Tuesday, April 08, 2014

Sister Laurel Says Spanking The Monkey Makes You Gay ... Then She Was Asked To Stop Talking

One day last week, up in North Carolina, at Charlotte Catholic High School, Sister Jane Dominic Laurel was giving a lecture on masculinity and femininity which turned into a diatribe against homosexuality, featuring all sorts of out-dated, inane, unproven stereotypes about gay men and women. Laurel told the students at the mandatory assembly that masturbation turns young boys gay; having an absent father turns young boys gay; she claimed  more young women are engaging in oral sex—a deviant sex act “imported from homosexual culture.” That is not a part of the natural love shared by a man and woman.

Apparently Sister Laurel was jetted in from the 1950s to give her lecture, but a lot of folks aren’t laughing. In fact, some parents of students at the school — and keep in mind it’s a Catholic school and the Catholic Church is not known for its progressive views on homosexuality — dmended an apology from the school; and, in a separate move, 64 students and 86 alumni have signed letters with a similar request which was sent to school officials; the letters said, in part:
“Last week’s presentation represents a betrayal of trust. Your responsibility to provide nurturing and informative education to the students of Charlotte Catholic was shrugged off. Your mission to truthfully convey the teachings of the Church — the teachings of love, compassion, and humility — was replaced by teachings of hate and intolerance.”
According to the petition, Sister Laurel told students that “people are gay because they have an absent father figure, and therefore they have not received the masculinity they should have from their father,” and then cited another out-dated unproven statistic that states “gay men have had either over 500 or 1000 sexual partners.”

A gay Charlotte Catholic student, who withheld his name because he is not fully out at school or home, also wants an apology:
“I would like them to issue a formal apology to the students and to the parents and alumni. I want them to know how upset everyone is and for them to acknowledge that.”
He further explained that Sister Laurel told the assembly that gay people are unfit to be parents because they abuse children:
“She brought up an abusive Australian couple that was gay ... portraying to us that gay people are unfit parents.”
Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, a professor at Aquinas College in Nashville, apparently has a long history of extremist anti-LGBT views, and has previously partnered with the Ruth Institute — formerly funded by the National organization for Marriage [NOM] — to lecture on the dangers of same-sex marriage. And her boss, Sister Mary Sarah Galbraith, president of Aquinas College, has come forward to defend Laurel and her remarks, saying that the Sister’s message  has met with a warmer reception elsewhere:
"The presentation was given with the intention of showing that human sexuality is a great gift to be treasured and that this gift is given by God. It appears that this message was not universally accepted. The hope of Aquinas College is that no one was left feeling that they are not loved by God."
They might not have felt they were unloved by God, but it seems many parents and students and alumni feel that Sister laurel has no ideas what she’s talking about and perhaps needs to set down the age-old texts from which she gleaned her statistics and information and read something from this century.

And she may have plenty of time to do so, because a scheduled lecture by Sister Laurel at a youth conference in Asheville, North Carolina, has been cancelled, and the :::ahem::: good sister is reportedly taking a “sabbatical” and leave all of her teaching positions and will withdraw from speaking engagements.

Good.

13 comments:

the dogs' mother said...

ak! I taught sex ed a bazillion years ago (28) and my talk was way more up to date than that.

anne marie in philly said...

da fuq? no wonder the catholics are such a mess!

jadedj said...

I guess my first question would be, what the deuce would a sex abstaining member of a religious order know about human sexuality? Seriously. Give me a fucking break.

Bob Slatten said...

@jadedj
That thought never crossed my mind, but it's BRAZILLIANT!!

den81164 said...

not to defend her, but i know lots about religion and i'm not a priest, and i know a lot about straight sex and i'm not straight....so yes the religious orders can know about sex even though it is not (supposedly) a part of their lifestyle. that being said, this religous did not and had no business giving talks about it.

♫Musique♫ said...

Okay a Nun speaking on sex. Isn't her Vagina still suppose to have the new car smell?

Raybeard said...

I wonder if speakers such as this actually CONVERT even one person to their way of thinking. I find it hard to imagine anyone at all who'd be thinking "Goodness me! She's right, you know!" Seems more likely to be an exercise in bolstering their own rickety opinions in order to make themselves feel better.

Gene Perry said...

A nun giving a lecture on sex ... seriously? That's like a jellyfish giving a lecture on having a spine.

jadedj said...

I'm sure the good sister thinks "spanking the monkey" has something to do with an organ grinder (pun intended).

Helen Lashbrook said...

What is this woman doing being a professor? Surely someone as ignorant as this should not be teaching and those who appointed her should be ashamed.

Mitchell is Moving said...

What has she been smokin'?!? Sistah!'

Oh, "500 or 1000 sexual partners"? Nobody told ME. That means I'm off by nearly 500 or 1000.

Raybeard said...

Mitch, I think she's including all those anonymous 'members' which we've all come across(!) in saunas, darkrooms, cruising areas etc and many of which have had our 'attentions' perhaps even just for a few seconds. The sister is making a very perspicacious observation, bless her little cotton underdrawers, and she may not be far off the mark for a lot of us. I doubt if my own such encounters tally up to 1,000 over the years (though it may do), but I've no doubt it's a significant number. Same for you, right? Well, there you are!

Anonymous said...

There are two lines of thought here. One,certainly misguided, that all gays had absentee fathers. Could that have a bearing? To say "No!", might be equally wronv. A father could certainly affect a chid's outloot. It's what parents do. They guide and help their chitto adulthood. However, to say that the Bible condones homosexuality is to ignore Scripture. Note 1Cor.6:9-11. Romans 11:26-28. Hate mongering is wrong. But,in our desire to make everything, 'comfortable', let's not throw out parts of the Bible that don't agree with what we want it to say. We are suppose to put on the mind of Christ. He is not supposed to mold his thinktto our imperfect flesh. It's time people found out what the Bible really teaches. Our so called wisdom does not supersede God's thinking and wisdom.