What Bishop Jugis did NOT say about Sister Jane Dominic's talk

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 10, 2014

Charlotte’s Bishop Peter Jugis has finally issued a statement regarding the unseemly controversy at Charlotte Catholic High School. In that statement the bishop clearly affirms the teachings of the Catholic Church. But he does not affirm Sister Jane Dominic Laurel, whose presentation of those teachings provoked so much bitter criticism.

”Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues,” the bishop says. He does not indicate what viewpoint, if any, he holds on that presentation. He does not even mention, anywhere in his statement, the subject matter of her presentation. If your only source of information about this affair is the bishop’s statement, you have no idea what the ruckus is about.

Bishop Jugis does make two points clearly. First he says that some parents at Charlotte Catholic were concerned about the lack of prior notice about Sister Jane Dominic’s presentation, and he notes that the school apologized for this failure. Second he observes that he has heard “disturbing reports of a lack of charity” at a subsequent meeting at the school. You could probably safely infer that this rebuke was aimed at angry students and parents who criticized Sister Jane Dominic and the school officials who had arranged her talk.

However, on the actual substance of the controversy, the bishop’s statement is neutral. The relevant paragraph reads:

The content of the Church’s moral teaching was not raised as a matter of contention at the parent meeting. All of our Catholic schools are committed to hold and teach the Catholic faith in its fullness and with integrity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains an explanation of our faith and is accessible to all.

It would be an understatement to say that those three sentences raise more questions than they answer, because the truth is that the statement answers no questions at all. But here are some of the questions that one might raise:

• What is the Church’s moral teaching regarding the subject at hand?
• For that matter, what is the subject at hand?
• Why not use the opportunity to reiterate or at least summarize Church teaching, rather than refer interested parties to the Catechism? And how could one consult the Catechism without knowing what subject is in question?
• Did Sister Jane Dominic present Church teachings accurately? If not, where did she go wrong?
• If she did present the Church’s moral teachings accurately, and if those moral teachings were not contested during the meeting with parents, what was the basis for this entire dispute?

Angry students and parents at Charlotte Catholic have insisted that they were not unhappy with the presentation of orthodox Catholic views on homosexuality, but with the tone of Sister Jane Dominic’s presentation and/or with her introduction of certain sociological data. But there is good reason to believe that some actually did have a problem with Church teachings, and objected to Sister Jane Dominic’s uncompromising defense of those teachings. By saying that the Church’s moral teachings were not in question, Bishop Jugis appears to side with those who protested the presentation—to accept their argument that they could reject her approach without calling into question the Church’s moral authority.

No doubt Bishop Jugis chose his words carefully, with an eye to restoring calm and tranquility. But in pursuit of serenity, he may have missed an opportunity for instruction. The dispute in Charlotte seemed to be a clear indication that parents and students disagreed about the content of Church teaching on the question of homosexuality. That dispute remains unresolved.