Is it scandalous for a woman to play professional sports?

There is a topic on World News about a straight ex-WNBA player claiming 98% of the WNBA athletes are lesbians.

Abby Wambach, the female soccer player, is openly gay and recently announced her engagement to a woman.

Even before such revelations there has been a “butch lesbian” stereotype regarding a large number of female athletes, especially at the more competitive levels.

Does that make it scandalous for a woman to play professional sports, as this means many people will assume she is a lesbian and is part of the LGBT culture?

No. There’s nothing inherently scandalous about playing professional sports.

Scandal in the Catholic sense doesn’t mean clutch your pearls in horror (figurative language on my part). Scandal is an attitude or action one takes that causes another to sin.

I remember an example once in high school where a girl was counseled by some “friends” to be sexually active with her boyfriend, because he would probably cheat on her with a girl who would. That would be a type of scandal.

So would a woman playing a sport be the temptation or the cause of another’s sin because she may or might not be a lesbian? I don’t think it normally would.

Agreed with the above. “Scandal” doesn’t mean “Oh, no, lesbians, run!” It means encouraging others to sin by giving the impression through your actions that sin is okay.

I can’t imagine this qualifies. And assuming that every female athlete is a lesbian is silly anyway. The athlete can’t be responsible for the fact that some people might make stupid assumptions.

Well, I think that the question is, are professional female sports so strongly associated with the LGBT culture, that promoting them, is the same as promoting LGBT values and therefore making them more acceptable, and luring people into the lifestyle, and therefore, into sin.

Although merely playing a sport may not be the same as promoting it, at the professional level, is pretty much a contractual obligation for an athlete to promote both his/her team and the sport in general. Many young women see athletes like Abby as role models and I can see their becoming more accepting of same-sex marriage because of her announcement.

Though I suppose one could say it also might be scandalous for a man to competing in figure skating, many male figure skaters are openly gay, or have very effeminate mannerisms, even if they are not.

Well one is not a direct cause or effect of another.
So no.
Lots of women are just gifted athletes.

People today mistake approval of one’s ability as approval of a lifestyle.
It’s 2 different things.
But I agree, the LGBT like to lump all together as one big pile of approval.

It’s not scandalous just bad business. What is a problem is our cultures obsession with sports both as spectator entertainment and as something for young folks to be so heavily involved in.

Thank goodness my daughters are growing up now and not when I was young. (hmm…that didn’t come out right…:rolleyes:)

In other words, my daughters are athletic. They run, they swim, they participate in field sports. When I was in high school the girls who were really into sports were tomboys, or sometimes “butch.” There was the assumption that boyish girls did sports. Pretty, feminine, girly-girls didn’t do sports.

That’s completely changed now. The girl who was a whizz on the soccer field is no longer a fish out of water in a prom dress. The top scorer on the team may very well be the most elegant young lady at the dance.

If people were to fear scandal because it’s assumed that many lesbians play professional sports, then we might shift to where it’s assumed that sports are for lesbians.

Of course not. There are plenty of women in professional sports who are not gay. This basketball team just seems to be an exception. It is more scandalous to assume someone’s sexual orientation, just because of their job or to turn to the gay lifestyle just because some sports player has announced that they are gay.

I have two very young sisters that are pretty good at soccer they are 13 and 14 and I would be very happy if they became professional soccer players. I don’t know what would be scandalous about that. "The horror! “Women exercising for money”!:eek:

Along similar lines, I find it ridiculous that many Transpeople claim the GOT character of Brienne of Tarth is Trans. Now, I stopped watching the show after S4, so for all I know she has been turned into a Trans character by now, but I know she is not in the books. I actually won’t be surprised if they do make her a Trans character though. After all, they already changed Ser Loras into a stock effeminate gay stereotype. Even though in the books, he is portrayed mostly as a cocky arrogant young knight who happens to be gay. Jaime even finds Loras to remind himself of how he was like at that age, and Jaime himself is not gay.

Now, it does seem that most who claim “they’re all a bunch of lesbians” are men, who aren’t saying so to actually express moral disapproval of the LGBT lifestyle, but to essentially invalidate women athletes as “freaks of nature” who don’t deserve to be taken seriously as either “real women” or “real athletes”.

Such men also seem to cling to the professional sports world as the only part of popular culture where it’s still acceptable to be homophobic. I don’t mean simply “disagree with the lifestyle” but using anti gay-slurs against not only actual gay people, but as an insult against other players even though they are definitely not gay. I recall some Patriot haters calling Tom Brady “gay” (and worse) for carrying a “man-purse”, though they knew he wasn’t really gay.

I do think that the “LGBT” moniker itself, blurs the lines between sexual orientation, and sexual identity. Many men who identify as “gay” are effeminate, and many women who identify as “lesbian” are into sports and other traditionally male pursuits. But certainly not all do. Much as not all effeminate men are gay, and not all women who fit the “butch” stereotype are actual lesbians.

If it’s scandalous; why do Catholic schools have female athletic programs. Of, course it isn’t.

I don’t think you have a firm grasp on what scandal is.

To even question if a woman can play professional sports is sexist.

If lesbian WNBA members bullied a straight member, then those lesbians should be punished accordingly. There is no room in America for bigotry, discrimination, prejudice or bullying. That goes for LBGT persons and Christians as well, whatever the circumstances. In America, we support the rights of all; we punish those who don’t support that.

My daughter played a professional sport in Europe, as well as in college, and on national teams in the USA. She had played this sport from age 6 until 24. Now she is a part time coach.

After “retiring” (time to begin a more practical career) we had a discussion. Somehow we came upon the topic of sexual preference among her teammates. She worked backwards from her last team in Europe to her high school aged team and travel teams. She explained that on every team, there were always at least two girls (and sometimes more) who expressed attraction towards women. She had to think about it but she said as she got older and played more competitively, and teammates expressed their sexuality, maybe 25% of teammates were attracted to women or both sexes.

Anecdotal for sure. However, she played through high school in Chicago, college in New England, and professionally in Europe. So there was a variety of social diversity.

I admit I don’t, I actually find it very confusing. It is yet another example of what I sometimes call “Catholic-speak” that uses English words but assigns them different means from the secular ones.

Another such word would be “cult” to refer to a group that has a devotion to Mary or some other saint, it is a neutral, even positive word in the Catholic context. But in secular society, most people use “cult” to mean “extreme religion founded by a very charismatic leader that believes and does crazy things”, and some atheists will claim “all religions are cults” and of course that makes the word little more than an insult along the lines of “religious wacko”.

Mary Gail 36 gave an example of scandal that most people would call something worse than “scandal”, that “once in high school where a girl was counseled by some “friends” to be sexually active with her boyfriend, because he would probably cheat on her with a girl who would.”

So, is scandal simply Catholic-speak for “leading someone into sin”, as in actively persuading them to sin? Or does it mean “setting a bad example that could lead someone into sin”?

But when the topic of “chaste cohabitation” is discussed on CAF, most will claim that a couple living together is still guilty of “scandal” even if they are not having sex, because (1)everyone will assume they are, and be tempted to do the same or (2) other couples may decide “if Jim and Sue can live together and still be chaste, so can we” and therefore set themselves up for a fall.

On the other hand, since homosexuality is so acceptable these days, does this mean two male friends, or two female friends, shouldn’t live together either, because many people will assume they must be a gay couple having sex? Or that a brother and sister shouldn’t live together because people will assume they are an unrelated man and woman having sex? Maybe two brothers or two sisters shouldn’t either?

BTW, I’m a woman, and was actually once in a very awkward situation, me and my sister went on vacation together to a place with a high LGBT population, and I had someone, not sure if they were gay too or just were used to seeing a lot of gay people, assuming my sister, was my lesbian girlfriend. Still gives me the shudders to think about it. So does that mean I should never go on vacation with her again to avoid causing scandal?

Well, actually, you’ve got it backwards.

The word scandal is derived from the Greek, and was used in the New Testament. The current, secular meaning ascribed to the word is a recent invention, a novelty.

Scandal is a sin against the fifth commandment.

While the explanations are a little off base, yes an unmarried couple cohabiting does give scandal. This not because of what someone might assume, but rather that the fact of cohabiting is itself a near occasion of sin and a violation of the Church’s teaching regarding unmarried couples.

that is not scandal.

Thanks for the Catechism quote, 1ke. It actually seems that “scandal” is somewhat like the leftist take on why only white people can be guilty of “racism”, someone has to have a certain amount of institutional power to be guilty of “scandal”.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

So I guess it would be scandal to enact laws that makes marriage more financially burdensome that living in sin; I know many older widowed people do not bother to get married because that would mean they no longer qualify for certain benefits.

No. Not correct. Someone who is authority ALSO can be guilty of scandal by the laws they pass, as well as by personal acts.

For example, I as a regular citizen may be guilty of scandal by doing a certain action.
A congressman may be guilty of scandal by voting for a law that makes the action possible/legal, whether he personally does the action or not.

So the person in authority is held to an additional standard. But the ‘regular person’ can easily give scandal. I think you are misreading the Catechism.

In that example, only insofar as they had that specific intent. It is NOT scandal if they enacted a tax document that had some unintended consequence of penalizing the married versus the unmarried. They would not be guilty of scandal.

They WOULD be guilty of scandal if they enacted legislation that had the spefic purpose of promoting cohabitation instead of marriage.

It would help to have a few examples of actions a “regular citizen” could do that make them guilty of scandal, other than cohabitation as so many Catholics state that is “obviously” a scandal but it’s not obvious to me.

In that example, only insofar as they had that specific intent. It is NOT scandal if they enacted a tax document that had some unintended consequence of penalizing the married versus the unmarried. They would not be guilty of scandal.

They WOULD be guilty of scandal if they enacted legislation that had the spefic purpose of promoting cohabitation instead of marriage.

So, would a legislator who votes to fund Planned Parenthood specifically to increase the number of abortions they can perform is guilty, but one who votes to fund their non-abortion activities isn’t (even though this could free up funds used for abortion)? What if the legislator only votes to fund PP because his retired colleague friend who is now a lobbyist asks him to, and he figures he owes the friend a favor?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit