My Response to 'Save Flint Dollar'

It has been several months since this has occurred, after such time I believe that I can discuss this with rational thought and loving attitude.

The school in question

At the Catholic High School, Mount de Sales Academy(MDS), many people in association with the school
(whether student, alum, or teacher) reacted strongly to the dismissal of one Flint Dollar, a band teacher.  This was due to the fact that he publicly announced via social media that he was going to 'marry' his boyfriend.

Because so many have asked my thoughts over the situation (most know of my B.A. in Sacred Theology). As stated above I've waited to respond because everyone has been high on being emotional and thus irrational.  I will endeavor to explain as best I can.  Bear in mind "what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other faults." (St Augustine, Letter 211)

An article, the link of which is found below, said that Mount de Sales' employment policy states that the school does not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Mr. Dollar stated in the article that MDS was aware of his orientation when they hired him, so in this way, MDS upheld this anti-discrimination policy that deals with employment.  The school would have violated their policy if they did nor hire him solely based on his orientation.

At this point I would like to point out a distinction between sexual orientation and sexual actions with regard to employment and termination of employment. As stated previously, MDS adhered to the anti-discriminatory policy in that the school hired him with full knowledge of his orientation. If one studies the clause closely, no where does it say that MDS does not reserve the right to fire an employee based on actions of a sexual nature that the school does not approve of (i.e., Mr. Dollar announcing publicly that he was 'marrying' his partner). If MDS fired Mr. Dollar for the reported reason, then MDS is acting in accordance with Catholic teaching.  MDS hired Mr. Dollar as a homosexual individual, but chose to terminate his employment based on Mr. Dollar's decision to publicly announce his upcoming marriage to his partner.

Allow me a moment to veer off into a theological tract. In Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics, it states that "[N]o pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. (Rom 1:24-27) This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of."

Essentially, it is important to realize that homosexuals do not have complete, voluntary control over their desires. Of course, they have control over their actions, as do heterosexuals. After a person has been conditioned to homosexual responses, it is impossible to simply wish away the desires, just as it is impossible for an alcoholic to wish away his desire to be drunk. Homosexuals also do not make a conscious choice to have homosexual tendencies. It should be noted that heterosexuals do not have complete control over their desires either.  We ALL suffer from temptation, it is when we act on those temptations that we come way to sin.

It is likely that the same decision, in regards to the school's decision, would have been made if a heterosexual teacher publicly announced he or she was living with his girlfriend or her boyfriend because of the nature of the relationship.  As Catholics, we must stand up for our religious beliefs while being compassionate towards those of orientations different from ourselves. That does not mean that we abandon our faith because it makes other people uncomfortable, nor does it mean that we hate and damn people because we disagree with them.

For further reading on the Mother Church's teachings I highly recommend Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.

May God grant us pardon and peace, and most of all, reconciliation with one another.

I will end with this thought:  Love, in it's purest form, is an act of the will in which we will the good of the other for the sake of the other.  Sin cannot be ignored because what good does that do for people? "When the good are overly merciful to the bad, the  good eventually become the bad."

This post is in relation to this news article.

Post Script: Now will you people stop asking me!!!!

May the odds be ever in your favor

'May the odds be ever in your favor.'

That is what is inscribed on the metal braclet that I wear around my left wrist.  Not only is it one of my favorite quotes, it is a phrase that seems to resonate deeper within me.  Espeically today.

As I write this I await to hear who the next President of the US of A will be.  With my faith changellened and my religious freedom threatened I find myself praying that the odds will be in favor of right and just.

Over the past few weeks I have been reminded of a strange dream I had when I was in high school.  At the time I thought little of it, but now I find my mind lingering over it more than I would like.  In my dream there was a strange turn of events in the 1960s that allowed the Ku Klux Klan to become a very powerful force in the government in the present time.  As such Catholicism became illegal and those who were Catholic were closely monitored by the government since they did not want those 'damn Papists' contaminating the purity of the American people.  In the dream I am walking in the streets of the town I live in; little has changed, except for the fact I have to carry a passport with me constantly as I am often harassed by the police demanding to know my business.  I inform them that I am on my way to the Catholic Church that was downtown.  In the dimensions of the dream the Vatican, in effort to protect the faithful in the United States made the agreement in which the land that every Catholic Church stood was an extension of the Vatican and thus considered like an embassy of sorts with all the extraterritoriality that went with it.

I will not bore you with the details of the rest of the dream - they're rather depressing. 
The dream scared me then and it unsettles me today.  Mostly because it feels like the reality that I dreamt of is not too far off.  Especially in light of the recent going ons of the political atmosphere.  As I look back at the dream I'm surprised at the age I dreamt myself - it was the age I am now. 

Whoever gets to sit in the Oval office come January, when they're sworn in, please God, let them respect life (before and after birth), let them respect the Catholic religion which seems be under attack from all sides and let them realize what is intrinsically good and what is intrinsically bad.

'May the odds be ever in your favor.'

The Problem of Human Shields in Combatant Situations and the Morality of Possible Solutions

Human shields is a term that describes civilians present in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets.  It also describes civilians in a combat situation being forced to walk or march in front of soldiers literately being used as a shield.  Killing civilians always causes problems for whoever shot them, whether it be by accident or on purpose.  An enemy's own people can be used as human shields to deter an enemy.  International humanitarian law forbids using civilians as human shields by placing them next to soldiers, or next to military facilities, with the intention of gaining immunity from attack, or by forcing the civilians to carry out dangerous military assignments.  The very basic concept of the human shields is immoral because it reduces a human being to nothing more than an object to be used.  Human shields also gives the impression that the person is not worth keeping alive, which is true because the person using human shields only cares about his own life.  He does not care who he uses, women, children or the elderly, anybody as long as he escapes.


Captain Daniel P. Schoenekase of the Air Force gives many examples of how human shields have been used in recent military history.  The most recent and most notable violator of international law against the use of human shields has been Iraq in every major conflict they have had since the 1980s.  Cambodia, during the Vietnam War, used ethnic Vietnamese civilians as human shields against their own government.  During the civil war of Sierra Leone in the 1990s people of the Revolutionary United Front would regularly kidnap children and used them as human shields against the government forces.  In these few examples one can see the moral repulsiveness of forcibly using civilians as shields against attack of any form.

There are several types of human shields -- proximity, involuntary or hostages, and and finally willing human shields.  The first kind, the proximity shields, are near military target, and the presence of these people present a great likeliness of high civilian causalities.  The civilians causalities could then be used by the opposing force in propaganda to put their enemy in a more bitter opinion of their people, thus preventing the enemy from gaining allies within their borders.  Most of the time the proximity human shields do not even know that they are being used as shields.  Usually they are people who are in a neighborhood or even hopitals.  For example, during the Gulf War Saddam Hussein would station his weapons near hospitals, knowing that the American forces would not fire so close to civilians, especially the sick and injured.  At the time nothing could be done effectively to get at the weapons.  Aiming with the missiles at the time was pointing in the general direction and hope that it would hit close enough to the target to cause some damage.  Today targeting systems are much better, so the military can fire a drone guided missile and direct the missile to hit the target, and the surrounding areas take minimal damage.

The next type of human shield are the involuntary, also known as hostages.  a hostage is defined as "a person given as a pledge or taken prisoner as by an enemy or terrorist, until certain conditions are met."  Any civilian in a combat situation are at risk of being taken and used b soldiers of either side.  However, the taking and using of hostages is strictly forbidden by the fourth Geneva Convention.

Finally there are the voluntary shields, who are a recent development in the war with Iraq.  A voluntary human shield is someone who is usually a foreign peace activist who comes and stand in the way of military in peaceful protest of the war.  Captain Schoenekase explains in his article  that in recent years debates have arisen on "whether voluntary human shields have become a form of quasi-combatant by their active participation."  The Human Rights Watch says that since that these voluntary shields are not actively engaged in hostile behavior towards either sides, they should be treated as non-combatants and retain civilian status. Some scholars say that voluntary human shields have forfeited their immunity of being civilians.  This argument states that anyone who has willing taken positions at the location of a military target has acted knowing the risk they were taking and they have little right to be considered as a non-combatant

When dealing with a situation involving human shields, there are several options that are available.  The easiest option is to kick down the door and go in guns blazing and shoot everyone in sight.  Both shields, willing or not, and the bad guys are dead, but the problem is solved.  It is similar to surgery when the doctor has to remove a tumor.  The healthy cells are removed for the greater good of the whole.  But one cell and a complete human being has a great deal of difference in importance.  The option of guns blazing is mostly condemned by international law and by most people in the world.  it is immoral because it violates the persons' dignity; no care is given to the non-combatants who most likely did not want to be in a fighting situation.  Killing everyone in sight also is a failure of a soldier to fulfill his purpose which would be fighting for the good of the citizens of that country.

Then there is the option of negotiation, which is used in situations with hostages, especially when the situation is not a full-out combat.  This option's morality can go either way.  There is a risk of the enemy getting away in the process of negotiation, and they might kill the hostages even if they get all they demanded.  But one must also consider what to do if the enemy demands and entirety of several large banks for the lives of a few hostages.  It is a hard choice between bankrupting the city, affecting thousands of people's lives, or saving the life of a handful of people.

Another option is the use of mob control weapons that police have used in the United States.  The police use things like rubber bullets and tear gas to subdue and disperse a crowd without needing to pull out a gun that uses bullets to kill.  The most damage that rubber bullets do is give anyone that it strikes a big and painful bruise, but they are alive, and tear gas mostly likely leaves stinging eyes and a bad tastes in one's mouth,  Also, in the confusion of the tear gas, a soldier can get closer to the enemy to get a clearer hit.  Captain Schoenekase also explains that "soldiers can be trained to deal with human-shields tactics through advance marksmanship training that emphasizes target detection, acquisition, discrimination, and engagement."  The morality in these options is actually positive, the dignity and lives of the people used as human shields is preserved.

Human shields are an ugly thing that has arise because of war.  Innocent women, children, and elderly are forced into combat situations in which they do not know if they are going to live or die.  The immorality of human shields is unquestionable with the way human shields are treated.  The dignity of the lives of the non-combatants becomes worthless when used as a shield -- they become nothing more than a tool.  Soldiers, when they fight, try to minimize the amount of collateral damage to protect civilians as much as they can and is a requirement set before they by their commanding officers.  The solutions presented above each have something to offer when dealing with human shields and each have a different degree of morality.