LITTLE SUPPORT FROM DIOCESE IN FIGHTING MORAL ROT
by Gary L. Morella
his is a half page newspaper ad Catholics of the Altoona Johnstown Diocese
ran in the State College PA Centre Daily Times on Sunday April 11, and in the
Penn State Daily Collegian on Wednesday April 14, 1999.
The ad was deemed necessary because of the horrendous catechesis Catholics of
this diocese are being exposed to, in particular residents of Centre County
in Central PA and the Catholic population at Penn State University, as a result
of the heretical actions of clergy at the Penn State Catholic center in regard
to taking part in public demonstrations celebrating homosexual lifestyles,
co-sponsoring Christian affirmation services honoring sexual diversity,
making public statements in the local paper saying that "there are healthy
expressions of a homosexual orientation", and signing petitions celebrating
sexual perversion.
Gary L. Morella
Associate, Fellowship of Catholic Scholars
Research Mathematician, Penn State
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Catholic Response
Penn State University attempted to provide same-sex benefits for the
University and recently the State College School Board proposed a so
called "non-discrimination" policy in regard to sexual orientation. Even
though this may be well intended it opposes the unchanging Christian
teachings on morality because it fails to distinguish between just and
unjust discrimination.
"It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object
of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves
condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a
kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental
principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity o each person
must always be respected in word, in action and in law."1
The Matthew Shepard case is a deplorable disregard for human life, but
the Church reminds us.
" the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons
should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.
When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently
condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to
which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society
at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices
gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase"2
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reminds us. " Basing itself on
Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave
depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They
close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a
genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can
they be approved."3
"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies
is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered,
constitutes for most of them a trial.They must be accepted with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in
their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill
God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the
sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from
their condition." 4
``Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a
sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic
moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective
disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be
directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to
believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity
is a morally acceptable option. It is not'' 5
``Sexual orientation'' does not constitute a quality comparable to race,
ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these,
homosexual orientation is an objective disorder. There are areas in
which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into
account, for example, in the consignment of children to adoption or
foster care, in employment of teachers or coaches, and in military
recruitment.Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights
as all persons including that of not being treated in a manner which
offends their personal dignity. Among other rights, all persons have the
right to work, to housing, etc.Nevertheless, these rights are not
absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered
external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory." 6
The ``sexual orientation'' of a person is not comparable to race, sex,
age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants
attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to
others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation
or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of
homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not want
or see no reason for their sexual orientation to become public
knowledge. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment,
housing, etc. does not arise. Homosexual persons who assert their
homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior
or lifestyle to be ``either completely harmless, if not an entirely good
thing'', and hence worthy of public approval. 7
Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it is
inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward
adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations
and institutions." 8
The People of God
Texts from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
1. Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative
proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons. 1992
2. Ibid.
3. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2357
4. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2358
5. LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF
HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS October 1, 1986.
6. Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response to Legislative
proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons. 1992
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the Bishop's statement regarding Catholics fighting the moral rot
in the State College Area, in particular, the direct pipeline of same coming
from Penn State University into the community aided and abetted by the Penn
State Catholic ministry.
Sadly, it is fraught with errors, not the least of which is misquoting the
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Those who felt obliged to speak out because
of the blatant promotion of homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle did so
quoting only the Magisterium of the Church which DOES possess the whole truth.
The bishop implies that these individuals are rogues making random statements
which were totally unreferenced. Nothing could be further from the truth.
And the bishop knows it because these same individuals have respectfully
taken the time to share this information with him via oral and written
correspondence - information which he, by his statement below, totally ignored.
Nowhere in this statement is there any reference to the Catechism's and Cardinal
Ratzinger's 1986 pastoral to bishops, and his subsequent clarification in
regard to the Catholic Reponse to homosexuality as a civil right of 1992
regarding the serious consequences of not only committing a homosexual act
but being inclined to do so which is objectively disordered.
When Cardinal Ratzinger's pastoral is referenced, it is
taken out of context in that the only paragraph quoted was that saying
discrimination (meaning invidious discrimination) against homosexuals cannot
be tolerated giving the impression that the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, the highest teaching authority in the Church apart from the Pope
himself, had absolutely nothing to say about the inclination to homosexual
behavior being objectively disordered, that the living out of this inclination
to homosexual behavior is NOT an acceptable option, and about the behavior
itself being ordered to an intrinsic moral evil. These truths are conspicuously
absent. Nowhere is there any admonition to the Faithful that sin can be
JUSTLY DISCRIMINATED against!
Nowhere in the bishops statement is there any reference to the work of Fr.
John Harvey, the founder of COURAGE, a ministry to homosexuals calling them
to chastity as we are all called to same. In particular, there is absolutely
no reference to Fr. Harvey's critiques of the original version of Always Our
Children, and its revision which still has major problems. This is confirmed
by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's granting Fr. Harvey
permission to publish his criticisms. The CDF would not allow this if the
case was closed in regard to AOC having no problems.
Moreover, nowhere in the bishops statement is there any mention of the
origination of this scandal due to his priests at the Penn State Catholic
Center embracing homosexuality as a cause to be celebrated following the Penn
State lead. Furthermore, there is no mention of the existence of Apostolos
Suos which clearly states that documents like AOC have no authority whatsoever
in a binding sense for the Faithful.
It is sad that what we have seen from our bishop is more obfuscation of
Catholic teaching when our diocese is crying out for a clear, Catholic voice
to stand up for Christ and His Church. The Church talks about "objective
disorders" for very good reasons because that is exactly what we're dealing
with here. Most certainly the Church welcomes the sinner but the Church hates
the sin. You do not say to an alcoholic we love you, and we also love your
your alcoholism which is killing you. Moreover, you would not encourage
this individual that is was OK to be inclined to such a disorder leading only
to misery. You would do everything in your power to get him to see that
the direction in which he is heading leads to nowhere.
And yet, this is exactly what we're being told in regard to homosexuality
by totally ignoring the fact that the inclination to this lifestyle is
objectively disordered. There is no "nice" way to couch this phrase anymore
then there is a substitute for partial birth infanticide which some call
"a form of late term abortion", or "dilation and extraction."
Catholics are entitled to authentic catechesis on the part of their clergy,
especially their bishop. There are enough lies to go around in the secular
world without adding to the problem. And that's what is happening in State
College, PA in the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, Catholics are adding to
the problem instead of witnessing to the Faith.
I've attached a letter which I sent to the diocese regarding a very problematic
AIDS curricula which many parents at a parish in State College had no knowledge
of. As of this date 5-21-99 there has been no response.
Gary L. Morella
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PASTORAL STATEMENT
Homosexuality and the Roman Catholic Church
Most Rev. Joseph V. Adamec
Bishop of Altoona-Johnstown
May 17, 1999
MY HEART CRIES OUT when it beholds scenes like the
recent one at Saint Patricks Cathedral in New York City. That
scene was the inter-religious prayer service prior to the
conferral of the Ellis Island Medal of Honor this past May 8.
There, in the sanctuary, ten ministers of various traditions
led us in prayer and reflection. Eight of the ten were
Christian. And, I could not help but wonder how Gods people
could have gotten to this state of division.
One needs only to reflect on history in order to get an
answer. There, one discovers that, more times than not,
divisions have occurred over the perception that one had a
greater fullness of the truth than the other. It should not
be surprising to find that disagreements in the Church began
early in its history. One of Satans most effective ploys is
to sow dissension within the Body of Christ.
In one portion of this Diocesan Church, Catholic
Christians have taken out ads and written letters to the
editor in what appears to be a disagreement among them. It is
unfortunate that the various accusations have been carried
into the public forum. This not only is inappropriate in
accord with our Churchs tradition but is the cause of
scandal, as well. Not one of us can claim to have the whole
truth, for we are pilgrims on journey. The Church as Gods
Household, however, can and does. There would be no
dissension and there could be no division if we all accepted
the whole truth rather than fragment it to serve our own
perspectives.
The issue has to do with sexual life style and an
appropriate response on the part of the Church. Actually,
they are separate issues. Yet, reality often commingles
issues and even confuses them.
Paragraphs 2357, 2358, and 2359 of the Catechism of the
Catholic Church provide all the guidance that is needed in
regard to this matter. In that first paragraph, the Catechism
says the following: Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which
presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,
tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered. As is stated there, under no
circumstances can they be approved. Please note that it is
speaking of acts.
Persons who identify themselves as gay or lesbian often
give the message that they themselves act out or support the
right of others to act out in a sexual manner with
individuals of their own sex. Roman Catholics may not ever
consider such activity appropriate. This we base on grounds
that are scriptural, moral, and natural. Consequently, there
do not exist the rights as associated with groups whose
identity is based on scriptural, moral, or natural grounds
(such as religion, ethnicity, race, or family). There do
exist, however, the rights associated with a persons dignity
as having been created by God.
The second paragraph speaks of our response to such
individuals. It recognizes that they do not choose their
homosexual condition. And, it reminds us that they must be
accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. The
Churchs teaching is that every sign of unjust discrimination
in their regard should be avoided. They, too, are called to
fulfill Gods will in their lives. The Catechism takes note of
the fact that the number of men and women who have a
homosexual orientation is not negligible.
The third paragraph challenges persons of homosexual
orientation to the same Christian perfection to which all of
us are called. They have the right to receive pastoral care
and to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. In
that way, they are to be assisted in striving to live a
chaste life.
It is the right of the Church to teach through its
Bishops. The Bishops have a duty to do so, in union with the
Bishop of Rome, the Pope. That is the reason why the Bishops
of the United States issued, through one of their committees,
a teaching in regard to homosexuality. Always Our Children: A
Pastoral Message to Parents of Homosexual Children and
Suggestions for Pastoral Ministers is, in its clarified
version, confirmed to be without error by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith and is consistent with its own
document on the subject. It would be well for those in the
current public discussion to read that document and to
reflect on its authentic teaching. Rejecting its teaching,
and that of the Bishops, would be indicative of choosing a
particular agenda rather than accepting the Churchs teaching
in its entirety.
Among other things, the Bishops pastoral message
reminds us that there is no contradiction between accepting
the full truth of Gods revelation about the dignity of the
human person and the meaning of human sexuality. Actually, we
may not deny one in favor of the other. Both are part and
parcel of the Churchs teaching.
All that I have said above should be quite clear. No
doubt, it is also acceptable to all good-intentioned members
of the Roman Catholic Church. It is when we question the
intent of others that we run the risk of compromising our
witness to the truth. Also, the misunderstanding of certain
terms as to their meaning can, and all too often does, cause
hurt and even dissension. Cardinal George Basil Humes counsel
may be helpful in this regard.
He speaks of the fact that certain terminology sounds
harsh in English. It is important to remember that the Church
needs to be precise in its documents, using words that can be
difficult to translate in accord with the particular nuance
intended. Objective disorder, as found in the Catechism of
the Catholic Church, sounds harsh on the part of a loving
Church to individuals who find themselves in a homosexual
orientation. Therefore, it is good to remember that the term
belongs to the vocabulary of traditional Catholic moral
theology and philosophy and is used to describe an
inclination which is a departure from what is generally
regarded as the norm. The Cardinal explains what all Catholic
Christians should already know and accept: a homosexual
person is neither morally good nor morally bad, it is
homosexual genital acts that are morally wrong.
Cardinal Humes Note on Church Teaching Concerning
Homosexual People is another document that is helpful in
understanding the whole of the Churchs teaching on
homosexuality. It would be well for those in the current
public discussion to read that statement, as well.
Violence, threats, and disrespect have no place in a
Christians life. They may never be a part of the process of
defending truth and combating error. The Congregation for the
Doctrine of Faiths 1986 letter to us Bishops states it very
clearly.
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and
are the object of violence in speech or in action. Such
treatment deserves condemnation from the Churchs pastors
wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for
others, which endangers the most fundamental principles of a
healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must
always be respected in word, in action and in law (PC,10).
This dual aspect of a single teaching presents a unique
challenge to pastoral ministers, be they ordained or not. It
is the mission of Christ and his Church (and, therefore,
theirs) to teach Gods intent for those whom He brought into
being and loves. It is the mission of Christ and his Church
(and, therefore, theirs) to reach out in understanding and
forgiveness, with respect and without violence. When such
witness is given authentically, it frequently gets
misinterpreted.
Public dissension has never served the Church well. The
Churchs teachings are clear. Those who have the right and the
duty to interpret those teachings have done so. Individual
interpretations, more often than not, serve a personal agenda
and not the overall mission of Christ and his Church. Why
should not my heart cry out again as I reflect on the current
exchange of public statements.
In regard to that situation and to make matters as
clear as I, the Bishop of this Diocesan Church, can make
them, I state the following:
1. The Roman Catholic Church considers homosexual acts wrong.
This the Church holds, based on an understanding of Christs
teaching as handed down to us by his Apostles and their
successors (Rom 1:26-27).
2. At the same time, the Church understands that there are those
who find themselves with homosexual tendencies that appear
not to be deliberately chosen by the individual.
3. A homosexual person is to receive pastoral care in the same
way and to the same degree as any other member of the Church.
Through such care, he or she is encouraged and sustained in
striving for Christian perfection.
4. In imitation of Christ and as an expression of his love, the
faith community is to accept homosexual persons with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. Violence (attitudinal, verbal,
or physical) can never be an option. When it occurs, it is to
be condemned by those who pastor in the Church. That does not
mean that the Church is changing Christs teaching and
approving inappropriate life styles.
5. In accord with the Churchs teaching, partners of the same sex
living together cannot be considered in the same light as a
heterosexual married couple, nor should one speak of the same
rights and benefits.
6. All of us find ourselves in need of salvation. As sinners and
in debt to the Lord, we are called upon to be forgiving of
each other. In this way, we can hope for Gods love and
forgiveness in our own lives [Mt 18:21-35]. Such loving
forgiveness is the very mission of the Church.
Some would claim that I have kept silent in the midst of the
debate. I have not. There abound enough statements in which I have
played a part as a Bishop of the Church. That includes the Catechism
of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, I issue this pastoral statement
with the hope that the faithful of our Diocesan Church will find in it
guidance for their journey into the Reign of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Morella
P.O. Box 719
Lemont, PA 16851
4/26/99
Sr. Mark Plescher, C.S.A.
Assist. Dir. Ed.
Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown,
Johnstown Ed Office
126 A Logan Blvd
Hollidaysburg, PA 16648
Dear Sr. Plescher:
By accident I found out that there was a AIDS curricula in our Catholic schools
mandated by the diocese of Altoona-Johnstown. This information came from
friends who have children in Catholic schools in Altoona and Bellefonte PA.
This piqued my interest as I am one of two Catholic representatives on a local
citizens group attempting to monitor similar activities in the public schools
where there is a strong belief that parental rights are being usurped.
Over a period of two hours I read the full so-called AIDS curricula in detail.
I took notes and will share them with you. At the outset I will tell you
unequivocally that I could not recommend to any Catholic parent that they
allow their children to be exposed to this program as I understood it for
the reasons given below. In particular, you will understand where I'm coming
from by examining the attachments as Catholic parents are fighting a culture
war for the souls of their children.
First of all, it is my contention that the only thing my son in third grade
needs to know about AIDS and, for that matter, the only thing ANY child needs
to know about AIDS is that if you obey the laws of God, your probability of
getting same is infinitesimal! There is no need, I repeat, no need to go
into extraordinary explicit sexual detail involving homosexuality to teach
this fact as is the bogus claim of AIDS curricula throughout the country to
include what I read in the diocesan mandated program.
I was told by that these materials are age appropriate. It is my contention
that the only people capable of making such judgments for their children are
their parents. I will let the reader decide if "age appropriate" applies here.
Some of the goals which I saw in my two hour examination of this K-12 curricula
follow:
K - know how it feels to be sick,
1 - weigh safe and dangerous choices,
2 - identify choices as good or bad
3 - refuse risky or dangerous behaviors,
4 - deal with peer pressure,
5 - say no to illegal drugs,
6 - identify causes of AIDS
The following statement was made:
"Homosexuality is neither the cause of HIV/AIDS nor a cause for disrespect."
It is reinforced throughout the curricula that AIDS is not a punishment from
God. How can we be so sure of that? Aren't there consequences for our actions
anymore? In the context of getting burned when we get too close to a stove,
isn't God trying to tell us that recognizing right from wrong will protect
us physically as well as spiritually given the truth of the Natural Law written
on the hearts of men? Isn't He trying to show us that there are dire
consequences for ignoring His laws given to us out of unconditional love for
our own physical and spiritual well-being?
Repeatedly in this curricula AIDS is not referenced as a homosexual disease.
This is true only in so far as AIDS is prevalent in the heterosexual community
in greater numbers because they are greater numbers of heterosexuals than
homosexuals. The CDC control stats clearly show that in terms of relative
populations, HIV/AIDS occurs by well over 2-1 in the homosexual community.
The above statement also makes no distinction between a cause of disrespect
for the person and a cause of disrespect for the behavior which is demanded
if one is to avoid the occasions of sin - something that should be paramount
in Catholic school curricula.
The following information is provided in reference to a letter from a Mr.
Rick Bryant, who identified himself as president of the local AIDS Project,
which appeared in the State College PA Centre Daily Times which implied that
homosexuals do not make up the predominant category of those afflicted with
AIDS/HIV - a contention repeatedly reinforced by the AIDS curricula in our
Catholic schools.
I would recommend reading a book entitled HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF
TRUTH by Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. which should carry the warning "caution,
this book may be hazardous to the psyche of the politically correct." Dr.
Satinover commits an unpardonable sin by writing an objective, unemotional
report on homosexuality which deals with cold, hard, incontrovertible facts.
The book represents current research on AIDS/HIV. "One out of a thousand
adult Americans is now infected with HIV. This is 0.1 percent of the adult
population. Because roughly half the population is male and 2.8% of all males
are homosexual, 1.4% of the adult population consists of homosexual males,
which account for about 30% of all AIDS cases. Thus the likelihood of a
randomly selected heterosexual man or woman being infected with AIDS is
roughly 7 in 10,000 (0.07%).
Dr. Satinover goes on "But shockingly and frighteningly, yet consistent with
the concentration of AIDS cases among high-risk populations, epidemiologists
estimate that 30% of all twenty-year old homosexual males will be HIV-positive
or dead of AIDS by the time they are thirty. This means that the incidence of
AIDS among twenty- to thirty-year old homosexual men is roughly 430 times
greater than among the heterosexual population at large."
Continuing, Dr. Satinover states "It is also estimated that a single act of
unprotected intercourse (not taking into account whether it is homosexual or
heterosexual, anal or vaginal) with a known-to-be-infected male carries with it
a transmission risk of roughly 1 in 500. If we multiply this rough measure of
the transmissibility of the AIDS virus by the average risk of encountering an
HIV-positive heterosexual, this means that in the absence of any information
about one's partner's HIV status, age, demographic group, and so on, a single
act of heterosexual intercourse of any type carries with it an average risk of
roughly 1 in 715,000 (calculated by 7 in 10,000 x 1 in 500 = 7 in 5,000,000).
In fact it must be less, as acts of heterosexual intercourse are by far mostly
vaginal, and the 1 in 500 transmissibility figure includes acts of anal
intercourse as well. Of course, if the partner is a known IV-drug abuser or
prostitute, for example, the risk is much greater. But a single act of
unprotected intercourse with a twenty- to thirty-year old male homosexual
carries with it a transmission risk of roughly 1 in 165."
Dr. Satinover concludes "It is important under all circumstances to know or
estimate the likelihood of one's partner being infected in a heterosexual
encounter. But in homosexual encounters, this knowledge - and the willingness
to act on it - is of life saving statistical importance. The sequence of life
saving steps would include the following, for both partners:
1. Being tested for HIV
2. Knowing the test results
3. Communicating the test results to one's partner(s)
4. If infected, refraining from knowingly engaging in sex with an
uninfected partner
5. If not infected, refraining from knowingly engaging in sex with an
infected partner.
But here, too, as with the degree of successful risk-reduction through avoiding
unprotected anal intercourse, the insufficient regularity with which
homosexuals take these steps is startling and grim. Indeed, a body of opinion
has recently arisen in the scientific literature arguing that the benefit
(pleasure) of high risk sex outweighs its risk (death)."
It is to be noted that all of the above statements are heavily referenced in
Dr. Satinover's excellent book.
I will conclude with the observation that, whether we use statistics from the
World Health Organization or those pertaining solely to the U.S., an
irrefutable fact is that an inordinate number of homosexuals contract AIDS or
HIV compared to the heterosexual population. I would conjecture that the
statistics in Satinover's book regarding 30% of cases occurring in 1.4% of the
homosexual adult male population would be similar for any comparable sample
of homosexuals/heterosexuals worldwide exclusive of some third world countries,
i.e., the risk to homosexuals would be upwards of 400 times greater than among
heterosexuals at large. In such places as sub-Saharan Africa, where
promiscuity is the cultural norm across much of the populations with a high
intersection of homosexual and nonhomosexual circles, the HIV virus has spread
uniformly. Gay activists like to talk in terms of these specialized "third
world statistics" in order to obscure the powerful statistical connection
between AIDS and homosexuality by emphasizing the truth that the
virus itself does not "seek" homosexuals, can infect anyone, and has already
infected many other people. While it may be the case that the majority of
people infected with AIDS worldwide might not be homosexual, due mainly to the
fact that male homosexuals consists of such a small fraction of the population,
nevertheless, when most people think of homosexuality as risky, they think of
AIDS because the statistical association is so self-evident. The statistics
given in the Satinover book and in the most recent issue of the HIV/AIDS
Surveillance Report below prove the truth of this self-evident association.
Has the politicized campaign against AIDS been successful in halting the spread
of this disease? In Europe, Asia, and the United States, AIDS has not exploded
into the population at large as many feared it would, as it has in parts of
Africa. Satinover suggests "Perhaps this is due to the success of 'safe-'
later renamed 'safer-' sex campaigns that started in homosexual communities."
He goes on to report "But a recently published, widely respected survey on
the sexual practices of Americans, SEX IN AMERICA, shows otherwise. On the one
hand, the researchers point our that AIDS is likely to remain contained within
certain groups and is not likely to spread to the population at large. This
containment, they discovered, is rooted in the traditionalism, fidelity,
caution, and restraint observed by the great majority of Americans when it
comes to sex. On the other hand, the politicized form of intervention has not
been nearly successful enough among homosexuals. Indeed, the homosexual
community has paid the highest price. Fifteen years into the epidemic the
American Psychiatric Association Press reports that '30% of all 20-year-old gay
men will be HIV positive or dead of AIDS by the time they are age 30' because
they are resuming 'unsafe sex' anyway."
Satinover's summary is given in the form of twelve concluding propositions of
which a few will be summarized here.
"Because deeply engraved behaviors are so difficult to modify, homosexuals,
like all people, have two choices: to capitulate to the behavior and its
consequences or to depend on others, and on God, for help."
"Secular programs that modify homosexual behavior are more numerous and more
effective than popular opinion is led to believe."
"Spiritual programs that lead people into dependency on God, and support them
there, are even more effective. The best of these integrate into their
spiritual approach the best that is offered by the secular approaches as well."
"The modern change in opinion concerning homosexuality, though presented as a
scientific advance, is contradicted rather than supported by science. It is a
transformation in public morals consistent with widespread abandonment of the
Judeo-Christian ethic upon which our civilization is based. Though hailed as
'progress,' it is really a reversion to ancient pagan practices supported by a
modern restatement of gnostic moral relativism."
"For individual homosexuals, for each of us in our own circle of brokenness, as
well as for our civilization as a whole, the choices today are as clear as they
were for the Jewish nation living amidst their pagan neighbors centuries ago:
'This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set
before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you
and your children may live and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to
His voice, and hold fast to Him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give
you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers.'"
Deuteronomy 30:19-20
"We must make a choice: shall we determine good and evil for ourselves -
viewing the ancient serpent either as an irrelevant fable from the childhood of
our race or as the great messenger of consciousness-raising - or shall we stand
on a word outside ourselves, a word from the One between Whose first word of
creation and last word of judgment we live our fleeting lives?"
Finally, FYI, it was the office of Mr. Bryant that gave us that blasphemous
condom ad in the CDT which blatantly promoted the "virtues" of "men having sex
with men" in a "positively erotic workshop" with a backdrop of the CREATION
from the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican showing God the Father handing a condom
to Adam. This information was supplied to me in a reply to my letter of
protest to Governor Ridge, Senator Corman, and Representative Rudy.
Specifically, the PA Health department told me that the ad was local to the
State College office and that considerations for the feelings of the
constituents would be taken into account in the future before a similar attempt
to target at-risk groups for dissemination of AIDS info. It is the opinion
of many in this community that the AIDS Project could have done this without
offending the sensibilities of a large portion of the population.
The following is an irrefutable fact from HIV/AIDS Surveillance Reports. This
quote was taken from the U.S. HIV and AIDS Cases Reported Through December 1995
Year-End Edition Vol. 7, No. 2
The results are similar for subsequent reports.
"Men who have sex with men continue to represent the largest number and
proportion of persons estimated to have AIDS."
In another section of the Catholic AIDS curricula I found the following goals:
K - God loves all people sick and well to include showing positive signs of
of affection and affirmation,
1 - Jesus cares for the sick, how to identify who can be trusted, (a question
asked to 1st graders is "name significant adults with whom you can share
secrets and important information"). My reaction to this is why should
my child be sharing any secrets with anyone other than their parents? The
word "parent" is significantly missing from the question for these children.
2 - meaning of contagious, learn how germs are spread,
3 - AIDS virus not caught through child activities, rules promote health and
safety,
4 - Three ways child can get AIDS, risks in using unsterile needles,
5 - body's immune system and its destruction by AIDS virus,
6 - Four ways AIDS virus is transmitted, basic/Scripture/Church teaching on
chastity, sexual intercourse, and homosexuality,
7 - introduction of sensitive terminology,
8 - morality and risks involved in homosexual behavior and in using condoms,
9 - more info on four ways to be infected by AIDS virus,
10 - distinction between homosexual orientation/activities, morality and risk
involved with oral and anal sex,
11 - Church documents related to HIV/AIDS,
12 - replace myths re HIV/AIDS with facts.
My first reaction to the above is whatever happened to a latent period of
innocence for our youth? Why do they have to be exposed to the evils of the
world when all that is required is the example set by their parents, their
primary teachers, that living by God's laws is the blueprint not only for
salvation for eternity but also for physical well-being recognizing the truth
of the Natural Law rooted in the Decalogue.
In reference to Church teaching, the only solid refs that I saw in the
bibliography presented were Cardinal Ratzinger's pastoral and something from
William Bennett. Anytime Cardinal Ratzinger's pastoral was referenced, it
was taken out of context in that the only paragraph quoted was that saying
discrimination (meaning invidious discrimination) against homosexuals cannot
be tolerated giving the impression that the Congregation for the Doctrine of
the Faith, the highest teaching authority in the Church apart from the Pope
himself, had absolutely nothing to say about the inclination to homosexual
behavior being objectively disordered, that the living out of this inclination
to homosexual behavior is NOT an acceptable option, and about the behavior
itself being ordered to an intrinsic moral evil. These truths are conspicuously
absent. Nowhere is there any admonition to the Faithful that sin can be
JUSTLY DISCRIMINATED against! In contrast there were plenty of refs from the
National Catholic Education Association, the same group that is opposing the
implemenation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae, the directive from Rome insuring that
our Catholic schools and universities are Catholic in more than name only as a
remedy to the apostasy resulting from the bastardization of Catholic doctrine
by dissenting theologians like Richard McBrien, who interestingly enough, is
also referenced in the Catholic AIDS curricula.
The introduction of any "sensitive terminology" should be the responsibility
of the parent not the school. And why do I want my child exposed to using
condoms or any of the horrendous sex-ed being fostered by SIECUS in a Catholic
school?
Item 10 above is incredible. Would you want your son or daughter to discuss
in any grade the risks involved with oral and anal sex? Again, any such
discussion if required, and it should not be if parents are setting a Catholic
example, is reserved for the privacy of the home. This item is unconscionable
to me.
Given the above observations, I as a Catholic layman cannot be confident that
Church documents related to HIV/AIDS and the replacement of myths re same
will be handled correctly. Again, the school is not the educator here; the
parent is per the pontifical Council for the Family's recent document on human
sexuality.
I noted throughout the entire examination of the curricula that the term sexual
orientation is used as if it were fact not fiction, the latter being held by
NARTH, the National Association of Research and Therapy for Homosexuality.
The term "sexual orientation" implies an innateness, a finality that
just isn't there in regard to heterosexuals who have homosexual attractions,
a better descriptor per NARTH, the National Association for Research and
Therapy of Homosexuality, and Fr. John Harvey, the founder of COURAGE, a
Catholic outreach to homosexuals. (Please reference attachments.)
I also noted in the curricula that students are to show sensitivity to those
with same sex attractions. What does this mean? Does this mean acquiescing
into the lie of Always Our Children that those inclined to sin must be left
alone? (Please reference attachments re well known problems with Always Our
Children.)
The following disturbing quote was observed.
"What is communicated in educational settings or in families can profoundly
affect individual students who are struggling to integrate their sexuality."
What the heck does that mean, "struggling to integrate their sexuality?" Any
struggles along this line needs the loving advice of parents and schools that
students should be inclined to objectively "ordered" as opposed to "disordered"
acts.
Also noted this quote in the same context.
"All young people need to find compassion, understanding, and acceptance of
themselves as persons as they search for their sexual integration and its
morally responsible expression."
This statement is dangerously close to saying that if homosexuality is OK for
you, it's OK for me. That is not what the Catholic Church is charging the
Faithful to say. We are not called to be compassionate for sin. We are not
called to do nothing when we see young people being inclined to sin.
More goals for grades follow:
2 - articulate the morality of drug use and risks involved for unsterilized
needles,
3 - discuss Christian response and health hazards related to any
experimentation with sex or drugs,
- identify four ways AIDS virus is transmitted or prevented,
I don't know about you but it will be a cold day in a place many in the Church
today no longer believe exists before I will allow my son to be exposed to
this destruction of his innocence at an age that he certainly doesn't need
to know about drug use or sex experimentation.
What is sadly lacking in this program is the admonishment to "go and sin no
more". God had compassion for the sinners, but HE had only HATRED for the sins
putting them at risk of being separated from Him for eternity. That's what
missing in the watered down version of Catholicism many are being subjected
to today.
It is a LIE to say that you can't teach about AIDS without going into
explicit detail regarding homosexuality, e.g, oral genital and anal sex.
The cure for AIDS as for any plethora of STDS is simple, obedience to the
laws of God and abstention from sexual activity until monogamous, heterosexual
marriage. It's sad that the adjective "heterosexual" must be used here but
such is the work of the devil! And that's all our children need to know.
Sincerely,
Gary L. Morella
Research Mathematician Penn State University