Patricia Jannuzzi Is Right

Posted on | March 13, 2015 | 88 Comments

“We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity,” wrote Patricia Januzzi, in a Facebook post in which she warned that same-sex marriage is part of an “agenda” that aims toward the “slow extinction” of Western civilization.

Ms. Januzzi is a teacher at Immaculata High School, a private Catholic school in New Jersey. While I am not Catholic, I am sufficiently acquainted with their doctrines on marriage and the family to conclude that Ms. Januzzi said nothing in her rant with which the Pope would disagree. And having spent the past several months researching radical feminism, I can say with absolute certainty that the “agenda” is exactly what Ms. Januzzi says it is. But the 21st-Century Thought Police can’t let the truth be spoken:

SOMERVILLE, N.J. — An anti-gay rant by a religion teacher at a Catholic high school in New Jersey is drawing the ire of alumni across the country, including a former Real Housewives of New Jersey cast member and New-Jersey-raised Susan Sarandon.
On her now-deleted Facebook profile earlier this week, the veteran private Catholic school teacher said gays or gay activists “want to reengineer western civ (sic) into a slow extinction” as part of their “agenda.”
“We need healthy families with a mother and a father for the sake of the children and humanity!!!!!” wrote Immaculata High School teacher Patricia Jannuzzi, adding that the argument that gays are protected under the 14th Amendment is “bologna.” . . .

Let me interrupt here to quote more of Ms. Januzzi’s post. She was reacting emotionally to a story (“Crass: Gay Activist Tweets THIS To Ben Carson Following CNN Interview”) that she linked on her Facebook page, and her point was not very clearly made. She said gay activists, after using the “born that way” argument to gain status under the 14th Amendment “equal protection” clause, will then “argue everyone should be able to choose” homosexuality. Anyone familiar with feminist theory knows that radical lesbians have never accepted the “born that way” argument, instead advocating lesbianism as a “challenge to male supremacy and its basic institution of heterosexuality,” to quote Professor Sheila Jeffreys. This feminist perspective was celebrated in a 1973 song by Alix Dobkin, “Every Woman Can Be a Lesbian.”

The radical “choice” view of sexuality advocated by lesbian feminists is seldom heard from gay males, who usually describe their homosexual desires as an uncontrollable urge. However, one finds across the spectrum of the LGBT rainbow a unanimous consensus on what we might call the Compulsory Approval Doctrine:

No one can ever be permitted to express a personal aversion or moral objection to homosexual behavior.

Disapproval is synonymous with “hate,” according to gay activists, and the cultural consequence of the Compulsory Approval Doctrine is to stigmatize heterosexuality as an expression of prejudice. Many gay people have convinced themselves that the “straight” person’s rejection of homosexual behavior is implicit proof of homophobia — an irrational fear — so that all heterosexuals are basically viewed as ignorant bigots afflicted with neurotic sexual repression. And if you dare cite religious injunctions against homosexuality, you thereby prove that you are certainly a hater. Quod erat demonstrandum.

The Compulsory Approval Doctrine of the gay-rights movement is exemplified by the thug mob reaction to Mrs. Januzzi:

The school has since forced Jannuzzi to take down her Facebook page, which was no longer visible Wednesday evening, but not before others took screenshots of the rant and shared it on social media.
Immaculata principal Jean Kline on Wednesday distanced her school from Jannuzzi’s comments and said that “through an investigation, we have determined that the information posted on this social media page has not been reflected in the curriculum content of the classes she teaches.”
In her statement, Kline said the school “takes this situation very seriously.”
“We are dedicated to creating a school environment that promotes mutual respect and provides a challenging academic program, rooted in the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.”
It remains to be seen whether the school’s response will allay reaction by alumni, some of whom remember losing a gay classmate to suicide.
Former Real Housewives cast member Greg Bennett, who graduated from Immaculata in 2004 and who had Jannuzzi as a teacher his senior year, shared the screenshot of Jannuzzi’s post on his Twitter account, asking his 165,000 followers to sign a petition addressed to school administrators calling “for action to be taken and hate speech to stop at Immaculata.” . . .
Earlier on Wednesday, Sarandon, who graduated from Edison High School, shared a letter written by her nephew, Scott Lyons, to Jannuzzi, his former teacher at the high school.
“You have a responsibility as a teacher to lead by example and the words that you have been throwing out there are detrimental to the well being and health of the youth that you inspire,” Lyons, who has an adopted son with his husband, writes. “I am certain that the pope himself would take issue with your extreme point of view on homosexuality.” . . .
“I left this school after being told in religion class I must live a celibate single life if I had gay ‘feelings,’ ” writes Doug Bednarczyk of Marlton, N.J. “Around the same time, a gay classmate committed suicide.”
Lucas Bernardo, of Philadelphia, says he was 16 when he took a class taught by Jannuzzi.
“I didn’t feel comfortable in her class with the negative messages about gay and lesbian people she was preaching to us,” he writes. “I remember arguing with her about such topics and being in total disbelief that such blatant hate could be taught in a religion class.”

Read the whole thing. The Thought Police never bothered to disprove what Ms. Januzzi wrote. They offered no evidence to contradict her claims. Instead, they denounced her for engaging in “hate speech,” having an “extreme point of view,” teaching “blatant hate” and, they insinuated, Ms. Januzzi is responsible for teenagers committing suicide.

Look: I’m old enough to remember when a boy could be suspended from public school if his hair was long enough to touch his shirt collar in back. I remember when a girl could get kicked off the cheerleading squad if she engaged in PDA (public display of affection) by holding hands with her boyfriend. There was a time — and not really that long ago, either — when young people could not demand approval from their elders, and in fact teenagers were constantly subjected to lectures of adult disapproval for their adolescent wildness. Yet we did not commit suicide, nor did we organize petitions to get our teachers fired because they disapproved of us, inter alia, smoking dope and listening to Led Zeppelin.

Our parents and teachers told us we were hellbound heathens and, once we grew up and looked back on our misspent youth, most of us agreed they were right. God forbid any of my kids should ever go wild like I went wild in the ’70s. America was still a free country back then, and adults weren’t expected to tiptoe around lest they bruise the fragile self-esteem of a Special Snowflake. Back then, totalitarianism was a threat posed by the Soviet Union. Now the totalitarians are here among us, organizing to suppress dissent, punishing expression of opinions contrary to those of the progressive elite. It is not yet illegal to speak truth, however, and I will exercise my First Amendment right to say this: Damn the Thought Police. Damn them all to hell.

.@GreggyBennett You do realize you're a totalitarian, right?

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) March 13, 2015

“Truth is great and will prevail if left to herself . . . she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786

“If you only stand up for speech you approve of, you’re a hack. If you only stand up for speech that everyone approves of, you’re a coward.”
— Glenn Reynolds, 2015

The “slow extinction” of Western civilization is beginning to accelerate. If a Catholic teacher at a Catholic school is not free to express Catholic teaching, who among us is truly free?

The Thought Police are everywhere now, monitoring our opinions, so we can only think what Our Moral Superiors™ want us to think.

(Hat-tip: Donald Douglas on Twitter.)

<br />

Category: Catholics, Celebrities, Culture, Education, Feminism, Gays, Sex Trouble

Comments

88 Responses to “Patricia Jannuzzi Is Right”

Squid Hunt
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:05 am

I’m sorry. Why did her Catholic school censor her? I missed that point.
robertstacymccain
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:06 am

Intimidated by the Thought Police
theoldsargesays
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:07 am

“…including a former Real Housewives of New Jersey cast member and New-Jersey-raised Susan Sarandon.

Oh, well then, there must be something wrong with her .
(TheOldSargeSays as he rolls his eyes sarcastically)
JeffWeimer
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:12 am

“I am certain that the pope himself would take issue with your extreme point of view on homosexuality.”

He just showed himself for the ignorant ass that he is. He is certain all right; certainly wrong.
theoldsargesays
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:12 am

Political. Correctness. Better they should be hypocritical in their own beliefs than risk offending anyone.
Jeanette Victoria
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:15 am

Because a Catholic actually believing as a Catholic should and being what the Church teaches is *HATE*!!

It is a sad state of affairs that Christians have devolved into gelatinous puddle of goo
kilo6
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:20 am

I’ve watched a few of those Real Housewives of [fill in the blank] shows in the past. I was not a regular viewer by any means but the shows impressed me as a celebration of vapid bacchanalia and consumerism. Any outrage by a cast member of such a show is likely an indication you’re doing something to show our descent into the abyss
kilo6
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:23 am

I meant to say slow our descent into the abyss, but I guess show is also appropriate in this case.
Quartermaster
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:32 am

Both are quite appropriate. Both will arouse the ire of the depraved.
kilo6
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:55 am

PC turns (almost) everyone into a Sub-Kommisar for The Enforcement of Right Thinking and Speech.
RS
March 13th, 2015 @ 10:56 am

Note the complicit Media in the first three words of the “news article:”

An anti-gay rant . . .”

1. The post was pro-traditional family and marriage and not “anti-gay.” I’m not “anti-gay,” inasmuch as people can do what they want. I am, however, opposed to being forced to a) celebrate someone else’s deviancy and b) mandate that society accommodate that deviancy as a matter of law, when such accommodation can cause serious harm to future generations.

2. The term “rant,” implies emotional irrationality. It is a loaded term and an example of the logical fallacy of “poisoning the well.” That is, the arguments, as our host points out, are not mentioned. They are immediately dismissed as not worthy of response.

We have seen this for years and will continue to do so.

Aside: The really funny thing is that the RadFems’ view that homosexual behavior is a choice and indeed, one all women should make, dovetails nicely with the views of Focus on the Family’s James Dobson who has long maintained that such behavior is chosen and willful and not the result of genetic mutation. Strange bedfellows, indeed.
darleenclick
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:00 am

My only quibble with Ms. Jannuzzi would be it is NOT a “gay agenda” to destroy families as a road to destroy Western Civ, but a LEFTIST agenda. Just like feminists, the LGBT mob is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Left. Their goal is to make the ultimate relationship of every person is to The State. Families – a married mom & dad raising their kids, is a threat to that goal. It creates too much independence from the benevolent administrations of GreatNannyState.
RS
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:01 am

And while I’m thinking about it, for what does the school administration think the parents are paying, when they send their children to a parochial school. If this occurred in the school my children attended, there would be parents in the office withdrawing their children and demanding refunds. If nothing else, we could save the tuition and send our kids to public school to bathe in this sort of crap.
Joe Cee
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:06 am

Read a recent study that claims the main component in the outcome of a child is not an intact married couple raising it, but rather the income of the parents.
Finrod Felagund
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:11 am

My generic response to anything Susan Sarandon says:

“Shut up, Janet.”
DeadMessenger
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:12 am

Pandering and appeasement never work. The only thing that works is being courageous enough to speak the truth boldly. (Thank you, RSM.)

You’d think a parochial school would know this. Matthew 5:15, “Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.”

Get used to it, Immaculata. We were warned. Matthew 5:12, “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.”
Patricia Jannuzzi Is Right | Living in Anglo-America
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:13 am

[…] http://theothermccain.com/2015/03/13/patricia-jannuzzi-is-right/ […]
DeadMessenger
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:14 am

Hahahahahaha!
DeadMessenger
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:15 am

That study would be wrong. I’d like to see how this “study” was designed, who conducted it, and the definition of the word “outcome”.
RS
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:16 am

But the income of the parents, i.e. economic well-being, is tied inexorably to being and remaining married. Given that marriage should come before kids, it seems the correlative/causative factor is not income but matrimony and a stable family unit.
RS
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:19 am

That is, a stable marriage leads to better economic outcomes which together lead to better adjusted and more successful offspring. In point of fact, until the Great Society debacle, American upward social mobility was predicated upon a successful, stable family unit.
RS
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:31 am

My experience in an archdiocese with 28 Catholic high schools is that most are run by various ecclesiastical orders, and they run the theological gamut from very liberal to very conservative. The Lutheran high school I send/sent my kids to is very conservative and has probably a 40% minority of other protestant denominations. Not that I think the school would go off the theological rails, but it’s nice to know that the vast majority of the parents, not to mention the Synod, would not look kindly upon any embracing of “modern,” non-Biblical beliefs.
kilo6
March 13th, 2015 @ 11:54 am

PC speech is a world of stock phrases and self-invented clichés. Looking at the etymology of these expressions is only for those on the outside who aren’t consumed by the emotional inferno of the mob shouting burn the heretic!!11!

Somewhat related; posted in AoS sidebar recently:

So I just came across a neat French word that I don’t know we have a
good English word for. The word (well, three words run together in a set
expression) is pret-a-penser, literally “ready to think,” a take-off on “ready to wear,” as in: Here is some off-the-shelf thinking for the undiscriminating buyer, something someone who doesn’t bother thinking much can buy at a low price and wear because he doesn’t really care what thoughts he clothes himself in. Is there some kind of English equivalent? I can only make up my own analogue, like “McThinking.”
Anyway, if you have thoughts, drop them into comments, s’il vous plait.

(emphasis added)
Copied and pasted since this witty quote will disappear into the bit bucket in a day or two.
Joe Cee
March 13th, 2015 @ 12:25 pm

I think it’s just common sense that children of privilege would have more opportunities and better social connections.
darleenclick
March 13th, 2015 @ 12:49 pm

“Privilege”?? ding ding ding

Stop talking Leftist.

There are ‘studies’ that reiterate the common sense that married couples are economically better off then their single or divorced peers. So, of course, their children are going to have more economic advantages. But it is the status of MARRIED that leads to the better economics not vice versa.

Do I need to list the antics of the uber-rich kids from dysfunctional families (badly divorced, etc) who regularly and spectacularly screw up in public?
Jeanette Victoria
March 13th, 2015 @ 12:50 pm

I fixed it: Degenerate Supporting Celebs slam Immaculata High School teacher’s TRUE observations about homosexuality
Joe Cee
March 13th, 2015 @ 12:50 pm

Sure, I agree that married couples have more money and that marriage leads to more money, but the main factor for the child is the money and he or she is better off with a single parent of means than a poor married couple.
Joe Cee
March 13th, 2015 @ 12:59 pm

ok, so to not upset your sensibilities, and to suit your politics what word should be used to signify that same phenomenon of having better opportunities and more resources than people of average incomes? Privilege is just the right word, regardless of its association with a certain brand of liberal politics.

And like I said before, income is still the main factor whether or not marriage leads to better incomes. I’d much rather have a single parent of means than a married set of parents who don’t. And married straight people can screw up their kids just as easily, and usually do, but from both ends. Uber rich kids act the way they do sometimes because of how insulated and above all laws and social norms their wealth makes them. I’d still like to give it a try though.
MSNBC is Worried for the GOP | Regular Right Guy
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:12 pm

[…] Patricia Jannuzzi Is Right […]
Daniel Freeman
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:45 pm

That would be “The Enforcement of [Left] Thinking and Speech.” 😉
Adobe_Walls
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:48 pm

That is the main reason for my opposition to gay activism and gay rights is general. They are part of the left coalition and therefore enemy to humanity. Gay rights are absolutely incompatible with religious freedom at least as formulated today. Gays have the right to live as they wish and not be persecuted but have no right to acceptance. I believe the totalitarian efforts to push their agenda do them a disservice in the long run, as it forces people to choose a side for or against them. Given the actual numbers of gays, and absent that agenda most people wouldn’t even notice them enough to care. Forcing the rest of us to care one way or another is ultimately dangerous for such a small minority.
Daniel Freeman
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:51 pm

The closest English term I can think of is “thought-terminating cliché.”
Adobe_Walls
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:56 pm

They feel they have the right to the superior education without having to respect the beliefs of the institution. This is the exact opposite of the rights recognized for those who oppose the leftist dogma imposed on those children attending public school. The absolute right of hecklers veto always defaults to the leftist heckler.
BillClintonsShorts17
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:58 pm

Joe, I was raised by parents who were quite conventional: My father worked and my mother kept house until I was in college. We were not poor, but neither were we rich. They didn’t get a television until the late sixties, and the other kids on the block had nicer toys at Christmas. All that being said, I had the PRIVILEGE of being raised by parents who were intelligent and cultured. I grew up reading books and listening to the timeless music of Beethoven, Grieg, Sibelius and the lot. My PRIVILEGE was a gift to me from my parents. Please explain how my pigmentation or lack thereof relates to this gift.
BillClintonsShorts17
March 13th, 2015 @ 1:58 pm

Better off with a poor parent (or parents) who reads books.
concern00
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:00 pm

Are those in the chocolate starfish appreciation society pursuing their agenda maliciously or naively?
BillClintonsShorts17
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:02 pm

We need a new word here. ‘Homophobia’ means ‘an irrational fear of homosexuality’. This doesn’t describe my thoughts or feelings on the subject. I want a word which means ‘homosexual acts prompt feelings of REVULSION’. ‘Homonausea’?????
DeadMessenger
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:10 pm

Opportunities and social connections aren’t squat. The sum of what matters is the quality of one’s character. The optimum environment for children is a home with a female mom and a male dad, regardless of their wealth or means. And, I’d argue that lesser means in the context of a tradional home produces stronger character than those of greater means.
Evi L. Bloggerlady
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:15 pm

Lots of parochial school administrators are big John Waters fans…just sayin.
DeadMessenger
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:15 pm

Again, the main factor for a child is not money. Cripes, I hope you don’t have any kids.
Adobe_Walls
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:16 pm

Once again disparate impact rears it’s ugly head and false conclusions. The study uses poor vs wealthy (relatively) rather then successful vs dysfunctional. Apparently rich people interact with their children positively more than poor people. The assumption having money is the only relevant factor. As in most disparate impact arguments other possible factors aren’t even considered.
Poor people are in trouble in this country. Not White or Black people but poor White and Black people. The single greatest cause is drug abuse. Over the last twenty years or so one often reads or hears heart warming stories of children saved by being raised by grandparents because the parents were hopelessly strung out on drugs. Increasingly those parents are now the grandparents and are still strung out on drugs.
Squid Hunt
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:20 pm

Independent. Baptist. We are as ornery as we sound.
Joe Cee
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:29 pm

Opportunities and social connections are pretty much everything, and then the financial backing to capitalize on the opportunity. The idea that poverty builds character is a myth easily exploded by the large groups of people that remain in poverty or wind up imprisoned because of it. Poverty breeds misery, hate, envy, and a fundamental disgust with life and your very self. That’s the ordinary experience for those in poverty.
Joe Cee
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:35 pm

The single greatest cause of poverty is drug use? I don’t believe that. Not saying addiction isnt a relevant factor in poverty, but less of what leads one to it, and more a result of being in it. New studies show that it is isolation and economic problems that cause, and fuel addiction, and not the other way around. The latter is the best argument for the decriminalization of drug use, since prison and its aftermath only lead to the problems that cause addiction in the first place.
texlovera
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:35 pm

The Church has, shall we say, lost its balls.

This woman is dead-on correct. Good for her for telling it like it is. (Gee, isn’t that what the hippies used to do???)
texlovera
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:39 pm

Ever wonder why the pedophile priest meme was flogged so thoroughly by the left? To neutralize priestly authority, turn the shepherds into cowardly sheep, and let the wolves take over.

Priests are now not only celibate. They’re eunuchs, too!
texlovera
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:43 pm

If you think the poor in America are in true poverty, you’re an idiot.
texlovera
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:46 pm

You are correct. I went to a grade school run by the Sisters of Divine Providence, and a high school run by Marianists. There was no bullshit tolerated at either place.

But the Jesuits? They can go soak their heads.
darleenclick
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:48 pm

again, marriage leads to better economics, not vice versa. Marriage is the controlling factor and the values most (by all means, not all) committed-to-marriage people bring with them to their marriage and pass to their children.

It’s the values, skippy.
Quartermaster
March 13th, 2015 @ 2:49 pm

Methinks “accurate” would be better word choice. Tends to avoid the “truth for you may not be truth for me” stupidity.