[impimp]

The school needed to apologize for the presentation - sexuality instruction should all be PRE-APPROVED by the parents. The sister should also have changed her presentation when/if she realized that parental consent was not granted.

I could care less if she gave teaching authentic to the Magesterium. I don’t discuss Just War theology with my 3 year old and many parents don’t want sexuality discussed without their consent. Premature sexualization is EVIL - and for some of the more conservative members of that high school this was premature.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

The school needed to apologize for the presentation - sexuality instruction should all be PRE-APPROVED by the parents.

She wasn't talking about specific homosexual sexual practices, as in Massachusetts public high schools. She was addressing the evil of homosexuality itself, and its association with other social pathologies.

She was speaking to a high school audience at a Catholic school. It would be no different from speaking about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, or about adultery and divorce.

The parents were objecting to the criticism of homosexuality per se.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's not the more conservative parents, students, or teachers at that high school that were complaining. Did you read their statement? (Found in other articles online: author of anti-Sr. Jane statement was Emma Winters). These are people who demand that the homosexual condition is to be affirmed and embraced, that active homosexual conduct is a human right, that the Church ought not to teach against homosexual behavior, contraception, divorce, abortion, or any aspect of the spiritual and social disintegration surrounding sexual immorality.

So your hypothesis is incorrect in the light of the arguments made by the anti-Sister-Jane petition (which you can still google, I think, using the search words "Emma Winters" and "Charlotte Catholic High School").