Bishop Sissy Of Charlotte

Only after "advanced communication", please...

Only after “advanced communication”, please…



This is the statement of Bishop Jugis on “Charlottegate”. 

That such an exercise in lameness and cowardice could be saluted with satisfaction in some quarters is a clear sign of how little we expect from our bishops, to the point that everytime they do not “pull a Francis” we see this as good news.

The bishop’s statement is below. My comments in red.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

The past few weeks have been very difficult for Charlotte Catholic High School. We have all experienced a great deal of pain. During this difficult time I want to express my support and encouragement for all the parents, students, staff and faculty at the high school. We must move forward toward healing with charity, the hallmark of our Christian life.

There we are again. Some people have “experienced a great deal of pain”. No wait, we all have. What sissies we all are. We are such sissies that we now need the “support and encouragement” of the bishop for everyone. Are the janitorial employees “staff”? If not, should they feel excluded? Aren’t they “experiencing a great deal of pain”, too? 

Different viewpoints regarding Sr. Jane Dominic Laurel’s presentation to students on March 21, 2014, have been discussed in a variety of venues.

At the parent meeting on April 2, 2014, many expressed concern about the lack of advanced communication with parents regarding the subject matter of the assembly. Apologies were made at the meeting for that lack of advanced communication.

I’ll take it “advanced” means here “previous”. You see, the problem is that nowadays you can’t teach Catholicism without giving fair warning. “Achtung! Catholic morality will be touched upon”!  Apologies were made for not telling in advance Sister would talk sound Catholicism. This is less than lame. This is positively gay (in the non-sexual meaning of the term: “stupid, lame, weak”. Isn’t it wonderful how the the vox populi reacts to PC impositions…)

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.

Church teaching is not contested. It is just not talked about. So much so, that when this happens without “advanced communication”, a mess ensues. Clearly, the Bishop sees the problem in this “advanced communication” not having been given. 


During this difficult time I support the continued work of Fr. Matthew Kauth, the chaplain; Mrs. Angela Montague and Mr. Steve Carpenter, the assistant principals; and Mr. Randy Belk, the dean of students; and all they are doing for our Charlotte Catholic High School students. All of us are indebted to them.

More “difficult time” stuff. Everyone and his cat is hurt. How sad. But the bishop supports everyone. These are the people who run a school in which Catholicism gives scandal. How nice of the bishop to support them. Keep up the bad work, folks.  

I am shocked to hear the disturbing reports of a lack of charity and respect at the parents’ meeting, and outside the meeting in conversations and in social media. There simply is no room in the Catholic Church for such displays of uncharitableness and disrespect. If we have failed in this regard let us make amends to God and neighbor. Even when we disagree, that disagreement should be expressed respectfully in love.

The words “shut up, bitch!” should not have been uttered. Shockingly uncharitable. I think we should agree with the Bishop. In future, please say: “with all due respect: shut up, bitch!”.

We ask the Lord Jesus Christ for His mercy and His healing as we approach the celebrations of Palm Sunday, Holy Week and Easter Sunday of the Lord’s Resurrection. Please be assured of our continued dedication to the mission to teach and live the truth of the Catholic faith at our Charlotte Catholic High School.

We bla bla, bla bla; bla. bla,  & bla.

Sincerely yours in Christ,


Most Reverend Peter J. Jugis

Bishop of Charlotte

Posted on April 13, 2014, in Catholicism, Conservative Catholicism, Traditional Catholicism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 16 Comments.

  1. Loved your commentary on the wimpy Bishop. What a mealy mouth cop out. It wasn’t worth being published. The church of “kiss bum” is at it again. No possible, courageous, STAND UP FOR MORALITY, martyrs in the USA–on “nice guys”, that rollover on their backs in cowardly submission.

  2. “Different viewpoints”??????? I’m sorry but how is evil a “viewpoint?” Now we know why these people are so utterly messed up. This Bishop and this school need to be chastised BIG TIME…for if not here, they they will be chastised in eternal fire. Lord have mercy on them. God bless~

  3. My favorite part: “Church teaching on this topic is located in the “Catechism Of The Catholic Church”…..if you care to look. How utterly pathetic. The Bishop is saying that he’s an administrator and an accountant…..but if you need the Church’s stance on any issue, it’s available on for $19.99.

    • They probably give fair warning at catechism before touching on the Catechism.

      As you say, at that point one can fork the $19.99 and wonder what use is the bishop.


  4. isn’t there something in the gospel about the lukewarm being spat out?

  5. If you care to listen to the lectures of Sister Jane, that so outraged these students and their parents, click here:

    I believe her topic was “Masculinity and Femininity” which is part of a series she does. Sadly given the state of Catechesis in America, it is no small wonder that this was way over their heads, and the only words heard were those by which everyone has been so sensitized to these days with respect to same sex this or that. How far we have slid, so fast…

    Given what happened to Father Michael Rodriguez in El Paso, TX, one wonders where Sister Jane will end up.

  6. The bishop should have said “advance communication,” (notice before the event), not “advanced communication.” Ironically, Sr.’s communication of the truths of the Faith were too advanced for the dumbed-down audience, but that is not what the appeasing bishop meant to convey.

  7. As a traditional priest living in North Carolina who not only appreciates this blog, but knows Bishop Jugis and all the details of this case very well, I feel the need to defend my bishop. Firstly, his initial statement was one of full support of Sister Jane. She said nothing against the Faith and that she is invited to return to the diocese:
    Second, those not familiar with all the details of the case are confusing (1) the Church’s teachings with (2) a sociological/psychological study referenced by Sister. The Church’s teaching on sexuality and homosexuality had been discussed at the school before and wasn’t the source of the current outrage. That’s not the issue. The issue is one of prudence in sharing the results of a secular psychological study on causes of homosexuality with 14 year olds. Advanced notice to present the Church’s teachings is not the case. Period.
    Bishop Jugis believes the Faith, respects Tradition, enforces Canon 915, supports the Latin Mass, and greatly admires Cardinal Burke and Benedict. In a time when most bishops come no where close to having any of those characteristics, perhaps we should be praying for those few good bishops to respond to the grace of their office as shepherd (especially as the wolves approach) instead of calling them sissies.

    • Father Barone,
      Have your bishop not behave like a sissy, he will not be called as such.
      I have read and commented the statement, which I trust is not a forgery. Your link does not say anything different.
      The “sharing a scientific study” is nowhere mentioned in the bishop whiny “healing” exercise, and it is very difficult to understand how a child of 14 should not be exposed to it. The Romans enrolled in the Army at 15, let us be a tad less sissified here. Fags don’t wait that a boy is sixteen.
      But you appreciate this blog, so you know all this.
      It is also strange a “traditional priest” would not notice that the “scientific data” are used to “demonise gays”, which is the usual homo argument made to advance the usual homo agenda.
      So which is which? If sister uses “data” that “demonise gays”, she is doing the same, no?

    • Fr Barone: Your statements do no comport with the flaming hate email from one of the school’s teachers–which you likely did not see– to a daily communicant pediatrician from Columbus, OH…I have all those communiques and truth is this high school is a cesspool of active and bold revolt from the teachings of the Church by BOTH the school admin, teachers, students and gen X parents. Jugis has been in Charlotte for 10+ yrs so this is not new nor news…the poor catechesis confirms the laws of physics again: kaka flows downstream.

  8. Mundabor,
    The fact remains that you falsely accused my bishop: “Apologies were made for not telling in advance Sister would talk sound Catholicism.” The apology for the advanced notice for the explicit nature of the psychological study, not the Church’s teaching. I trust that you don’t consider Catholicism “sound” only when accompanied by psychological studies.
    Bishop Jugis mentioned neither the scientific study, nor the rest of the details of the case, because it was addressed to the already-informed Charlotte community, not the uninformed blogosphere. We in Charlotte know that he had already unambiguously supported Sister and her communication of the Church’s teaching.
    You are right to say that the enemy doesn’t wait to infect our youth. No one is opposed to arming them at a young age even with such reputable studies like the one Sister used. Again, the issue is that of prudence: when and how, not merely whether. Our Lord did not preach the need to eat His Flesh on the first day of His Public Ministry. Paul does not say to give people milk and meat at the same time.
    Maybe Bishop Jugis should have been tougher in his statement…maybe not. That’s his judgment, not mine or yours.
    Since you like clerics being direct and non-sissies and since the ubiquitous mantra of this blog is that of Truth and cura animarum, I will say that you have publically and unjustly harmed the name of Bishop Jugis. A public retraction is in order, not to mention a good confession and reparation.

    • Father,

      1. It must be evident to everyone with some sense that when people say the “study” “demonises gays” the objective of the attack is Catholic teaching. I repeat again that the Bishop does not mention it.

      2. You are a worse sissy than your bishop if you think the bishop can get away with his sissidom – in a controversy which had already gone around the world – because he was only talking to an “informed community”. heavens, every report says no one knows what was really said, but you know exactly where the problem lies.

      3. It is his judgment if he wants to be a sissy. It is my judgment to say he is one. We don’t do clericalism here, and you are a rather dire example of it.

      Whether you like my kind of blogg or not, you have – like the sissies like you – overstayed your welcome.


  9. Still awaiting a formal apology by both the Bishop and the principal/school to apologize to Sr Jane Dominic for their boorish and hateful welcome. I thought libs and modernists were all about “welcoming”?…pshaw! Highly unlikely one will be forthcoming after their attacks on anyone who disagrees with those heretically clinging against the unchanging teaching of the Church. They’re just following the lead by the Bishop of Rome, and kaka does flow downstream as the laws of physics demand.

    • If you read Mt Sissypriest here below, the problem it’s us.

      And it’s not for us to say if a bishop is a sissy.

      Of course, he had started saying he likes my blog.

      Oh, the hypocrisy! What would Francis say!


%d bloggers like this: