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 Patrick’s
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 Church’s
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 Hume’s 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 Church’s 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 Christ’s 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 Christ’s teaching and approving inappropriate
life styles.
5. In accord with the Church’s 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 non-homosexual 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 implementation 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