medical health.

    In the 1st world countries, the birth rate falls way below population maintence rate. That means these countries cannot maintain their populations but, instead, have many more elderly people with too few yoounger people to take care of them. This will bring on Euthanasia since there are too few dollars to care for them.

    Since we are on the subject, the hundreds of millions of abortions have robged countries of people who become wage earners that pay taxes and help maintain society. Civilization, as we know it, is destroying itself.

  93. avatar Scott W. says:

    BTW, I agree with Pat’s analysis for the “artificial contraception” in the cases he cites. The fornicators are already sinning -, so they might as well avoid conception – but also be told to mend their ways and sin no more.

    Incorrect. This is no different than the “clean needle” argument that goes “don’t do drugs, but if you are going to do drugs, use a clean needle”. It completely negates “don’t do drugs” and makes one at least a material cooperator in evil to an unacceptable degree.

    Plus, if one is not going to listen to the Church about not fornicating or committing other offenses against chastity, why would they suddenly listen to them about about using contraceptives to prevent bad consequences? Actually, we know the answer to that one: It’s what people want to hear, not what they need to hear.

  94. avatar Bruce says:

    For those who want to listen to an expert on contraception, and why it sucks, go here:

    http://www.janetsmith.excerptsofinri.com/

  95. avatar pat says:

    Bruce, you have an amazing ability to read someone’s post and project facts that are simply not stated.

    You state, “mysterious lands overseas where you work.” I do not work anymore. I was forced into early an early retirement six years ago. It is not a mysterious land. I only choose not to identify it.

    You state, “Sorry, Pat, but your “charity” is nothing but hatred for people you look down upon and believe should not reproduce”.

    I actually live among such people when I am there and provide financial support for two families headed by mothers who can provide only the bare essentials for their children.

    I only wish that you could hate such people as much as I apparently do in your eyes so that more people can be helped.

  96. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    But Natural Family planning is better thab artificial birth control in preventing pregnancy. It also has none of the side effects of birth control. It’s too bad that the UN and the US does not advocate that. But instead, the contraceptive mentality prevails.

    After all are we in this to promote or destroy marriages and are we advocates or detractors of women?

    60% of abortions are related to contraception failure.

  97. avatar Bruce says:

    Pat, you assume I do not work with single mothers struggling to raise families. I do. I work with crises pregnancy centers. These women were almost ALL using one or more forms of contraception, and yet look at them now. On a practical level, your methods only give a false sense of security and end up hurting these women far more. It is also degrading of them, which is why it is sinful. Make no mistake, pat, you have committed a terrible sin by doling out contraception and promoting it. On a theological level, you cannot do something intrinsically evil for an alleged good end. In the case of contraception, there is no good end. Instead of helping women to flouish as human beings, you are medicating and handicapping them. You fail to teach the truth and beauty of sexuality out of willful negligence. You owed it to them as fellow human beings, but this was “easier” – a wider road if you will. A child is a gift, and you treat them as burdens to be prevented or killed. Sex is a powerful gift, but instead of teaching that and responsibility, you enable abuse and destruction. No, pat, thanks be to God you re not “helping” anymore. You have already caused enough damage.

  98. avatar snowshoes says:

    Thank you, Dr. K. As an alumnus, this deeply saddens my heart. The goal established by St. Ignatius for the instruction of young men is to form them into Catholic gentlemen. The issue here is not about the rights of certain students, but rather about the duty of the school administration to protect the students, and to teach them the Catholic Faith in every aspect of life, including the goal of Catholic manhood, which is specifically masculine and heterosexual.

    The object of the Junior Ball, an official function of the school, staffed by chaperones, was as a social event at which students might invite a young woman, from Mercy, St. Agnes (in the day), or another school to enjoy the company of the group of students and their guests, and to learn how to interact in a polite, Christian way with all the attendees. There would have been no toleration of such homosexual behavior when I attended, by either the administration or the student body. By this I do not mean there would have been any unkindness. The dance had specific educational goals, that is why the school held it.

    There was a specious argument regarding non-Catholic students, tell me, do any Jewish High schools, or Muslim High schools permit homosexual “couples” at events? I rather doubt it.

    This issue brings a few questions to my mind:

    Has Father President rewritten the lesson plan for instructing students on how to become Catholic men?
    Has he formally notified the teachers of how to address the matter?
    Is Catholic doctrine regarding healthy heterosexual development being taught in the classrooms and modeled at official events?
    Is homosexual behavior clearly addressed in the appropriate educational classes as a disorder, and are homosexual relations taught as being a sin?
    How will the chaperones be instructed as to what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate behavior at the dance?
    What avenue do students and parents have to respond to this most unwise decision?
    What avenue do the other Jesuits on the faculty, the other administrators, the teachers and the staff have to appeal this unwise decision?

    Certainly a letter to Bishop Cunningham, and diverting charitable giving to truly Catholic institutions are in order. On this Good Friday, Our Lord suffered His Passion to save us from our sins. I pray that the grace of the Crucifixion, Death and Resurrection of Our Lord will change the heart and mind of Father President and all those involved to act in accordance with the truths of the Catholic Church, which is of course, the One True Church.

  99. avatar nostalgia08 says:

    Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller.
    Prefect for The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”
    [Secretary: Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, S.J.]
    Piazza del S. Uffizio ll
    00l93 Rome Italy
    Europe
    phone: 011.3906.69.88.33.57
    phone: 011.3906.69.88.34.13
    fax: 011.3906.69.88.34.09
    email: cdf@cfaith.va
    and http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith

    (He promotes and safeguards the doctrine of faith and morals in the whole Catholic world; therefore, those things belong to it which touch this matter in any way.)
    With the Motu Proprio Ecclesiae Unitatem, promulgated on 2 July 2009, His Holiness updated the structure of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in order to adapt it to the new situation created by the removal of the excommunication (21 January 2009) of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre. That removal was a provision within the perimeter of canonical discipline in order to free persons from the weight of the gravest ecclesiastical censure, but still with the awareness that doctrinal questions remain and until they are resolved the “Priestly Society of St. Pius X” cannot enjoy a canonical statute in the Church and its ministers do not exercise any legitimate ministry in the church. Since the problems are essentially of a doctrinal nature, the Holy Father has decided to join the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

  100. avatar Diane Harris says:

    Here are two more resources to consider. This abomination really needs to come to the attention of all the contacts already listed (Dr. K, would you consider addding the contacts in the above Comments to your original post so we can find them together and not hunt through this nearly (wonderful response!) 100 individual Comments?

    The two addressees I add (each contact should be an individual letter not “CC” because then it gets ignored figuring some other addressee will answer):

    Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia (address in letter as “Your Excellency”)
    Pontifical Council for the Family*
    Palazzo San Calisto
    Piazza San Calisto 16
    00120 Vatican City
    Italy

    *A department of the Curia which promotes the pastoral care of families, protects their rights and dignity in the Church and in civil society, so that they may ever be more able to fulfill their duties. Prefect was newly named in 2012. FAX: 39.06.69.88.72.72.

    Archbishop Angelo Vincenzo Zani, Prefect (Address in letter as “Your Excellency”)
    Congregation for Catholic Education
    Office of Schools**
    Palazzo della Congregazioni
    Piazza Pio XII, 3
    00193 Roma, Italy

    **Some of the issues treated by this office regard the teaching of sex education in Catholic schools, problems related to the teaching of moral or religious matters in public schools

    In addition to the above, the oversight for the Order priests in Rome may be another good contact, but I don’t have that at the moment. And it can’t hurt to copy the Apostolic Nuncio in Washington as well. But both of these smaller congregations are more approachable by direct letter than the larger ones.

  101. avatar annonymouse says:

    Snowshoes – brilliantly stated.

    Sadly, I rather doubt that the Father President, with so much hubris as to decide the way he has, will listen. I call upon all of McQuaid’s faithful Catholic stakeholders (those faithful to the Magisterial teaching rather than the self-seeking, sinful ways of this world) to register their outrage. If my son were at McQuaid, well, he would no longer be.

    My question is this – could a parent reliably expect a different decision at either Aquinas or Bishop Kearney? Or Mercy for the parents of young women?

  102. avatar nostalgia08 says:

    I am deeply saddened by This decision,as a Parent of a Senior at Mcquaid I feel strongly that this was a wrongful decision,I must comment on something a teacher who was a chaperoned at one or two or more of these dances said to my son in class ” I am afraid to breath at these dance`s for fear of getting an airborne STD as there is so much bumping,grinding and borderline lewd behavior” Parents are not allowed to chaperone any Mcquaid Dance`s per Mcquaids policy. My son has no desire to go to his Junior Prom or the Senior Ball as he feels the dances are not what they should be; “The object of the Junior Ball, an official function of the school, staffed by chaperons, was as a social event at which students might invite a young woman, from Mercy, St. Agnes (in the day), or another school to enjoy the company of the group of students and their guests, and to learn how to interact in a polite, Christian way with all the attendees. There would have been no toleration of such homosexual behavior when I attended, by either the administration or the student body. By this I do not mean there would have been any unkindness. The dance had specific educational goals, that is why the school held it.”

    Most if not almost all send our children to Mcquaid because we value Morals,living in God`s etc..However FR.Salmon`s decision will be a beginning of an end to Mcquaid`s reputation.
    I have written to the Vatican News paper and asked that this article be published I also have written Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller.I encourage you all to write as well that our voice may be heard.
    God Bless

  103. avatar nostalgia08 says:

    This is a letter I sent to the vatican newspaper that I have heard word of that it is going to be published
    To Whom it may concern;

    I am a Parent of a Senior student @ Mcquaid Jesuit High School Brighton N.Y.,we are shocked and appalled at the decision of FR. Salmon in regards to allowing to boy`s that are Juniors to attend the Prom as a couple.

    This is all over the news and media in our area. I have included a link to the letter that was mailed out by FR. Salmon; http://cleansingfire.org/2013/03/fr-edward-f-salmon-sj-allows-gay-couple-to-attend-mcquaid-prom/#comments

    My Son and myself have deep Religious convictions. And feel so strongly that this is so wrong and so unfair to the individuals that choose the teachings of the Bible in regards to sexual preference(Heterosexual) and remaining chaste until marriage.

    When Jesus saved the prostitute from being stoned,he lifted her up off her knees and said Sin no More, he did not say I saved you from being stoned to death go ahead and continue what you were doing.

    I believe that Fr Salmon should have tried to lead these two openly homosexual students to the light of Jesus. And instead is condoning their homosexuality,what about those that have chosen to follow Jesus teachings Homosexuality is a sinful act, wrong and an abomination.

    Please post this in your newspaper,so that the voice of those who chose to follow the right path may be heard.

    I pray that this reaches you.

    I encourage all that feel this is wrongful.
    sent to; ornet@ossrom.va Vatican Newspaper

  104. avatar pat says:

    Bruce, you stated, “you have committed a terrible sin by doling out contraception and promoting it”. and “You have already caused enough damage”.

    I have merely stated my opinion on the matter of contraception. I have not doled out anything to anybody. And if its a sin to state such opinions then so be it.

  105. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Pat,

    There is much evidence indication contraception is bad. What are your thoughts?

  106. avatar Bruce says:

    Indeed, Pat, I would say you have placed yourself and others in harm’s way. Thanks be to God that you’re not out “helping” anyone anymore.

  107. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Let’s keep this conversation civil. I have been guilty of noy so charitable comments in the past but we have to do things better

  108. avatar Rich Leonardi says:

    If McQuaid wants everyone that attends the dance to be Catholic and 100% support Catholic teachings – then ANY and ALL non-catholics should also not be allowed at the dance. Or, Non-Catholics should not be allowed to enroll in the school in the first place. Otherwise, it’s simply being discriminatory.

    I’m a bit late to the party, but the statement above is idiotic, whether or not it’s sincere. The Church’s teachings on this subject is grounded in natural law and can be appreciated by anyone with a reasonable mind. Like all the Church’s social teachings, they are presented in nonsectarian terms. In other words, you don’t have to be Catholic to appreciate them, and the school doesn’t have to make exclusions for non-Catholics to its policies.

  109. avatar Rich Leonardi says:

    *are* grounded in natural law, ‘natch.

  110. avatar pat says:

    Richard, I am not in a position to judge such evidence. One would have to look at who gathered such evidence; was there an agenda; was certain evidence ignored; etc. I know I have a habit of looking for evidence that supports my preconceived notions on a subject. And then how does one go about getting statistics where contraception prevented an unwanted pregnancy?

    I remember about twenty years ago police departments were happy to announce statistics about crime rates going down. Many believed that perhaps law enforcement was getting more effective. Then someone speculated that perhaps the crime rate was dropping due to abortion becoming legal twenty years prior to the crime rates dropping. There are probably studies supporting both positions.

  111. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Pat,

    Much of the evidence is taken from th United States Catholic Bishop’s Web site. Especially the facts concerning divorce and cohabitation. But you cannot deny that since the widespread use of cobtraception what Pope Paul VI prophesied came true.

    My concerns about premarital sex and cohabitation are regarding women. Women in this kind of behavior are the ones who will be shortchanged. They will be the ones getting pregnant and have to face the consequences of singleparenthood or abortion. The males walk free. No matter what the feminists say, single motherhood is a burden and short changes wome.

    The old adage is true: Until he says “I do”, you don’t.

  112. avatar RochChaCha says:

    I read in one of the posts that there is a lot of bumping, grinding, etc and that the chaperones are afraid to breathe in ‘airborne stds’. Now I know there was a bit of humor in the ‘std’s’ comment, but what struck me was that parents are not allowed to chaperone. I suppose a student does not want his parent there to watch over him and his date, so I can appreciate that. If the parents are not allowed to chaperone because they might be appalled at what they see and either pull their child from McQuaid or raise a ruckus, then perhaps one of the student attendees can take a few videos with an iPhone. Maybe it’s time to expose what is really going on.

  113. avatar pat says:

    Richard, I guess I am missing something. I thought that effective contraception prevents pregnancy and thus prevents single parenthood. Now, if there are a lot of women using contraception and still getting pregnant then perhaps there should be more outreach to educate them about using more effective contraception.

    I say that half tongue in cheek. I am not a proponent of free love or multiple sex partners. Sex should come with a commitment to the other person. And marriage is an institution that satisfies such commitment. But unfortunately human beings do partake in sex without such commitment and I think effective contraception is needed in such cases.

    I just accept the fact that irresponsible behavior on the part of people when it comes to sex is going to occur and that the potential consequences of such behavior needs to be mitigated. Contraception is not the perfect answer because it can give a false sense of security and freedom. But in my view contraception is better than preaching ‘just say no to sex’.

  114. avatar BigE says:

    @Rich Leonardi
    Calling a statement “idiotic” certainly doesn’t promote civil discussion. But hey, ok. It does however pull me back into a debate I had tried to gracefully leave. So to your point: “appreciating” someone’s beliefs is far different than being forced to follow them. Also, as far as I can tell, the school does not have a “policy” relative to a homosexual couple attending a prom. So you can’t make an “exclusion” to a policy that doesn’t exist.
    So to recap where my original statement came from:
    – a homosexual may “appreciate” Catholic teaching on homosexuality, but may choose not to “believe” or practice it.
    – just as a jewish or muslim student may appreciate Catholic teaching on the divinity of Jesus, but obviously chooses not to believe or practice it.
    – but so far, I’ve only seen an outcry to ban the homosexual students from the dance, but not any other non-catholics.
    – which is why I claimed in my original statement that such an action is discriminatory.
    – or, I suppose, could imply that you believe the Catholic teaching on homosexuality is far more important than the Catholic teaching on the divinity of Jesus. (which of course IS an idiotic statement, because I know you don’t believe that…but that’s what your actions would imply….)

  115. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    BigE,
    Your approach to this subject is so different.

    Comparing and contrasting different categories
    of people is not the way to understand the issue.

    Any and all McQuaid Junior year students (no matter
    who or what they are or are not) are welcome
    to the Junior Prom.

    The controversy in this matter is the school’s decision
    to welcome two male students to come as a couple
    on a Junior Prom date.

    Now, do not descend into an analogy of welcoming
    or not welcoming anyone else.

    It is about the appropriateness of a catholic institution
    giving the impression it is in harmony with its
    school’s identity, faith, morality, and mission to
    equate a two males couple with male/female couples
    for a social event that more likely than not includes
    holding hands, dancing, hugging and other gestures
    of affection.

    So, is McQuaid High School indicating those physical,
    affectionate actions are appropriate for two males?

    BigE, as an ESPN broadcaster is apt to say:
    COME ON, MAN.

  116. avatar Bruce says:

    This is getting off topic, but since it was brought up, let me bang on the pill and contraceptives for a while.

    Marc Barnes:

    10 Reasons The Pill Sucks
    Posted on October 14, 2011 by Marc

    I’ve done a few articles of similar nature, and have decided to create the definitive documentation of said contraceptive suckage. For those of you currently on The Pill: I in no way condemn you, I only wish to inform you. Keep an open mind.

    1. More than doubles a woman’s risk of breast cancer. And not just any old breast cancer, but the most deadly subtype that exists; triple-negative breast cancer. Being some one who likes breasts a lot, and loves women even more, this is entirely whack.
    The Evidence. (Boring, I know, but it’s worth your time to be informed): This was confirmed in the prestigious California cancer-research journal, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, from which I quote the article Risk Factors for Triple-Negative BreastCancer in Women Under the Age of 45 Years: “Oral contraceptive use ?1 year was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk for triple -negative breast cancer.” One year! And, they go on to add, it gets worse. “Furthermore, the risk among oral contraceptive users conferred by longer oral contraceptive duration and by more recent use was significantly greater[…]Among women ?40 years, the relative risk for triple-negative breast cancer associated with oral contraceptive use ?1 year was 4.2.” The evidence is in. The Pill leads to the death of women.

    It’s absolutely insane. Woman who regularly use the pill are 4.2 times more likely to get breast cancer. Husbands, boyfriends, men, do you understand that when you make sure your lover is on the Pill, you increase her risk of cancer? If you do – if you really, truly do – and you continue its use, I shudder for you. Women on the Pill, are you truly willing to do this to your bodies?

    Meanwhile, the world is stunned that cases of breast cancer have risen by over 80% since the 1970?s. Hm, what else really took off in the seventies? Oh, it must have been that women stopped exercising, or that they simply don’t check themselves enough. It’s their fault. Of course.

    All of which leads me to believe that St. Agatha is truly the woman for our times.

    2. Racist, sexist, ridiculous origins. The creation of the Pill represents the worst approach to getting a drug approved since, well…

    Shall we make a brief run through the Pill’s noble creation history? The brain-child (get it?) of Margaret Sanger – a flaming eugenicist and founder of Planned Parenthood – it was created specifically for the purpose of eugenics, to get rid of those dirty, unintelligent black people. Besides the men and women who participated in the study of the first human birth control pill, it was tested – without consent – on 12 female and 16 mental care patients. Classy.

    Three women died in the studies. They continued the studies on women. Male cases showed some testicular swelling. They stopped all studies on men. (Need I note that it was a man running this study, Dr. Gregory Pincus?) In case you were wondering why men don’t have a birth control pill the answer – though I’ve looked high and low for another one – seems to be sexism. This is a rather common consensus amongst the feminist community, funnily enough.

    In case you were wondering whether that sexism continued, above that woman’s head are all the errands she has to run

    And so it went – the dosage of artificial estrogen was insane, the creators received reports from their ‘patients’ of 132 blood clots, 11 of which were terminal, but denied that it could have possibly been the Pill. It wasn’t until 1988 that the FDA finally managed to pull the high-dose pills off the market. But as we know now, from the long list of symptoms sung calmly over shots of flowers swaying in the breeze, the Pill still causes blood clotting, and women still die. (Other Sources: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/pill/peopleevents/e_puertorico.html, here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_control#Early_history)

    3. Makes it harder for women to find a good partner.

    …and gives me my first ever excuse to visit the gossip columnists. The issue here is that women on the birth-control pill lose the natural ability to pick out – actually to sniff and kiss out – a man with an immune system that compliments their own. In the wild and wonderful world of mating, you’re going to be naturally, chemically attracted to a man with an immune system unlike your own, because two varying adult immune systems have a good chance of creating one healthy, balanced little-baby-immune-system. To put it simply, women on The Pill end up unnaturally attracted to someone – biologically – like their brother.

    (It has been suggested that this is why our culture is so immodest. When a young woman cannot attract the man she wants just by being herself – that is to say by her natural pheromonal attractiveness – she must compensate. And compensate she does, with tube-tops, if we’re unlucky.)

    What’s the problem with all this? If you come off the Pill – which so many contracepting couples do at some point in their relationship – you’re not likely to remain attracted to someone like your brother. Which leads me to the next reason the Pill sucks.

    4. Divorce. Simply put, a contracepting couple is more likely to get divorced than a couple using some form of natural family planning. This can be attributed to all sorts of reasons. An openness to creating new life helps bring couples closer together. Methods of contraception put real barriers between man and wife, canceling the beautiful act of sexual communication, an act as essential as verbal communication. Women on the pill can’t find a man they are compatible partners with. But whatever the reason, the data is in. Those that use only NFP have a less than 0.2% chance of divorce. Compare that to the national average of 50% and you’ll understand what I’m talking about here.

    Planned Parenthood knows better. The Pill creates healthy marriages for white people and foreigners! It’s not creepy at all!

    Now it was posited, the last time I mentioned this, that the only reason this is true is because NFP users are usually Catholic, and the Catholic religion promotes long-lasting marriages. To which I say “hell yeah it does!” But this in no way takes away the guilt of the Pill (and other forms of birth control) in regards to our culture of divorce. Unfortunately, American Catholics are really no better than anybody else when it comes to artificial contraception, and the NFP/Contraceptive divorce rate is the same as the general population, even if there are overall less divorces. But even if that complaint were true, there’s still this:

    I’m not saying that correlation implies causation. If anything – taking into account the earlier statistics on contraceptive use and divorce – I’m making a hypothesis: That the rise of contraceptive use in the late sixties/early seventies contributed to the similar rise in the divorce rate at the same time, and that the maintenance of our contraceptive culture aids to the maintenance of that incredibly high divorce rate.

    5. Bad sex. This is the worst, as far as I can tell. And I know, I know, I’ve mentioned it before. But I only mention it again because I truly don’t mind being the guy who constantly stands up for women having better sex. So, Biology 101: A female most wants to have sex when she is ovulating. The Pill ends ovulation. A woman’s hormonal cycle flatlines, and guess what? That strong desire to have sex flatlines with it.

    Now whenever I write this I tend to get a bunch of dudes protesting. This always strikes me as odd – and perhaps even just a wee, tiny bit sexist. So, men, why don’t you ask your wife/committed sexual partner whether basic science applies to her, instead of just assuming she’s having the time of her life. And then there’s the fact that men are most attracted to women when they’re ovulating. (Spoiler Alert: This is not a coincidence.) It’s interesting to note that, given 80% of our fertility-aged women are on birth-control, it’s distinctly likely that there are men out there who have no idea what it’s like to really, really, naturally want to have sex.

    And looking from a Martian view of our sex lives, one would have to conclude this to be fairly well evidenced. One need only step into the media fray to hear the demands that sex be displayed on TV, free from moral scruples, taught in kindergarten, performed in groups, with friends, members of the same sex, oneself, improved by various mechanical devices, and discussed in magazines and talk shows. The divorce rate is sky high, infidelity rates likewise, and porn is more commonplace than Bible reading. We seem rather desperate to wring some joy and fun out of an action humanity has never needed to wring.

    6. Attacks guys. This is a consequence that doesn’t get talked about as often, but is undeniably scary. Mostly because I’m a guy and I’m projecting. But seriously, imagine you’re a guy, with the natural inclination to mate, surrounded by women with whom you are not – chemically, biologically – inclined to mate with.

    Increase in confusion, violence, masturbation and homosexual behavior? All well and fine, a cute experiment, right? It’s what your average, American, teenage boy is growing up with! The truth is we don’t know exactly what it’s doing to the modern man, but it certainly isn’t something we can conveniently gloss over. We would never look at a chemical that causes cancer in monkeys and say, “Oh, but this couldn’t happen to us! We like this chemical!” And yet no-one seems to be worrying about The Pill’s affect on men. I am willing to bet my life that the rise in pornography-use/masturbation in adult men does not mirror the rise in hormonal contraceptive use by some strange and coincidental accident.

    Then there exists the fact that women used to be more attracted to manly men and now they like girly men…the reason being hormonal contraceptives turn women off masculine men. Manhood is attacked. You want girls to like you? Act more like a girl.

    7. Destroys life. If you are already on the pro-choice side of the house, feel free to skip this part. After all, if life begins whenever you define it (instead of, oh I dunno, at the beginning) then the fact that The Pill causes abortions won’t be of any consequence to you. But for the sane among us, educate yerself:

    The Pill as it exists today does not just prevent life from ever coming into being, it destroys it after it is created. A human person is killed by The Pill.

    8. Turns guy fish into guy/girl fish. It works like this: Woman takes pill. Woman urinates. Pill goes in water. Fish is in water. Fish gets a hit of estrogen. Fish gets deformed. OK, moment of honesty. I don’t care about the fish, as long as they are still tasty. I care about human beings. What’s happening when we bathe our children, when we drink from water fountains? Not to pretend that I’m a science major, but drinking estrogen-tainted water can’t be good for you. In fact, it has always been well-known that birth control can be distributed on a population-wide basis through the drinking supply. In 1977 Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, wrote: Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

  117. avatar Bruce says:

    Oh, two more:

    9. Being a Jerk to Women. You ever noticed that the burden of contraception is entirely on women? Unless a married couple is using condoms every night of their life, then the lady is on a hormonal contraceptive. And thus she gets to risk any one of the long list of side effects – blood clots, strokes, breast cancer, nausea, breast tenderness, fluid retention, weight gain, acne, breakthrough bleeding, missed periods, headaches, depression, anxiety, other mood changes, and lower sexual desire – while the man gets infertile sex. I guess she might be taking one for the team, but what team? And even if she isn’t on the pill, every other birth control device, besides the notoriously ineffective condom, seems to be aimed at women, saying, “it is you who presents a danger, a risk, a problem that needs solving, your fertility that needs to be suppressed, your life and schedule that must change.” Thus we have patches and rings and shots and metals on strings and goodness knows what else, a whole array of weapons that take away a woman’s fertility, and it is women that pay. The point of the matter is this: The Pill is a device designed to make woman easier to handle for men.

    10. The widespread use of contraception has lead to widespread increase in abortions. Admittedly, this is the fault of all contraception, not simply the Pill, but still a point that everyone should be aware of:

  118. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE –

    Still waiting for your response to my posts.

    Regarding your equating being Jewish or Muslim with being homosexual, I doubt that McQuaid has, or should have a policy differentiating among them. Of course, the Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder while I’m aware of no teaching that Judaism or Islam is a disorder. So rather than exclude such young men from the school, it seems to me that McQuaid ought to welcome young men with same sex attraction, and seek to help them live holy and chaste lives, which is what the Church calls them to do.

    But I fail to see how a Catholic school’s welcoming/encouraging a homosexual dating relationship provides these confused young men the help they need to live holy, chaste lives in accord with Church teaching. Please tell me where such a relationship can possibly lead except to sin and death (any sexual expression of their affection is objectively sinful, and it is a relationship that cannot possibly lead to life).

    Except to use this occasion as a chance to surreptitiously advance an agenda of change that runs contrary to the Church’s 2000 year teachings, I don’t see how this was a very difficult decision for Fr. Salmon, yet he clearly made the wrong decision.

    Final comment – the truly sad thing here is that these are juniors in high school. I doubt very much that they have any idea whether they’re “gay” or not. They are confused. Their psychological development is not complete. And rather than lovingly offer them help, this school, in the name of love and tenderness, is giving its stamp of approval to their relationship, whether Fr. Salmon admits it or even realizes it (and oh, I think he does realize it).

  119. avatar annonymouse says:

    Pat –

    Contraception and abortion are evil siblings. They are fruit of the same mindset – the desire to indulge in sexual lust while thwarting the natural procreative purpose of the sexual act. Abortion is a necessary backup to contraception because artificial contraception can and does fail, and those who contracept have a mindset of wishing to avoid pregnancy at any cost.

    You earlier asked what the difference is between artificial contraception and natural family planning, and it’s all in the mindset – those who practice natural family planning, for good reason, wish to not engage in sexual intercourse but they are willing to lovingly accept a child as a gift from God if that is God’s plan.

    Pat – your question is a fundamental one – it’s the difference between life and death, the culture of life and the culture of death of which John Paul spoke so eloquently. I will pray that you (and BigE) come to the truth.

  120. avatar militia says:

    D’ja ever think that these two boys could have just gone to the prom “without dates” and not caused nearly the fuss? But, no, I think they wanted all this attention on them, and it seems Fr. Salmon did too. How immature — wanting to ruin prom night for so many people. Why do they so badly need the attention and accommodation of those who are trying to be obedient to God? Because, I think, they know deep inside that what they are doing is an abomination before heaven. No matter how much they are condoned on the surface by others, it will never be enough to quiet their own consciences. It is shameful all the way around.

  121. avatar Craigman says:

    Bruce: Sex is about pleasure and not always about creating children. I am a man and have been having sex with other men for most of my life, and have derived a great deal of pleasure from it. And I’ve never had to worry about contraception.
    And full disclosure: I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, etc., but am no longer practicing because of the Church’s position on social issues and sexual behavior. I hope that those two McQuaid boys grow up to have the fulfilling sex life that I’ve had as a gay man.
    And yes, I do realize that I’m going to hell. So be it.

  122. avatar catholicmom says:

    Mercy already allows two young women to attend proms and balls as dates. The policy was changed several years ago.

  123. avatar BigE says:

    @Dominick
    The issue I’m claiming is that to not allow the homosexuals to the prom is discriminitory. Discrimination can only be determined by comparing someones’s actions towards different groups of people. So yes, we do need to descend into who else is welcome or not welcome to the prom. So if one group (Jews/Muslims) who are not in harmony with Catholic teaching (divinity of Jesus) can come to the prom, why can’t the other?

  124. avatar BigE says:

    @annonymouse
    1) I haven’t answered your other posts because my beliefs as to what constitutes mortal sin are irrelevent to this topic. Even if I 100% bought into homosexuality as a sin or as a disorder, I would still be arguing the school’s actions as being discriminitory.
    2) And what if the young men and their parents do not beleive in the Catholic teaching that homosexuality is a disorder? What then? (ie – that is where I am making them common to Jewish/Muslim who don’t believe other facets of our faith)

  125. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the secular culture has done more effective evangelizing the Church than the Church has done transforming the culture.

    Refusing two male students to attend a Catholic school dance is not unjust discrimination against people with the same-sex attraction.

    If pastors of the Church and leaders of Her institutions continue to give into secular pressure, they will become utterly ineffective pastors of souls and derelict bearers of the Sacred Tradition with which the Lord has graced His Catholic Church.

    Perhaps this McQuaid Junior Prom scandal calls all of us back to basic catechesis.

    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-there-an-apostolate-for-homosexual-catholics

    http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/is-the-right-to-marry-a-person-of-the-same-sex-a-civil-right

  126. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    More that facilitates basic catechesis.

    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-to-be-a-truly-tolerant-christian

  127. avatar annonymouse says:

    Craigman, you say “men” that you’ve had “sex” with? Why “men” not one, and how many? Hundreds? What are you seeking but not finding? Is it simply “pleasure” or is it something more?

    I would propose to you that you will never find fulfillment in this lifestyle. The only man that you can take into yourself to find fulfillment is Jesus Christ.

    Rather than living a life of self-giving love, you are completely self-focused, on your own “pleasure.”

    I will pray for you. In these days I invite you to take Jesus Christ into your life, into your heart, and gaze on His Holy Cross, by which He redeemed the world, by which He redeemed all of us sinners. Repent of your sins and follow Him.

  128. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Pat,

    I don’t know why any husband would want his wife to take a pill that would: increase the risk of stroke, heart attack, liver tumors, fatal blood clots, mood swings and water weight gain when they can do Natural Family Planning that is more effective than artificial birth control in preventing pregnancy as well as fostering better marital relationships.

    The other issue is that the estrogen and progesterone in the pill is excreted in the urine and goes into the sewage system. Now, the sewage is treated but the estrogen and progesterone are not taken out of the sewage and are released in the treatment water. They are discovering that there are alterations in the sexual makeup of reptiles, amphibians and , I think small mammals, in the environment, downstream from the treatment plants. There are more females produced than males and the sexual characteristics of the males are altered like : less testosterone and shorter male reproductive organ size. These factors alter the species. Now these effects are already being seen in species with fast reproductive rates. How long will it be until these effects are seen in humans?

  129. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    E. You equate not allowing 2 homosexuals at a dance as a discriminatory action. It’s not. If they can go, then you are indication there is an anything goes moral climate. You DON’t tolerate sin, a near occasion of sin, or anything of the sort. If you want to say that’s discriminatory, so be it. I am more concerned about the souls of these adolescents.

    Now It’s a whole different situation inviting people of different religo=ions to a prom. Yes, they may not believe in Jesus but there is nothing sinfiul about being Jewish. But such people are NOT advocating a lifestyle that is in itself sinful. And what these homosexual kids are doing is sinful. Plain and simple

  130. avatar annonymouse says:

    BigE – come on man!

    McQuaid, if they had chosen rightly, would not have been “discriminating.” It is no more discriminatory for McQuaid to exclude a couple young men who think they’re homosexual from attending the dance together than it would be for the Diocese or your parish to refuse to hire someone based on their other disordered or sinful behaviors, whatever those might be. The parish might have a racist on the staff, unbeknownst to the pastor, but should a parish retain that employee if he or she attended a MLK event wearing a white hood? Oh that’s so much different, you say. Is it? Both are wrong in the eyes of the Church, in the eyes of God. Moreover, both would cause scandal to the flock, something you seem to have given some agreement to above, something which Fr. Salmon has conveniently ignored.

    Your problem, E, is that your moral conscience turns off when the matter at hand pertains to human sexuality. At that point, anything goes. I’m certain that you think racism or anti-semitism are seriously wrong, as Holy Mother Church teaches. But Holy Mother Church teaches that artificial contraception and homosexual behavior are seriously sinful, too, and that’s where your assent stops. You place yourself above those men whom Jesus Christ gave us to protect the Faith and teach the Truth. That, my friend, is arrogant and prideful. Why you became a Catholic, and why you stay, given your obvious disdain for quite a few teachings of the Church (your Easter Vigil full assent to the Faith notwithstanding), remain a mystery to me.

    In these days in which we celebrate the life, death and resurrection of the Lord, who came to redeem the world, not just for the afterlife but beginning on this side of the grave, I pray that you (and I) will have hearts fully redeemed by the Lord. I also pray that you will recall the oath you made on this night so many years ago and recommit, resubscribe to “all that the Church teaches and believes.”

  131. avatar annonymouse says:

    Catholicmom – thanks for sharing that information about Mercy. Not exactly surprising. The Archbishop tasked with overseeing the Catholic reform the LCWR needs to be aware of that.

  132. avatar Giovanni says:

    We allow gay’s to come to mass together… can’t we allow them to attend a dance? Really what is the issue!! It is not us giving a stamp of approval but, meeting people where they are. Our message is still the same.

  133. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Wait Giovanni, It’s the whole notion of what’s sinful. Certainly gays can go to mass and it’s encouraged. But at the same time, we all at mass need to be encouraged and taught about sexual ethics. And if 2 gays go to mass and are holding hands or have their arms around each other, I as a pastor and/or a parishioner would tell them to either stop the behavior or stop going to mass because they are giving scandal. Our Lord’s words on giving scandal are strong and awesomely serious. I wouldn’t mess.

  134. avatar Dr. K says:

    It is not us giving a stamp of approval but, meeting people where they are.

    No… it IS giving a stamp of approval to homosexual couples and this unnatural relationship!

  135. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    McQuaid Jesuit High School must explain to its students, their families, alumni and the whole Diocese of Rochester, specifically how allowing two males to attend a Junior Prom dance as a couple on a date:

    1) helps all of us see the light of hope and brings hope to others;
    2) helps protect creation;
    3) helps protect every man and every woman;
    4) helps all of us look upon anyone in particular with tenderness and love.

    McQuaid Jesuit High School must explain to all of the above how allowing two males to attend a Junior Prom dance as a couple on a date:

    1) helps us to confront our own fears about homosexuality;
    2) helps us to curb the humor and discrimination that offends.

    Is McQuaid helping this male couple experience self-acceptance without society bringing additional prejudicial treatment?

    Doesn’t McQuaid High School need to demonstrate that allowing two males to come to a dance as a couple on a date nourishes the boys with friendship,[brotherhood] which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development; and that this friendship nourishing will thrive out side of sexual involvement?

    It seems apparent that the burden of proof is upon McQuaid Jesuit High School to demonstrate that refusing two teenage boys to attend a dance as a couple on a date is a form of injustice, oppression, or violence against them.

    For those of us committed to embrace the gifts of sanctifying grace and the hope of eternal life within the Catholic Church, it seems most appropriate for McQuaid and its official representatives and spokesmen to establish that:

    1) the school has not succumbed to pressure to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered;
    2) the school is not guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person; a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual;
    3) the school has not succumbed to the tactic used to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

    Perhaps McQuaid High School would benefit from doing more research.

    See OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE REVISED TEXT OF
    ALWAYS OUR CHILDREN
    Fr. John Harvey, OSFS
    http://www.couragerc.net/Articles,_Homilies,_and_Talks/AOC_Revised.pdf

  136. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    I emailed my above comment (March 30, 2013 at 12:56 PM) to the Very Reverend David S. Ciancimino, S.J. Provincial, NY Province of the Society of Jesus at nykprov@nysj.org

    Hopefully he will respond with thought provoking answers.

    Perhaps McQuaid will relent.

    In any event, we will strive to know, love and serve the Lord; loving God with all of our hearts, souls, minds and strength and loving our neighbors as ourselves.

    Christ is Risen. Christ is Risen indeed.
    Happy Easter

  137. avatar DanielKane says:

    It is licit to discriminate between dissimilar things and intentions. Boy + Boy does not equal boy + girl. As stated earlier, dating is a legitimate prelude to courtship and marriage and ultimately a sexual relationship. All of which is legitimately impossible for the homosexual person. Acts of sodomy are not unitative or life-giving. They are never procreative even in the iconic sense. It is an act of charity to forbid from a person that which it is impossible to possess. It is reasonable to NOT hire an alcoholic to tend a bar. It is reasonable to not give a driver’s license to a blind man. It is reasonable to limit marriage to a man and a woman because this model has stood the test of time. Anything else is a experiment, especially as it pertains to children.

    Further, if love and commitment are the only criteria, then I could marry my sister if we lose our spouses. We love each other and are committed to each other and will care for each other until death. We can co-mingle our estates to our mutual benefit. Children (if you presume that we are over 50) are out of the question so no reproductive worries. Likewise, using the same criteria, sons can marry mothers for the same intention – love and commitment.

    There is no right to attend a prom. There is also no right to have a coupling that is theologically and ontologically impossible recognized and approved of by a Catholic school. It is not discriminatory to act and state that which has been obvious to every human era known to history. The only common bond between ancient China, the Eskimo nation the Roman Empire and us is the discriminatory notion pre-existant of religion and nations, that it takes a male and female to be married.

    McQuaid is facilitating a near occasion of sin and a certain occasion of scandal. Part of the mission of Catholic education is the moral and spiritual formation of children – all children regardless of creed or inclination.

    The dating of same sex children DOES NOT facilitate the development of their self-mastery and in fact, it is just the opposite; it allows them to begin to be dominated by passions that are intrinsicly evil, undignified and mortally sinful. These passions, which may predate birth, are oriented towards a perverted unity are as disordered as any defect of person, without regard to causality. It may not be their “fault” that they feel this way, but it is their responsibility if they act that way.

  138. avatar DanielKane says:

    And to CRAIGMAN – you are not going to hell. You have already discerned your sin and my Divine Mercy intention (the novena began yesterday)is for you. Hell is not your intended destiny, heaven is. Your sins, which you realize yourself are grave and worthy of hell ARE CERTAINLY NO WORSE than mine. I pray that you at least have the grace of final repentance and die in the Communion of Jesus Christ who just yesterday we recalled his death for you. Beginning today, I will never forget you before the Eucharist. All I can say is Come Home for Easter. You are no worse than the rest of us and are not beyond the mercy and love of Christ.

    Some would say that you are not welcome. Bull! You are not the sum of your sins, you are the brother of the King of Kings who has reserved you a seat at his table tomorrow.

  139. avatar Dominick Anthony Zarcone says:

    Welcome back to CF, DanielKane.

    And thank you for both your comments
    and commitment to pray for our brother.

    Craigman, Happy Easter.

  140. avatar spiro spero says:

    Maybe I haven’t kept up with the times. You know, that going to a prom is now like going to a movie. Time was, proms were about…dancing. Give Fr. Salmon all the credit due his “not judging” this male duo, but I wonder how many McQuaid guys suggest to their buddies, “Hey, it’s the weekend. Let’s go…dancing. You know, me and you.” And then there are the young ladies of the school. While their parents certainly aren’t sending them off on an engagement soiree, methinks they’re buying gowns, hairstyling, dinner etc. for something other than those girls do any ol’ weekend with their girlfriends.

    C’mon, Fr. Salmon. A little less “dancing” and a little more honest thinking.

  141. avatar BigE says:

    @Richard Thomas,
    You don’t tolerate sin? How do you manage that in a world filled with nothing but sinners?

  142. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Well. I won’t tolerate sin if it will directly affect the lives of those innocent beings.. And that means that if these 2 homosexuals want to go to a dance as a date at a Catholic school, they cannot and will not. Plain and simple. You are so concerned about the “rights of the “culprits” and show little if any concern for those innocent souls affected by such behavior. Rights are not rights if they lead to the ruination or the degredation of society. We have forgotten that principle and now tolerate any behavior and put more emphysis on the individual “rights” and little about fostering the common good of society. As a matter of fact, you seem to allow any type of behavior no matter how it affects others.

  143. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    And if I can do something to prevent sinful conduct and the terrible effect it has on others, it is my duty to safeguard the innocent whenever I can. That’s charity.

  144. avatar Bruce says:

    E, Catholics separate persons from acts. Therefore we love all people (sinners – because all are) but we hate sin. You are not what you do. You are what you are. That is how we can forgive and love people who commit murder or rape or theft. The same is true of those who commit sexual sin. We love them but we hate the sin that is destroying their bodies and souls.

    This is Catholicism 101. If you don’t hate sin and instead tolerate it, you’re not a Christian.

  145. avatar Bruce says:

    @craigman: That was bizarre. Let us break it down.

    craigman said “Sex is about pleasure”

    No, it is not. The rest of what you wrote is moot, since you and I have ideas about what it means to be a human being and the purpose of sexuality that are radically and irreconcilably opposed to one another. If you are truly interested in learning what we understand as true regarding human beings and sexuality – interested with an open mind – I will gladly share it with you. If, however, you are not interested in the slightest, and have a closed mind regarding any anthropology other than your own, then I shall not waste my time casting my pearls before swine.

    So the ball is in your court. Will you be open-minded and hear what we have to say, or will you shut the door. Either way, I love you and am praying for you to come to the truth. I was a worse sinner than you, after all. If I can come home, you can do so easily.

    God bless.

  146. avatar Hopefull says:

    Until Fr. Salmon is gone, the best recourse for alumni is to give NOTHING — with a note that they will be back when he is gone. Do the alumni have that much courage? We’ll see. But it did make a difference at Notre Dame.

    Parents have to re-examine if their children should be going there. What IS the annual, unsupplemented, tuition anyway?

    Discipline of Fr. Salmon is of course called for, but whether or not that happens, he should be done at McQuaid, and not a candidate for any position in the Catholic School System. He has betrayed what McQuaid stands for. I have already heard a McQ car sticker being called “McQueer,” sorry to say. But I repeat it for the sake of those who need to address the not-so-hard decision that needs to be made asap.

    On this site now, which such a wonderful number of responses, my opinion is that we need to spend less time on the stubborn “refused to be catechized” remarks of people like “Pat” and more time on writing to those in power, speaking with media to distance ourselves as Catholics from the goings-on at McQ, and in prayer for the kids affected.

  147. avatar Ron says:

    Hopefull – just to avoid confusion, McQuaid is a private independent school, not part of the diocesan Catholic school system. If Father Salmon moves it would be to another Jesuit school in some other diocese.

  148. avatar Hopefull says:

    Hi Ron,
    Thank you for clarifying. Yes, I did know that McQ is Jesuit and not part of the diocesean school system, but I thought it billed itself as “Catholic.” Don’t parents who send their children there think they are sending them for a “Catholic Education?” In my opinion he shouldn’t be in any Catholic school in this diocese or elsewhere. Actually, I don’t think he should be exposed to young minds at all. I would think that the diocese would have some influence against immoral teaching. Not so?

  149. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    I hope I am proved wrong but I doubt there are enough parents who would refuse to donate, take their kids out of school, or protest in other ways. I worry that too many parents look on McQuaid and other Catholic schools as simply a means of obtaining a good secular education. It’s analogous to perents forcing their daughter to have an abortion because having the baby would interfere with her education.

    I hope that enough parents get together and sponssor an alternative prom in the area. If enough parents and kids are in on this, it is a way to send a message to Fr.Salmon and the administration.

    Knowing the make-up of the Jesuits, I doubt letters of protest will have any effect but I want to be proved wrong.

  150. avatar Bruce says:

    If enough national embarrassment can be heaped upon this situation, eventually the “political” bishops and cardinals (not to name names) will be forced to do something or else look foolish as they fight same-sex “marriage.”

    It is a shame when we cannot force them to simply be Catholic…we have to pull political tactics of embarrassment and scandal.

    This is a fallen world.

  151. avatar Giovanni says:

    “I doubt there are enough parents who would refuse to donate, take their kids out of school”

    Richard, I would agree with you there. Especially considering the overwhelming support the laity have given to the same-sex marriage cause. Catholics have been polled as the most supportive religious group of same-sex marriage in the US.

    http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/candacechellew-hodge/4417/new_poll_shows_strong_catholic_support_for_gay_rights/

    I almost think the school would lose more support had they gone the other way… I believe, especially in the north east, we have more Clark, Bernardin, Hubbard personalities than Chaput personalities among our clergy (and laity)… I have no evidence of that other than my own experience…

  152. avatar IrondequoitMom says:

    Our son was accepted into McQuaid’s for the Fall SY 6th grade. He did extremely well on the entrance exam. Guess what- he loves Math, Lego’s, Star Wars, and there is a little more than a smidgen of him that may want to be a math-teacher priest. He’s a normal boy, who aside from some bathroom humor knows NOTHING about gay or straight. Its how it should be, and its because we have kept him away from PG movies that were made after 1988 – and cable tv for most of his life. So am I going to send my son to McQ? No. No way. I was wary of the faithfulness of this school when I started seeing McQ and “Pro-Choice NYer” bumper stickers appear on the same car. And this is a clear sign that theyve been more than just infiltrated by the culture of death.

    The very same school who was called back in 1954 to educate boys, Love Christ, and to defend against evil, has succumbed to the Devil’s temptation of glory. Worrying more about the last names on its roster, than the soul of its students. Pride, beget greed, beget the religion teachers advocating female priests beget the acceptance of sin as choice, and then sex (verb) over soul as one’s primary identity. Shame on you Father Salmon, for being the Principal that allows this. Shame on you. For if you stand firm with your wealthy gay donors, and “elightened elitests” who are no more practicing Catholics than my dog Salty, McQuaid will not endure. Shame on you for forcing this scandalous, embarrassing, and sordid issue into the homes of all those who have been trying to hold the Culture of Death at bay.

    The devil loves this – and I would laugh at the irony if my heart werent so heavy. But OMD (Oh MY Dear!) please dear God send us a Bishop that can educate these people so laden down with their pride.

  153. avatar Bruce says:

    Gionanni – the Catholics you cite are better known as “non-Catholics”

  154. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Giovanni,

    I agree.

    Irondequoit MOM: I admire you. Wish there were more parents like you.

  155. avatar Giovanni says:

    @Irondequoitmom I hope you haven’t seen many of those “Pro-Choice NYer” stickers on the same cars… that’s not good at all… *shaking my head* 🙁

  156. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Is Fr. Jack Healey still at McQuaid. He is a good priest and very solid.

  157. avatar annonymouse says:

    IrondequoitMom – wonderful post. God bless you and your family. Do let Father Salmon know. Maybe he is so prideful that he doesn’t care. Blessed Easter to you and yours.

  158. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Irondequoit Mom,

    Where did you send your son to school?

  159. avatar snowshoes says:

    Bruce, Dr. K, Diane,

    For those of us with young children getting ready for Jr. High and High School, what are the best texts for parents, and for children, on the subject of Catholic sexuality. I have read ToB, and some commentaries, but I would like a good faithful text that applies the Church’s, and by the way, Our Lord’s, teaching on how to prepare young people for adulthood, and marriage. I’m thinking of “the talk”: is there a text that outlines how to give it? Such a book would be good to have on hand to give to educators like Father Salmon. Happy Easter! God bless you for your good efforts.

  160. avatar Bruce says:

    @snowshoes: We’ve used the “Love and Life” series on Catholic sexual morality with middle to high schoolers. I’m not sure copies are available anymore, but it was an excellent framework to work from. Coleen Kelly Mast wrote it or contributed to it. http://www.sexrespect.com/about-the-love-and-life-program.html

  161. avatar DonCope says:

    I for one and sick and tired of our church leaders, Priests, Bishops and Cardinals disobeying the magisterium of the church and in so doing causing others to commit grievous sin. This latest scandal, at McQuaid high school, condoned by Fr. Solmon is just what satin wants, dissention in the church and destruction of this school’s Catholic identity, as is now the case with many so-called Catholic colleges. The agenda of the homosexual community is not to just get marriage rights or join the community in other pursuits but to flaunt their sexual life style in everyone’s face and constantly attack our way of life. This was all planned to further the cause of the homosexual agenda in our community and weaken the Catholic Church and to mock God.
    Accordingly, my family will now consider McQuaid as a secular, non-catholic institution. We are withdrawing our support including any financial support and call upon all families in the Rochester area to withhold their support until the leaders of this institution come their senses and stop this nonsense and return this school to the principals under which it was founded. Since this prom will now be a showcase for homosexuality, I also call upon all students to boycott this prom. I call upon families not to allow their daughters to attend this prom thing.

  162. avatar Mike says:

    Hopefull,

    McQuaid’s tuition for the 2013-14 academic year will be $8,500 (Grade 6), $11,650 (Grades 7-11) and $11,825 (Grade 12). Source here.

    nostalgia08,

    Fr. Costello was cleared of those charges after his accuser recanted, according to this article.

  163. avatar Ron says:

    DonCope – I like the boycott idea, but it needs to be made public. No offense to the folks here, but only a limited number of people read this blog. Even just the McQuaid decision is not widley known; I mentioned it at aa prayer group on Saturday, and they hadn’t heard about it.

  164. avatar annonymouse says:

    Ron – the board’s site owners could say better, but based on my experience, I think you would be very surprised at how many people visit this blog. I have heard CF mentioned quite regularly.

  165. avatar Dr. K says:

    No offense to the folks here, but only a limited number of people read this blog.

    Over 1,000 daily readers is nothing to sneeze at 😉

  166. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Well, Hopefully parents of McQuaid students will read this blog. Hopefully they will be inspired to take action,

  167. avatar Ron says:

    A thousand visitors is nice: Congratulations. But in a metro area of more than a million, that’s missing a lot of people. How many of those people have children going to McQuaid or have some direct contact with the school? How many come here just to see what the “right” is up to? And how many of those visitors are from outside Rochester? To get a boycott going you need a wider audience – that was my point.

  168. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    And many of the “regulars” visit several times a day. At least I do! Mea Culpa!

  169. avatar IrondequoitMom says:

    Hi Richard Thomas- our son is in 5th grade now at Archangel, so this news about McQuaid literally comes at the 11th hour before we were to sign the committment.

    In fact the irony was that I met with a Dean at the school, on Tuesday afternoon, and explained that we were very happy about McQuaid but would advocate for a bigger push on the faith aspect – have a regular mass (cant we make time for Christ at least once during the week- while engaged at School?). Plus, I mentioned that there was some gay stuff- (in my own mind, I was referring to a year or so ago, that a McQ alumni’s gay marriage was a featured announcement in the alumni letter.) But I didnt elaborate and he didnt ask what I meant, and simply informed me that Religion was a full credit course as of this year, whereas in years past it was a 1/2 credit, or 1/2 year or some such. I had no idea that this gay thing was out about the prom, etc. None. So – I for one am somewhat grateful that these self-absorbed teens wanted to “enlighten” us all – its a gift since while I was suspect regarding the gay agenda/pro-abortion agend/pro female priest agenda at McQ, with the exception of a few bumper stickers, and the alumni newsletter, I really thought this was a handful of teachers, parents etc. But to see that it has been endorsed under cover of our Beloved Holy Father, this is God’s way of removing the scales off my eyes, and placing it squarely before my husband and I. Now – there- IrondquoitMom- let me see your choice in light of this irrefutable evidence.

    God is SO Good!

    Either way- I think this can only come to the good. Yes, people are heartsick, and yes, I hate that its brought this out. But at least its clear, and the parents of current students or prospective students have all the information they need to stand for Christ. What more, as people seeking to do God’s Will can ask for?

    Thank you for the support on this blog- my husband is a frequent visitor to CF, and I am grateful for being a voice for the truth in the DoR and on all matters regarding our Beloved Church.

  170. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    I remember that years ago, there was a push by the Mercy nubs to coerce the students to sigh a petition to JP II concerning advocating birth control, woman’s ordination etc.

    Well, to make a long story short, a group of mothers, marched down to the motherhouse and “took the administration to the woodshed”! There were no more petitions. If I am out of line for mentioning one of the mother’s names, forgive me but it was Dorthy Hayes.

  171. avatar annonymouse says:

    Thank you for sharing, IrondeqoitMom. You mention “under the cover of our Beloved Holy Father” and as upset as I am with McQ’s decision, the fact that Fr. Salmon used the Pope’s words as cover is perhaps most upsetting. I don’t know Fr. Salmon, but that seemed both deceitful and cowardly to me.

    Any parent considering sending their son to McQ should pray hard and take IrondqoitMom’s words into serious consideration. The first responsibility of a Catholic parent is the eternal welfare of her children.

  172. avatar annonymouse says:

    Equally deceitful is the fact that Fr. Salmon made this announcement at the beginning of an 11-day break. I’m sure he was hoping to avoid the inevitable brouhaha, while these two boys wanted national exposure. The national media will toast this “compassionate” priest, oblivious to the damage to souls he will have done. Let us pray for Fr. Salmon.

  173. avatar militia says:

    In googling information on Fr. Salmon, I came across the story of how he had a heart attack in his office at McQuaid and was “out” for so long that he was described as having died, and that the team at Strong feared brain damage. I just thought, in all charity, that it might be worth mentioning the possibility that he does have some type of brain damage maybe not observable day to day but which manifests in judgment and under pressure. Here is the link, just click on the picture to hear more: http://www.urmc.rochester.edu/Stories/story.aspx?id=38

  174. avatar Scott W. says:

    It can see how the charitable assumption is that Fr. Salmon wrote this rot with less than full command of his faculties.

  175. avatar annonymouse says:

    I’d like to be charitable, too, but I suspect that you’re giving him too much credit.

    He knows well what he’s doing.

    He deceitfully invoked the name of Pope Francis and not-too-implicitly says that those of us who are outraged at this decision are filled with fear, while those who welcome such “advances” in Catholic moral understanding are filled with rays of light, love and tenderness.

  176. avatar Ignatius says:

    This web site has caused quite a stir on McQuaid’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/McQuaidJesuit?filter=2

    The spiritual rot there runs deep. McQuaid should no longer be considered to be a Catholic school. I dread to think what they teach their students in theology class.

  177. avatar Richard Thomas says:

    Pope Benedict is correct. Our Church will be much smaller. There seems to be a remnant that will keep the values of our faith. Too manny people have apostasized

  178. avatar Ignatius says:

    So how did the Church get into this mess? Here’s some background:

    http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/US-CathChurch_Reliance_DiscScience.pdf

    It’s rather shameful that a Jewish woman defends the Church’s teachings while our own clergy remains largely silent.

    http://www.45lines.com/secular-world/item/312-the-catholic-church-has-entered-the-political-arena

  179. avatar Ron says:

    I notice the McQuaid President has now been replaced. Did the Jesuits wait a while to do it after the homosexual/prom flap last year (just to save face)? Or does this have nothing to do with Fr. Salmon’s decision?

  180. avatar Scott W. says:

    I notice the McQuaid President has now been replaced. Did the Jesuits wait a while to do it after the homosexual/prom flap last year (just to save face)? Or does this have nothing to do with Fr. Salmon’s decision?

    Hard to say. Looks like a quiet exit on his part and the people putting the new guy in charge. Time will tell I suppose.

  181. avatar militia says:

    Even though it is a Jesuit matter, I believe a bishop has the right to act in his diocese on something that gives scandal, opposes church teaching, misuses the name Catholic, endangers the liturgy and I’m not sure what else.


-Return to main page-