In Charleston, West Virginia, where I live, Sacred Heart Grade School (operated by our Sacred Heart Co-Cathedral) has a pretty liberal admissions policy. It accepts students of all faiths, as long as the parents are willing to pay the price, and many of Charleston’s more well-heeled parents DO pay the price.

On the other hand, it would seem that Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder has a much more strict admissions policy. They obviously only take students whose parents adhere to strict Catholic doctrine. I suppose that is their right.

But I have to wonder what other moral litmus tests this school uses on the parents of their students. For instance, if the parents of another student was using some artificial form of contraception (strictly VERBOTEN by official Catholic teaching), would THEIR kid be kicked out of the school? And how exactly does this school go about finding our which parents aren’t toeing the Vatican line?

Any way you look at it, the decision by Sacred Heart to give this child the heave-ho is just PETTY.

The attending school naked doesn’t apply in the least bit here.  The parents haven’t demanded that the child have a homosexual encounter in school.

If one of the parents had committed murder and done their time, would the child be allowed in school? 

If the parents were active practicing Hindus (or any other religion) and agreed that their child would be expected to follow the rules of the school, including religious education, would the student be allowed to attend?

If the parents didn’t believe in the trinity as the church teaches, would the child be allowed to attend?

If the parents didn’t believe in the coredemptrix nature of Mary…

If the parents didn’t believe….

How fine of a line in theology is required to deny anyone Christ?  And there is where the Archbishop’s stance falls down.

I just wrote a post about this on my blog and came to a totally different conclusion. Before I even go on, I must tell you that this is not a “plant” from anyone with an agenda. I am not gay. I also apologize in advance if this comment seems too long, but I am trying to answer to your list.

To answer to your vision on the interference with the school mission…

1) I grew up going to Catholic schools and there was never a discussion with teachers regarding marriage between a man and a woman, or marriage in general.

2) Have you ever met any children of a homosexual relationship? If you have, you would know that they don’t “proselytize” for homosexual relationships. Being a homosexual is not a choice and you cannot talk anyone into living in a homosexual relationship or marriage if they are heterosexual. It’s not something that is “taught”.  And if the kids in the school begin to “torment” the children of this family, don’t you think it is up to the school to discipline those tormentors instead of blaming the victims of the torment?  Wouldn’t this be a fine opportunity to teach the children of the school about tolerance and loving all your neighbors, whether they are black, white, or homosexual? 

3) The children would be scandalized (in both the proper and the colloquial senses) by knowledge of the child’s situation? So, it’s only a “scandal” if someone if someone is a homosexual and not a “scandal” if a single parent is living in sin with another person?  I can tell you of many instances of divorced parents who never have an annulment and re-marry anyway.  That, in the eyes of the Catholic Church…is adultery. Does the Catholic Church no longer teach the lesson of the woman who was to be stoned? Let the first person without sin throw the first stone.  Again, this is just another opportunity to teach what you preach.

4) The fact that you put “parents” in parenthesis is interesting. Do you do that when you speak of step-parents of children who are the product of divorce? 

If the school mission at Sacred Heart of Jesus is to teach intolerance, they are doing a heckuvajob.  And until the Catholic Church wakes up and admits that homosexuality is not a choice, they will never be able to get passed this way of thinking.

This is not what Jesus would have done.  Let’s not forget the scripture that we, as Catholics, like to point to…“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 

It looks to me as if the Archbishop did his best to kick those kids right out of his own kingdom set up in his diocese. This is acceptable?

Those with a liberal view will condemn the action—as they usually condemn the
idea that there is a Hell. They don’t want accountability.

The school had every right to do as they did. Kids are confused enough these days, but if they attend public school their “parents” life choice will be encouraged.

If you play any sport you are required to follow the rules, why should this not apply to a religious institution? Why are Christians supposed to abandon Faith and morals so as not to hurt feelings? It is not the way to follow Christ by paying no attention to His Commandments or Church laws.

@Mary

“To answer to your vision on the interference with the school mission…

1) I grew up going to Catholic schools and there was never a discussion with teachers regarding marriage between a man and a woman, or marriage in general.
“

That has changed given the attempt by secular culture to redefine marriage. 

Your second point is irrelevant.  The question at hand is “does the relationship of the child’s caretakers interfere with the ability of the school to teach?”  Concerning the faith, Mr. Akin is right on.  Either the child has to reconcile the school teaching with the home life or the caretakers need to find another school.  Why the caretakers would force their children to go through this is beyond me.

Not sure what you are talking about in 3.

4.  Step-parents are not true parents in the regard as birth parents. The same applies to homosexual parents (other than the one who gave birth). Divorce is also morally abhorent.

@Colin Gormley
You said, “Step-parents are not true parents in the regard as birth parents”.  I have a step-father, my birth-father has never been around and was not when I was born.  I have known no other man as a father.  He most certainly is a true parent. 

My friend Dave has two adoptive parents.  I believe from when he was an infant, he too has known no other parent than the ones who raised him.  Are his parents lesser?  Absolutely not.

I am a theology teacher in a Catholic high school and the issue of same-sex “marriage” is brought up by students on average 3-4 times a week.  We have a difficult enough time talking about the problem of divorce without students thinking it’s a personal attack on their parents.  And by the time the story gets home, what’s reported compared with what was actually said in class bear little or no resemblance to one another.  Or how about when we begin a bioethics unit and as soon as the term “In-vitro fertilization” is used, one student blurts out “that’s where I came from!” 

All those trying to make the point that “where do you draw the line…contraception? divorce? Mass attendance?”, are missing the real reason this happened.  This was an issue of prudence plain and simple.  There is no way to know if a students parents use contraception.  But same-sex parents would be quite visible and public.  Parents and students don’t just “attend school”, they become part of the life of the school.  The school and the archbishop exercised excellent prudence here.  Not only for the school, but for the sake of the family involved as well by asking that they live more in accord with their worldview.  That’s good judgment.

@Ryan - What does fitting in have to do with what Christ teaches?  Do not the Pharisees challenge Jesus on exactly this very same thing as he is seen dining with sinners and tax-collectors in Mark 2:15-17 as well as in multiple other places in the Gospels?

Has the Catholic school system and it’s theology teachers become the Pharisees of modern times?

d.scott- I am not a “liberal” at all, either in my faith or in my political leanings. And I do believe in hell and I also believe that there are a whole boatload of intolerant people residing there.

Colin-

So are you saying that marriage between a man and a woman is discussed with young children at a grade school? So, intolerance is taught at that young of an age? Interesting.

Why is my second point irrelevant? I answered directly to the point. Children of gay couples do not proselytize about their parents marriage. They talk about baseball, music, homework, etc. Do you or your children proselytize about your parents marriage? I’m not sure what they would say, “Gee, my parents are both women, too bad yours aren’t!”  Honestly…

Again, do all the children in that school have to reconcile to the school teaching on home life or be kicked out? So, those of divorced parents who are remarried without an annulment should also be kicked out? How about the children of parents who use birth control? Off with their heads! How about that dad who got a vasectomy?  Oh, and let’s not forget about the mom who hasn’t been to confession in the last six years. 

Regarding the “parents” in parenthesis, Erin said it perfectly.

Ryan- So, what you are saying is that as long as you can hide your “sin”, you’re golden.  I get it. I remember all too well when the Catholic church condemned inter-racial marriages, a sad time in our history. They, too, were too “visible” for the likes of the Church.

Like I said, I am Catholic, I love my faith and my life is centered around the Eucharist. I would bet dollars to donuts that Jesus would be appalled by this situation. He never would have accepted the punishment of a child for the decisions of their parents and this is exactly what has happened.

This incident reminds of the story found in three of the Gospels about Jesus blessing the children.  When the disciples try to turn them away, Jesus responds to the desciples in anger and says that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these.  If we, as a society and members of the Catholic Church, were truly concerned about the health and well-being of the family unit, we would focus on what really threaten it:high divorce rate, domescic violence, child abuse, and the prevenance of substance abuse, disrespect and poverty.  We would stop victimizing children and stop using homosexuals as a scapegoat for these realities.

So, as far as you are concerned it would have been much better that that child from a same-sex couple would have been ABORTED!
Please go back to the original Scriptures and forget about politics of power, just LOVE. Your Church has victimised victims of paedophilia meanwhile covered their paedophiles: is it right to understand that they are not pure anymore and should be refused by the “Christian” community?

Parents do become part of the school.  This is good for the school. 

I once heard a story about a student who was embarrassed to have his/her father come to school events.  The school was upscale and the father was a lowly mechanic who always had dirty finger-nails.  Seeing those nails made the student uncomfortable because of how the other upscale students and parents would view him/her and family.  I heard the same story where the father was a painter and always had paint on his clothes.

Regardless if the story is a parable or a true story, the story ends with the student accepting the father as he is and ignoring what other people viewed as maybe being uncomfortable. 

Who are we to look down our noses at others and their sins?

I don’t disagree with +Chaput’s decision BUT why is it that only gays are guaranteed to trip the scandal-meter?  I suspect there are divorced and remarried parents, cohabiting parents and married folk who are known in the parish to be cheating on their spouse.  Does the school even use the enrollment interview to raise these issues, a “teachable moment” so to speak?  One suspects not.

I think that these are good reasons, however, if Protestant and Muslim children are enrolled in a Catholic shool, then there is no leg to stand on to refuse children (who through no fault of their own) are given to homosexual parents.

At the Catholic school I work at the cirriculun for religious ed has been dumbed down for the sake of other faiths along with the truly Catholic identity - other than weekly Mass attendence. I’m sure it is pretty much the same all over. If a heretic or a son of paginism may be admitted, so may the “son/daughter” of a sodomite.

I feel this is a double standard, but thats just me ;-)
Peace!

Since when did we penalize the children for the sins of their parents?

I am pretty sure the sins of the father do not fall upon the son and in this case the sins of two mommies does not fall upon their son/daughter. If the parents are sending their child to a Catholic school voluntarily, paying for the privilege, then they do so knowing full well that the Church does not approve of their lifestyle or the manner in which they raise their child, now we can ask whether or not that was a prudent judgment on their part, but the way I see it if they want their kid to get a Catholic education who are we to deny him/her?

I think there is one other issue worthy of pointing out. The structure of the homosexual family is Very CLOSE to our own Catholic family in that it breaks down our nuclear family (mother, father, children, love) and reconstructs it along similar lines: (parent - parent -children, love). To the Catholic, the nuclear family is irreducible.

I think it is primarily due to the tendency of these very similar things to be confused that the symbol of the homosexual family is particularly controversial.

This is especially true at a time when the church is very concerned with teaching the irreducibility of the family, at a time when it has failed to instill this concept into its own members.

Furthermore, there is an ample home in Boulder for this family, and accordingly it is more loving, perhaps, to insist that the child is not placed in the heart of a controversial situation. Imagine when he/she is in 4th, 5th, 8th grade… it would be much more difficult then.

I have written an more thorough consideration of the situation at my own blog, chrisrowlandsideas.blogspot.com/2010/03/sacred-heart-school-boulder-and-gay.html

I would also like to point out that because the children were no longer allowed to attend the Catholic school, they will also no longer be allowed to be taught about or receive any of the Sacraments. “No Jesus for you!” This is our Catholic faith?  Sure, the parents can put them in a catechism class, but wouldn’t the same rules apply?  Just think about it, denying the chance for those kids to become one with Christ, thanks to the hierarchy of our Catholic Church. This is so wrong!

How dare you put “parents” in scare quotes. Ask the kids of these parents who their parents are and then tell those kids that their “parents” aren’t real “parents.”  You are pure slime.

Homosexual unions are public by their obvious and very visible nature (divorce not necessarily so, nor is homosexual tendency).  If a parent comes to the school and regularly pronounces his oppposition to some Christian teaching (not necessarily homosexual behaviour) especially if in a manner to scandalize his/her children and other children at the school (scandalize in the Christian meaning - see catechism of the catholic church for that meaning) - I would think it very likely and correct that the parent would be asked to remove their children from the school. In the case of homosexual union, it is not even necessary to use words to publicly, visibly and persistantly demonstate opposition to Christian teaching -thereby triggering Christian scandal.

This does not mean that Catholics do not have love for homosexuals and their struggle with a deep seated weakness (loving the sinner, not the sin), it does mean that homosexual behaviour cannot be allowed to scandalize children under the care of catholic guidance.  We all know the church has struggled with the very few in its midst that have done this very thing and created great damage.

Given the highly social nature of Catholic family primary education - families interating with one another, as it should be, the likelihood of scandal is virtually impossible to avoid. There is deep scriptural justification and tradition behind this decision (which I won’t get into - consider it your biblical and early christian writers homework).  I’ll leave one verse of Christ’s warning…especially onerous for Catholic school teachers…..
Matthew Chapter 8
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

A lot of people on here are equating being denied admissions to a Catholic school with being denied to be a Christian. Obviously that is not true. I’m sure we all know plenty of good Catholics who attend public school and are still allowed to receive the Sacraments. No one is denying anyone Christ. And I don’t really see how the child is being punished by this as people are claiming. I’m sure there are many other good private schools in the city and maybe even some very good public schools. I know where I’m from, one of our public schools ranks top 10 in the nation. The Church has every right to teach and uphold its teachings. I also did not see anything from the Archbishop that indicates that he is condemning the parents or anything like that. As usual, he has been kind, yet firm in teaching the faith.

I applaud Archbishop Chaputs and the schools action.  However, if they will make this step, how about turning away families who have parents that are not married, or those that do not even attempt to attend Sunday Mass on a regular basis, much less every Sunday.  You see, we homeschool - gasp - and many ask about socialization.  Well, there is the answer. Do you want your children socialized with an anything goes in regards to the family attitude?  Do you really want young children even having these conversation?  It would be better for them to learn about these things when they are ready, maybe in the high school years.  The reason these things seem almost normal to so many is because the understanding of the sacredness of marriage has been so diminished.  Like it or not, the culture of the school has a great influence on the children who attend.  We are right to protect that culture if we intend the school to aid faithful parents in the raising of their children in the faith.  However, if the school is a evangelical outreach to the world, then that is a different story.

Tony rightly says, “The Church has every right to teach and uphold its teachings. I also did not see anything from the Archbishop that indicates that he is condemning the parents or anything like that. As usual, he has been kind, yet firm in teaching the faith.”
This is the main issue. People can bring up fair vs. unfair, all kinds of name-calling, but the bottom line is, we cannot allow moral relativism to seep into the true teachings of the Catholic Church. There are moral absolutes, whether our modern culture wants to accept this or not. Sad that even Catholics are accepting a “watered down” faith. No, we are not perfect. We are all sinners. But if we want to truly follow Jesus, we confess our sins, and try to sin no more. We may fall over and over again, but we do hate our sins, and try to change. I don’t see gays doing that. Gays are not horrible people, but in choosing to live a homosexual lifestyle, instead of living chastely, is the problem. Singles are called to celibacy. So are homosexuals. So are many married people, by the way! No one said following God would be easy. There are many reasons married couples live chaste lives—illness of one partner, medical reasons to avoid pregnancy, and so on. It’s sad that our modern society thinks that SEX is the God, because that is really the biggest problem here. God is perfect. People are not.

Tony-

Obviously that is not true. I’m sure we all know plenty of good Catholics who attend public school and are still allowed to receive the Sacraments. No one is denying anyone Christ.

So, what you are saying is that these children would be accepted into a catechism program, and the children there would not be “scandalized”?  The church will not allow a child to receive their Sacraments without education and training first. No child can receive their First Communion without taking classes for preparation, that includes children who go to public schools. The same goes for Confirmation. So, yes, in fact, the Church is denying them that right to receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

Some of you seem to be using the Bible to support social doctrines different than what the Church teaches. For example, some have suggested that homosexuality is not a choice. While the Church does not weigh in on this, per se, homosexuality implies homosexual behaviour which is both a choice and explicitly forbidden by the Church.

I also get the feeling that many of you have failed to recognise the fact that sins differ in gravity. Homosexuality is dangerous because it denies the very first things that God revealed to us: that we were created man and woman, to protect and to help, for the raising of children. We are taught that this relationship reflects the Trinity of Christ and sodomy and masturbation are a disrespect to this microcosm of divinity. Homosexual parents live a life that by its very nature is corrosive to the community of the Church by not preaching but living a denial of our basic doctrine.

It is an obnoxious injustice—not Catholic tradition—to visit any sins of the parent or parents of the heads of the children.  And since when do the ins and out of the Catholic sacrament of marriage get taught in a grade school?!  This is mean, plain and simple.

The homosexual ‘family’ is NOT just like other families!  There is a disordered perversion present.  This is not in line with nature as God intends.

And say the child does coem to the Catholic school and it is one that teaches the faith in its fullness and not just a ‘be nice and tolerant’ sort of fluff…and there is a teaching on marriage, true marriage which is, of course, between one man and one woman—in spite of the attempts to redefine it according to the gay agenda. And the child goes home and says to the two mommies, if they are still ‘together, that what they are doing is wrong. Oh, hate! Oh, intolerance. And they are offended that anyone woudl speak against their lifestyle. So they sue which is what you do when you think you can make a point or get money.

The cards are on the table and the teachings of the Catholic Church are plain.  I rather think this is a set up.

I feel exactly as the archbishop says. I feel sorry for the kid getting caught in the middle of this. I wonder why two obviously hostile to The Church’s Teaching homosexuals would try to send their kid to a school that they KNOW cannot condone their lifestyle. I wonder if it is just an excuse to attack The Church publicly.

Cody- nunly, I am 100% sober.

These parents took children that were not wanted by someone else. For all we hear about the sin of abortion (and I agree…it is a sin!) to say that only certain people may adopt a child and raise it in a loving home, is just beyond belief.

If homosexuality is a sin because the act itself is a sin, and the church feels it has a right to punish the children for that sin, then I think the church should equally ban any child of a parent who has masturbated.

I have no idea why that first line in italics is on my comment above, sorry Cody. Ghosts in the internet?  The rest of it, I wrote. That was weird.

Kevin- I wonder why two obviously hostile to The Church’s Teaching homosexuals would try to send their kid to a school that they KNOW cannot condone their lifestyle.

Why would any parent who is atheist and hostile to the church’s teaching want to send their kids to that school?  Perhaps they were hoping they would be able to attend a good school that is better than the district public school. Perhaps they wanted their children to be raised Catholic and receive the Eucharist?  Perhaps they liked the discipline?  Who knows. Do you think that people who are homosexual never grew up to be Catholic, raised in Catholic homes and wanted that for their children?  How dare they!

Too much ink being spilled here folks. The archbishop is correct as are his reasons. God bless us all.

My idea, and the idea of The Church of Parents is a married man and woman, not two practicing homosexuals.

Adoption agencies are supposed to screen for healthy, safe and etc. environments for kids. A house where two practicing homosexuals are setting the example is a house where an abomination to God is the norm. Matthew 18:6.

6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh.

4   Leviticus 18:22Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

Put the harm done to the kid in these circumstances on the courts and the homosexuals, not on The Church that Jesus Christ founded.

Are the parents demanding a curriculum to validate homosexuality? I doubt it. You comment about sinners is correct, your comment about allowing children of other faiths is correct. Your naked comment is false. It is not about homosexuality, it is about shinning the light of Christ. Do you put your lamp stand under a table!

Kevin- Did Jesus say that the “scandal” was being a homosexual? No, that is just a quote being used to fit the situation, not a situation within the quote.

Jesus also said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”

The school did exactly that…they kept the children from Jesus, by making sure they cannot receive instruction to enable them to receive the Eucharist. The children didn’t “scandal” anyone…and that is the point here.

>>“They obviously only take students whose parents adhere to strict Catholic doctrine. I suppose that is their right.  But…”<<

Ah, the “but” uncovers your true view - you are NOT supposing that is their right.

>>“And until the Catholic Church wakes up and admits that homosexuality is not a choice, they will never be able to get passed this way of thinking.”<<
Of course it is a choice.  It is an attraction, a dis-ordered attraction.  It does NOT need to be acted upon.

My husband and I have recently been having an on-going discussion about the conundrum that many churches find themselves in due to those living contrary to church teaching wanting to be part of and having their children part of the local Catholic community.  Our church recently baptized a baby (produced by technology – I say this so no one will accuse me of claiming the child should have been aborted rather than raised by homosexual parents) for a lesbian couple.  This baptism happened along with two other babies baptisms at a public ceremony and caused a scandal – rightfully so.  PLEASE LET ME BE VERY CLEAR THAT I DO NOT THINK BAPTISM (or any other Sacrament) SHOULD EVER BE WITH HELD FROM A CHILD NO MATTER WHO THEIR PARENT S ARE OR WHAT THE PARENTS LIVES ENTAIL.  My husband and I have discussed ways in which this child could have been baptized without causing scandal; for example perhaps there could have been a private baptism for the couple and their guests.  This scandal put the other parents and guests in a difficult and perhaps unwanted situation of having to deal with an issue quite contrary to church teaching during a public sacrament.  Our church may have scandalously appeared to condone a relationship that is contrary to church teaching to those in attendance and those who heard about it later. 
My husband and I have talked about other possible parental “scandals” at baptisms , for example unmarried opposite sex parents, divorced and remarried parents and ultimately realized it comes down to this.  Most all of these other possible parental “scandals” have the potential to be brought back into line with church teaching – annulments happen,  unmarried heterosexuals get married in the church but the lesbian couple cannot bring their relationship into line with church teaching basically without the end of the relationship. 
Many of the arguments made above about “cafeteria” Catholicism – picking and choosing which parts of what the church teaches miss an important point.  Many of these choices are not publicly knowable.  I cannot assume the parent who is appears young and healthy,  is contracepting since they only have one child.  They may have had multiple miscarriages, they may have issues with infertility or other medical problems I know nothing about.  If that parent was contracepting and was broadcasting their views in a way that caused public disturbance and scandal the issue would certainly need addressing in some way. 
Anyone who has spent sometime around children knows they pay attention and notice differences in particular.  It is a much different concern for a parent to have to explain to the 7 year old who is asking “why his classmate has two mommies” than it is to explain “why a classmate may only have one sibling or ten siblings.”
I pray that our church leaders will have much wisdom and sensitivity as we find the culture forcing the Catholic community to make difficult decisions and to be able to strike the delicate balance of possibly “offending” someone in order to prevent greater scandal.

The Roman Catholic Church is an orthodox church. The Nicene Creed says it all, it is our faith. Everything of the faith is derived from the Gospel, i.e. the teaching of Jesus, our Lord and our God. One would think that people of contrary views would want their views or beliefs to sustain and be honored by their children, natural or otherwise. There are many more liberal Christian Churches to which people of contrary beliefs may belong. Good Catholics do not hate anybody, it’s a sin to do so. Homosexuality is not a sin, living it is. The Roman Church teaches that Marriage is between a man and a woman. Those who do not believe that are probably not Catholic.

As stated elsewhere, excluding from Catholic school a child from a family of sinners clearly would result in no enrollment. As long as the parents accept that the school will be teaching the Catholic faith, despite that teaching being at odds with their own lifestyle, the child should be able to attend the school. At the same time, this would put the child in a difficult position and I am not sure why the parents would want the child in that position, but that would seem to be their decision.

Isn’t it possible to be tolerant of something without being accepting of it?

I agree with others that (1) children are the first to notice differences and (2) of course the sacrament of marriage is discussed in a Catholic grade school. Therefore, it is going to be difficult for the child of same-sex parents to attend a Catholic school. But we are talking about choosing the least worst option in this case.

Cheryl- And if someone told you that being a heterosexual is a “disordered distraction” then you would have no problem at all not being married, having children, being able to live your life as an equal citizen in this country?  Somehow, I don’t think you would. It’s easy to throw around words like “disordered attraction” when you are not the one being accused of being “disordered”.  Homosexuality is NOT a choice. You are either born a heterosexual or a homosexual..or bi-sexual. That’s the way God made us and you are going to have to deal with that.

The first question that comes to my mind is why would the homosexual couple even want to enroll the child in a Catholic school, knowing full well that their relationship runs counter to Catholic teaching in a very public way?  What benefit is it to them?  Surely there are other private schools that are not Catholic in the Boulder area.  I cannot imagine there being such an uproar if the rejecting school was a fundamentalist Christian school - no, the rejection would be expected.  Why is it different for a Catholic school to stand firm in their beliefs?
The other point I wanted to make is that I am currently a parent of students at a Catholic school and I can tell you that those parents would be expected to participate in the life of the school, not simply send their child to school and forget about the extras.  Volunteer hours, lunch duties, social and fundraising functions would all require many faithful Catholics to be affronted and confronted with this homosexual relationship, all on their own turf.  That just doesn’t seem right, to me.  Let them have their relationship, but why force it in the face of those who don’t agree with it?

@Frank, What about the families where one parent is Catholic and the other is some other denomination (Lutheran, Baptist, etc.)  How many conversations have been had between parents and children where the child comes home and says, “Mommy, you’re going to hell because my teacher says so”? 

Is the Catholic parent really not Catholic and is really just phoning it in or faking it?

I am a bit conflicted about this. Schools DO have to teach about marriage between a man and a woman because radical homosexuals are demanding that little children are taught about homosexual relations and sex…this I know for a fact.  So a child of homosexual parents could be hurt…I have also worked with children of homosexual men and they were deeply confused and some began forcing themselves on younger boys…with oral and anal sex.  They said they learned this at their parents parties at home. Of course, hetero parents have wild parties too…however, having counseled kids of gay parents who are confused, angry, resentful…I just don’t think excluding a child is the answer…children should not have to suffer because of their guardians’ lifestyle…

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Not allowing their child into school? What about divorced and remarried persons? Dont throw stones

In the same way that Baptism is refused to a child who has no prospect of growing up in the Catholic faith because of his or her parent’s living arrangements, or unwillingness to promote the faith, a child ought to be refused admission to a Catholic school. The reason Catholic schools exist is to impart the faith to its children. It is a mockery to their fundamental reason for being go give access to them to the children of parents who live a lifestyle that rejects Catholic teachings.

I’ve read several comments that said allowing the children of gay parents would confuse the other children.  Children are much less confused about this issue than adults are.  Today’s children and young adults, are overwhelmingly in favor of gay marriage.  It’s just no big deal to them.

It is divisive issues such as this that drive people away from church.

Jimmy,

Speaking as someone who came to the Church out of a lesbian relationship (I’m now married with 5 kids), I am troubled that there seems to be a double standard here. To me, whether or not the decision of the school was justified would depend on several facts that don’t appear to be known: did the school sit the parents down and discuss with them the fact that Catholic teachings on marriage would be a part of their child’s education? Did they have reason to believe that the lesbian couple involved was deliberately trying to stir up scandal (if, for example, they were known to be part of the activist community, and were trying to use their child as a piece of political capital, I think the decision would be warranted)? Was it important to the mothers to have their child receive a Catholic education, or did they merely think that this school was better than the competition?
Because if these women are Catholics who are confused about Church teaching, or who have rejected only the teachings on sexuality, and they want to have a Catholic upbringing for their child, it seems to me that we should be there to help them do that. The child, here—the child who is growing up in a situation that is objectively scandalous, and that is likely to undermine his/her likelihood of being willing to receive the Catholic faith as an adult—ought to be our first priority. Being removed from a Catholic school in this way is likely to permanently alienate that child—and his/her parents—from the Church.
Yes, the responsibility of the school in protecting other students from scandal is serious, but to me, the scandal of having a friend with two mommies is pretty navigable—my daughter’s best friend’s father recently abandoned his child and her mother. That’s a scandal, but it’s one that I can explain to my child; I can take it on board and treat it as an opportunity to teach about and explain the Church’s teachings. Besides, in this civilization, there is no way that a Catholic family is going to bring their children to adulthood without ever having to deal with the problem of same-sex relationships. So when I weigh that in the balance against what seems, to me, to be the very grave scandal of causing a small child to feel personally rejected by the Catholic faith because of his/her family…it just doesn’t seem to make sense.

Anyway, I’ll be blogging about this later today at sexualauthenticity.blogspot.com

Let us not confuse the issues. No one who is knowledgeable about biology or about Church teaching should ever state that a child has two mommies or two daddies. Even if they are being raised by two women, or by two men, the fact remains that they have a mother and a father.  I am not against homosexual marriage - I deny that it’s possible. Marriage is primarily for the purpose of providing a nurturing environment in which to raise children and the highest good of the spouses. The highest possible good for any spouse is heaven. Homosexual relationships by their very nature cannot lend toward the highest good of the partners.  Furthermore, a homosexual relationship lacks the essential ingredients to training a child in healthy relationships. Only a man can teach a boy how to be a man and how to relate healthily to women on both a sexual and a non-sexual level and only a woman can teach a girl how to be a woman and how to relate healthily to men on both a sexual and a non-sexual level.  The live in learning in relationships modeled by a happy and healthy marital relationship cannot be replaced by a homosexual relationship no matter how hard they try.

Having said all of this, I do wonder at the justice in accepting the children of others who are in mortal sin but denying a place for this child. I would hope there is far more to the story than has been published. A properly catechized child is the parent’s best hope for conversion, to be perfectly honest.  Nor should teachers feel that they have to shy away from such teachings just because it makes the child uncomfortable. It should. Sin should always make us uncomfortable. However, the wise teacher helps the child to see why what the parents are doing is wrong and then to see beyond that to the spiritual pain their parents are in that lead them to do what is wrong. In this way the child is led to compassion for sinners and encouragement to help their parents do right.

Would we, could we, in good conscience, deny a child whose parent is a pedophile a place at that school? What if that school is the only protection they have from the dark things they are encountering at home?

Wow, recycled comments. Some of these reactionary statements were simply copied and pasted from other stories’ comments? Well here comes everybody else!
  As one of many who would call themselves Catholic, I will put in my two cents: I didn’t join this Church for its professed Democratic approach to Truth. After thirty three years in the moral miasma of our increasingly relativistic culture, I find Catholicism to be a refreshing alternative to nonsense. For 2,000 years and counting, we have had a unique tradition that does not bow down to the fashionable positions of the day.
  To those of you “Catholics” who disagree with how Bishop Chaput handled the would-be parochial school lesbians : Why would you want to participate in a Church that reveres tradition and revealed Truth, but at the same time question the decisions of the incredibly wise Bishop Chaput? You can’t have it both ways, you know. Just because we now have people in high places politically who feel comfortable calling themselves Catholics without honoring all the tenets of the Faith, doesn’t make everything open to interpretation by everybody. Sheesh. Leave the moral dilemmas to the specialists.

I will only answer to the argument posted by Mr. Akin. He says that it’s not a matter of wether the parents are sinner or not, as most if not all are. Great, I would like to know if it’s the same argumentation that is used by Archbishop Chaput. Mr. Akin says that it is for the good of the school or of the child as the school would not change their teachings. Why? Because, as the arguments go, he would be ‘tormented’ by other children and these ones would be scandalized. I’m sorry, but he would also be tormented by other children in any other school. I would add that if a Catholic school isn’t able to show their students that they ought to have respect for EVERYBODY, then the school is failing. So you would deny a child a great education because… he’s going to get bullied by so-called great Catholics? Sorry, I’m a Catholic and I would definitely tell my children not to torment him. The boy is not even gay! Wow!

Look, The Archbishop of Denver wouldn’t dare treat divorced straight people with the same exclusion that he reserves for Gays (and Gays alone).  That man is about right wing politics above religion.  And has been for years.

I think this all about some hateful far right parent/teacher who doesn’t want to face a child while lying about Gay people in class.  They called the Archdiocese, run by a far right political Bishop who ignores any sins that don’t mesh with the Republican Party, who called the school and ordered them to make the problem go away.  The problem in this case being a 5 year old child.

Remember, until you treat people who have divorced and remarried (adulterers, per the Catholic Church) the exact same way as you do Gays, then you are guilty of moral relativism.  I guess it’s not just for liberals anymore.

You guys just validated every screaming queen’s rant about the Catholic Church hating Gays.

Brandy Miller-

Would we, could we, in good conscience, deny a child whose parent is a pedophile a place at that school? What if that school is the only protection they have from the dark things they are encountering at home?

That is one of the most bigoted, stupid things I have heard yet. So all gays are pedophiles? What planet are you on?  If I took that same route, then that would mean that all priests are gay and pedophiles, right?

Now, a sane person would see that not all priests are pedophiles or gay…the fact is, there are more straight pedophiles than gay ones. Honestly, this is exactly why the Catholic Church has such a bad reputation in this country, because stuff like that come out of the mouths of people who profess to be Catholic and say such hateful, bigoted things.

Only a man can teach a boy how to be a man and how to relate healthily to women on both a sexual and a non-sexual level and only a woman can teach a girl how to be a woman and how to relate healthily to men on both a sexual and a non-sexual level.

So, a woman can’t teach a boy how to be a man? Try again, how about all the single mothers who are raising their boys to be fine gentlemen and good students? Only a woman can teach a girl how to be a woman? Again…wrong.

It must have been a very long time since Erin went to Catholic school. I haven’t heard any threat of “hellfire” since before the sixties. We are now in the process of welcoming Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists et al. The Christian community is finding a very big tent in Rome, but not on Doctrine. The same folks who want to secularize the Church of Rome, also say Jesus was a very great man.

>>Mary Ellen: “Cheryl- And if someone told you that being a heterosexual is a “disordered distraction” then you would have no problem at all not being married, having children, being able to live your life as an equal citizen in this country?  Somehow, I don’t think you would. It’s easy to throw around words like “disordered attraction” when you are not the one being accused of being “disordered”.  Homosexuality is NOT a choice. You are either born a heterosexual or a homosexual..or bi-sexual. That’s the way God made us and you are going to have to deal with that.”
Actually, the way God made a person can be seen by all, akin to the way a doctor can tell at birth whether someone is a MALE or a FEMALE.  That is the WAY a person is made.  That is the way God has spoken.  Attractions and wants and desires are all open to change, and can be disordered.  Where do you think the devil is able to have influence?

Lynn, thank you for your comment: “The other point I wanted to make is that I am currently a parent of students at a Catholic school and I can tell you that those parents would be expected to participate in the life of the school, not simply send their child to school and forget about the extras.  Volunteer hours, lunch duties, social and fundraising functions would all require many faithful Catholics to be affronted and confronted with this homosexual relationship, all on their own turf.  That just doesn’t seem right, to me.  Let them have their relationship, but why force it in the face of those who don’t agree with it?”
People are forgetting about the other children and their parents in this school.  Don’t the other parents have rights in this scenario?  Don’t the other children?
And, people are forgetting the role of the Archbishop.  Sorry, it IS up to him.  He has spoken (and quite well.)  If you disagree, quit ranting and raving by pounding your keyboard and write him a letter expressing your concerns.

Jimmy Akin says:  “Basically, he backed the school up when it refused to allow two children of lesbian “parents” to renew their enrollment.”

I agree with a previous poster.  Why is the word parents inside quotation marks?  This practice is insulting.

My only comment or Questions are these…
What would Our God , Jesus Christ would have done in this situation?
How will he handle this situation?
Do you think that He will reject them for whatever reason?

>>”So, a woman can’t teach a boy how to be a man? Try again, how about all the single mothers who are raising their boys to be fine gentlemen and good students? Only a woman can teach a girl how to be a woman? Again…wrong.”<<

Mary Ellen – do you see ANY difference between male and female?  You indicate there is none. 
Silly Nature.  Silly God.  What a waste of time making 2 sexes.

>>Posted by jcdelgado@grandecom.net on Wednesday, Mar 10, 2010 11:26 PM (EST):My only comment or Questions are these…
What would Our God , Jesus Christ would have done in this situation?
How will he handle this situation?
Do you think that He will reject them for whatever reason?<<
Well, Jesus did hand keys to the Pope, who did appoint Archbishop Chaput….. So, I guess you could say He has spoken?!

Don’t kid yourself. These two women aren’t ignorant or naive. They’re attempting to enlist Catholics on their side by putting a child into their campaign for putative “rights.” Shame on them for using a child to advance their political agenda. Blessings and praise to Bishop Chaput for his support of the teaching of his Church.
  As a parent, I want a Catholic school to model the Holy Family as THE visual of a family. Who’s foolish enough not to be aware that we sinful Catholics fall short? Our sinful nature doesn’t make that ideal any less important for our children’s catechesis.

Some comments/observations on the following points made in this article:
“1) It will impede the ability of teachers to be frank about the nature of marriage due to the problems that will ensue with a child in this situation in the classroom.”

Why would that be the case? Why wouldn’t the teachers simply teach, and if the “parents” object explain that is part of the curriculum at the school and we don’t have a cafeteria plan curriculum. The “parents” would have to decide whether to leave their kid in or not. There are Catholic schools with Methodist students being taught the real presence - we haven’t been worried about what their parents think regarding that. The impediment would seem to be one of self-censoring which is simply not necessary.

“2) The child will also become a proselytizer for homosexual “marriage” and/or be tormented relentlessly by other children.”

Re “become a proselytizer” that’s a fairly large assumption that I’m not sure you can support. Re tormenting, kids are tormented by other kids all the time in any school environment - the teachers try to control that by not permitting it, teaching respect, etc. But kids get tormented over hair color, freckles, being caught picking their nose, etc. This argument seems specious and insincere.

“3) The other children will be scandalized (in both the proper and the colloquial senses) by knowledge of the child’s situation.”

I can’t argue against this. Frankly, it is the strongest argument.

“4) All of the above will be exacerbated to the extent that the “parents” have any presence at or try to play any role in the life of the school.”

Most of the above argument could, in my mind, be summed up as “It is best to let the child live in sin and ignorance than to expose them to uncomfortable truth.” That seems wrong on its face. I don’t think we are called to push children away from Jesus because we disapprove of their “parents” - a condition they have no control over anyway. I think the school and bishop have overreacted and lost an opportunity.

Posted by jcdelgado@grandecom.net on Wednesday, Mar 10, 2010 11:26 PM (EST):

My only comment or Questions are these…
What would Our God , Jesus Christ would have done in this situation?
How will he handle this situation?
Do you think that He will reject them for whatever reason?

Our God, Jesus Christ would have told them to repent, stop sinning and follow Him.  He would have challenged them to live a chaste lifestyle as he did the woman at the well, Mary Magdelene and all the other prostitutes and tax collectors.  If they had continued in their sin, he would love them, yes, but he would not say that it was okay to continue in their homosexual lifestyle.

God Bless Archbishop Chaput!  His letter is CLEAR.  If you are Catholic and you don’t get it, you are the cause of the growth of so many problems in this blessed country.  If you are not Catholic and you don’t get it, frankly, too bad, it’s the Church’s prerogative. 

Denver Catholic Register, 3.10,10

+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.

Archbishop of Denver

Denver news media have reported in recent days on the case of two children of a lesbian couple in Boulder.  The couple was informed by Sacred Heart of Jesus parish school that the older child, whom they were enrolling in kindergarten for next year, would be allowed to attend kindergarten but would not be able to continue into first grade the year after.  Their younger child would be welcome to finish preschool, but not continue into kindergarten.  Many have wondered why.  Sacred Heart of Jesus parish has borne the difficult publicity surrounding this issue, but archdiocesan policy was followed faithfully in this matter, and the policy applies to all Archdiocese of Denver schools. 

Some background is important.  Then we’ll turn to the human realities involved.

Catholic schools began in this country in the early 19th century.  Catholics started them as an alternative to the public schools of the day, which taught a curriculum often hostile to Catholic belief.  In many ways times have changed, but the mission of Catholic schools has not.  The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values. 

We take great pride in the academic excellence of our schools as well.  The reason is simple.  A strong, well-rounded academic education helps to create mature citizens who contribute to the wider community.  It’s also true that some of our schools exist as a service outreach in largely non-Catholic communities.  Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families.  These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.

Our schools, however, exist primarily to serve Catholic families with an education shaped by Catholic faith and moral formation.  This is common sense.  Other religious traditions do the same according to their beliefs, and at a heavy sacrifice.  We need to remember that Catholic families pay twice for a Catholic education: through their taxes, they fund public education; then they pay again to send their children to a Catholic school.  The idea that Catholic schools should require support for Catholic teaching for admission, and a serious effort from school families to live their Catholic identity faithfully, is reasonable and just.

That’s the background.  Now to the human side of a painful situation.  The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education.  But the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission.  If Catholics take their faith seriously, they naturally follow the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals; otherwise they take themselves outside the believing community. 

The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are “bad,” or that their children are less loved by God.  Quite the opposite.  But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman.  These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society.  The Church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves.  Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents.  If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.  It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church. 

Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced.  That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents.  That isn’t fair to anyone – including the wider school community.  Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will.  They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.

I’m curious about the two women and their insistence on sending the children in their care to a Catholic school.  Surely, the cannot be unaware of Catholic teaching as regards homosexual practice!  What were they planning to do when the subject came up in religion classes?  Was this an effort to set up a later confrontation, perhaps, when the school would be chastised for teaching Catholic doctrine?  In the Sixties, we called that “emptying out by walking through.”

let them send the children to school, but make them aware that their lifestyle will be taught as wrong to their kids

Mary Ellen – More regarding your: “Homosexuality is NOT a choice. You are either born a heterosexual or a homosexual..or bi-sexual. That’s the way God made us and you are going to have to deal with that.”

“Conclusion:
All of the aforementioned research studies from four different countries, each utilizing large, countrywide samples, reveal that homosexual behavior is not genetically determined. Rather, the data find that human sexuality is malleable, and environmental experiences and influences can and do shape its expression.” [excerpt from: http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_legalizing.html]

The solution to this problem is so simple, it seems almost a ridiculous discussion.  In the south, at many fundamentalist Protestant schools, the parents must sign a contract that says they will not contradict the school’s teachings on Christianity.  The fundamentals of the school’s doctrine (those things about which they will not tolerate contradiction from those who want to remain members) are listed on this contract and the parents of the child(ren) must sign this legal document in order for the child to be accepted as student there.  Any failure to adhere to this contract results in the student being sent home at the end of the day and the family being informed that they need to seek another school. 

If Catholic schools insisted on such a contract, the parents who sign it would be acknowledging that they want the teachings of the Catholic Church instilled in their children and that if they act contrary to those teachings in their home, they will address it privately with their children, not publicly.  If their contrary behavior (sin) is publicly supported, even by the child in the classroom, it is understood that the child will be sent home—for the good of that child as well as the other children.  This way, no parent can use public disclosure of their disagreement with the school as a platform, as they signed a document which said they agreed with that teaching. 

Of course, this would require 2 things difficult for many of the Catholic schools with which I’m familiar:
1. Teachers would need to be familiar, confident and unashamed of Church teaching, upholding it in the classroom, and willing to disclose advocacy of behavior contrary to doctrine.
2. Administrators and dioceses would need to be willing to lose tuition dollars in upholding of their policy and Church doctrine. 

Why are private institutions and businesses all across this land allowed and expected to uphold personally derived standards of conduct, while private Catholic institutions are routinely expected to cave on their divinely derived standards of conduct?

The fact that the parents still want their child to go to a Catholic school in spite of the disdain of the Catholic Church for their kind of family structure indicates that grace is still very much operative in their lives, don’t you think?  Aren’t Catholic schools suppose to be places where people are instructed in the ways of faith?  Aren’t we suppose to be reaching out to the unevangelized?  How are we going to reach out to them if all we do is to vilify them?  C’mmon folks, they are coming to you… and you seem to be pushing them away.

When did it become “petty” to expect that the parents of children attending a religious school have a respectful attitude towards the religion of that school?  Contraception is wrong, but hardly a PUBLIC scandal.  Let’s say the parents are unmarried, living in PUBLIC sin, and frankly contemptuous of the Church’s moral teachings.  Either the child will be sorrowful when taught gently that his/her parents are living in scandal, or the other children will realize that they can do as they please, and be publically wicked, without any regard for the laws of God.  And these lesbians are unmarried, living in public sin, and frankly contemptuous of the Church’s moral teachings.  They are only determined to force their belief system down the throats of people with a different belief system.  That makes them a pair of schoolyard bullies with an open hatred of religious freedom.

Great topic; it is very interesting to see how ignorant everyone is: the bishop, the teacher, the “Catholics”, the whatever. The whole point of the Catholic School when it was first developed by the early fathers of the church was to enable people to comprehend the teachings of God in the Bible. You needed to understand reading, math, maps, Jewish history, symbolism, law, the irrevocability of a decree, sacrifice, suffering, evangelization, love, and a myriad of concepts & words using His definitions. Some of the learning came from the law, some from examples through the stories in the Bible, some from the individuals real life experiences. How all the irrelevant stuff got in there must be the work of Satan.

The church is to love God with all our heart, mind, sole, and strength, and to love our neighbor as our self (Old (Lev 19) & New Testament). Our job is very simple. We evangelize through our example and plant seeds. We simply teach what the scripture says and let God do the rest. God was and is involved every step of the way. He is in total control. We all need the continuous education until the day we die in order to “be perfect as I the Lord your God am perfect” so we can hear “well done thy good and faithful servant” when we get home.

My dad’s parents went to Catholic school. My dad and his brothers went to Catholic school. My kids went to Catholic school. They were pretty ignorant of the Bible. My kids learned more from reading it with me sitting at home during one year then they got the whole time they were at Catholic school (kindergarten through high school). They found themselves correcting some of the teachers because some of the teachers were very ignorant. One of the biggest lessons learned in the Catholic Schools is how much teachers teach their own views and how much they don’t know God’s scriptural views. We had people walking around those school halls (teachers, principle, priests) who broke the Ten Commandments. They were wearing halters, minis, pants pulled up to high, swearing, lying, deceiving, adulterers, covetous, dishonoring parents, false witnesses, you name it – it was probably there; by the way, as terrible as homosexuality is (Lev 19), it isn’t specifically in the Ten Commandments, though it is indirectly. I don’t think the culture in the Catholic School was all that perfect. The point: our schools are loaded with evil people, pretentious, pious, false teachers, bad examples. When your kids go into the world, they will get a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, the school should just explain the attendance rules and how they are enforced. Other than that, the church’s school should do its job and teach the ignorant, which will be very hard to do since the teachers themselves are so ignorant. The homosexuals need to read the Bible to the child at home. Even if they misinterpret the scripture, which the teachers do themselves, God will accomplish whatever his purpose is. I really don’t think He needs our help. I think He’s just giving us an opportunity to participate as his children and maybe get a little reward.

I think we should consider just annulling our marriage with the bishop and just say it wasn’t sacramental. We really don’t want to have a person with such low spiritual discernment representing or guiding God’s church. Then, while he is unemployed, we should charge him $843 per month for child support since we aren’t going to stand behind our part of the vow (the church is supposedly a better witness to the vows); though we might need to up it to about $281 per child for the thousands of children affected. And the bishops, priests should only be allowed to see any part of the church for a couple hours every other Thursday evening. Oh, that’s right, they already only see the church two hours every two weeks. Well, let’s be proportionate on that too. We will go to church every 322nd week. That is they will get paid every 6 years 2 months, 12 days. Sounds reasonable to them for me. Sounds reasonable to me for them. My children suffer. God’s children are better off. Well, at least it’s an improvement since so many more people will be better off. We should take the extra money and buy our own Bibles and get together every Sabbath and have a different family read it and discuss it’s interpretation, like they did when Jesus was alive. Then Peter will finally be feeding the sheep again, which will prove he loves the Lord; “Peter do you love me?” . . . “Then feed my sheep”. I don’t remember him saying “except for the homosexuals, liars, cheaters, adulterers, . . . other sinners, because that would exclude all of you”.

Posted by Cheryl on Thursday, Mar 11, 2010 11:21 AM (EST):

“Conclusion:.....

I don’t know what to say about you other than you are living in your own delusional world. You are speaking about some poll or so-called research that has no bearing on reality and if you really knew anyone who was a homosexual, I mean truly knew them, you would know that this is not a choice. It’s so sad that people like you are so vocal within our Church because it is bigoted statements like those you have spewed here that turns people away from the Catholic Church.  Thank goodness you are in the minority. I feel sorry for you, I really do.

The sweet little preschooler in the Denver Catholic school is just that: a sweet little preschooler who was created by God and is his child.  Who are we to deny her access to a Catholic education?
We need to understand that the Church is founded on Jesus Christ and is guided by the Spirit, but it is a manmade institution and as such is vulnerable to human flaws. Chief among these is the quest for power and control of people and resources- in direct contrast of Jesus’example of love, healing, forgiveness and nonmaterialistic simplicity.
I believe that once we fully understand the physiological complexity of human sexuality, the Church’s attitude toward homosexuality will change.  Marriage will be seen as a stable and loving relationship between two people no matter what the gender.  If you believe that God created us, and if science continues to prove a physiological basis for sexual attraction, we will come to this acceptance.  The Church of the 1500’s wanted the Earth to be flat, immobile and the center of the universe.  When Galileo brought evidence that the earth in fact revolved around the sun, he was tried for heresy, found guilty and confined to house imprisonment for the rest of his life.  Guess what, that action did not make the earth immobile and the center of the universe.  It is in fact, the way God made it: round, rotating and revolving around the sun.
The Church’s history is polluted with periods of extreme cruelty and corruption sanctioned by the fathers of the Church.  Do the research, it will dishearten you.  Wait til you read what they did in John Hus and Tynsdale when they dared to translate the Latin Bible into English so that ordinary people had access to the Scriptures.  The Medieval, Roman, and Spanish Inquisitions were not very Christ like.
The attitude of some, that membership to the Catholic Church is a membership into some kind of exclusive club, is misguided.  And to tell those of us who speak out against misguided attitudes like the Church’s harsh stance on homosexual marriages and the expulsion of sweet little children from our Catholic schools, that we are not welcome as members of the Church is almost comical if it were not so pathetic.
I believe the Church will continue to grow and develop into a more Christlike institution tho it will not be easy and painless.

Being in a Lesbian marriage, de facto, removes one’s self from the Church i.e. by volition one has chosen to live a lifestyle only found outside of the Church or out with the Family of God.

It follows then that if living outside of the Church, one should not be surprised to find they cannot participate in institutions within the Church i.e. Catholic schooling.  There would still be state education freely available to them.

However, were the state Catholic, were one to live a lifestyle found only outside of the Church should one be surprised if they do not qualify for Catholic State schooling either, but have to find alternative schooling?  This is exactly what happened (though in reverse) to the Catholics who emigrated to the UK from Ireland in the 19th century.  They organised their own education.

In short, why insist your children go to a Catholic school if you have no intention of conforming to what is being taught?

The gays who purport to be parents here forced the local pastor to make a very though decision.  He chose to uphold the Catholic faith, thankfully.  It’s unfortunatefor the children, but that’s the way it is.  If the so called parents don’t like it, they can put the poor innocent kids in another school that doesen’t value its principles as much as this school does.  Get over it.

I recognize parents as a married man and woman, not two practicing homosexuals.

Adoption services are supposed to screen for good parents and good environments. A house where deviant sexual behavior is practiced is not my idea of a good environment.

If you care what God thinks of homosexual behavior read on.
Douay Rheims Bible – The Official Bible of the Catholic Church. The New American is the version the US Bishops chose to use.
Matthew 18:6
6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea. 7 Woe to the world because of scandals. For it must needs be that scandals come: but nevertheless woe to that man by whom the scandal comes

Leviticus 20: 13
13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination: let them be put to death. Their blood be upon them.

As for the unfortunate child of these unions, the two homosexuals are to blame, not the Catholic Church. The two homosexuals chose to live their lifestyle. They are blaming the Church for their choice! The Church didn’t spring this on them. The Church has taught for 2000 years that homosexual relations are an abomination to God. Did you really think you would walk into a Catholic School and force homosexuality on The Church! Take responsibility for yourself. May God help you to find peace.

I think I’m starting to see the light. Homosexuals are sinners so they should not be allowed to attend or send children to Catholic Schools. Since Jesus was the only person who didn’t sin, no one should be allowed to go to Catholic Schools.

Or is it members only go to Catholic Schools. No because I’ve seen people from other denominations at my kids Catholic School.

Maybe it is Christians Only. We wouldn’t want to get unbelievers saved. It would make heaven a bit crowded and we know God couldn’t possibly make heaven a little bigger. Well, no that would go against evangelization – one of the commandments God gave us.

I got it. We only take kids from parents who don’t sin. Oops, that would exclude the entire church again.

No, we are afraid that an uneducated child is going to completely overturn the teachings of God and overcome his church. Wait, that can’t be because Jesus said “The gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” Maybe we are afraid because if the 5 year old overturns our church, it means it isn’t God’s church and we don’t want to find out until after we are dead. Sounds stupid enough to me, but I don’t think so.

It must be that children raised by homosexuals are best raised without any influence from God or his church. That’s it. It’s the sacramental church again. God is only behind it, like marriages, if it happened to work out. We, the great church, wouldn’t want to stick our lovely necks out and actually obey one of his commands now would we.

THE BIBLE LISTS A LOT MORE SINS THAN JUST HOMOSEXUALITY. You can see them all in the Catholic Church, including homosexuality in the priesthood, if you are one of the few who attend. Scripture does prove that homosexuality is a sin. VERY GOOD RESEARCH, I hope everyone finally figured that out. Now how are you going to get that to the sinner guilty of homosexuality if you just kicked him out. And if the sinner isn’t allowed to hear the gospel or other writings of the apostles, how are they going to learn it is God’s opinion. So they go on their merry little way, listening to the advice of the world and grow up opposing God. And the “Christians” wish they just had the opportunity to go through all the material in the Bible and show them how it all fits together. Gee, if only they went to one of our schools . . .

We are supposed to work to evangelize people to Christ. We are supposed to set a good example and teach them God’s way, IF WE CAN ONLY GET THEM TO LISTEN. THAT IS THE HARD PART. Someone got the kid in the school. Now your answer is to kick them out before they even learn who God is, or what he says is right. You undoubtedly work for Satan.

I THINK ALL OF YOU WHO ARE AGAINST HAVING THE KID BROUGHT TO THE CHURCH TO LEARN ABOUT GOD, OWE IT TO THE KID AND THE HOMOSEXUALS TO REGULARLY GO TO THEIR HOME AND READ THE BIBLE WITH THEM UNTIL THEY ARE FINALLY AS HOLY AS YOU ARE AND DESERVE THE OPTION OF BEING SAVED. IDIOTS. Obviously none of you have lifted a finger to evangelize anyone. The archbishop doesn’t seem to know the basics of his job. He should be fired. He has done such good work that no one in his “flock” seems to know anything either. He is a false shepherd.

You don’t kick someone out because they are a sinner. You tell them the rules and the repercussions for breaking the rules. Then, if they break the rules you have to make a decision as to how to respond. Kicking them out right off the bat for being sinners is an inconsistent application of the rules because there would be no one at all in our schools.

The bishop, and other folks of the same opinion, need to repent while he (they) can still get the millstone off of his (their) neck(s).

The story calls them a “lesbian couple”.  How do they know they’re lesbian and where does it say they’re “practicing homosexuals” engaging in “deviant sexual behavior”?  Lots of nuns are lesbian and might even live together and be raising orphans.  Doesn’t mean they’re doing anything bad.

Some really dumb comments are being made. Alleged Catholics are commenting as if they know nothing about the faith. I think now I know why so few “Catholics” go to mass, confession, believe in the True Presence and support the teachings of the church—they are ignorant of it all. Fine, ignorance can be remedied, but please keep your mouth closed until you learn the basics. It’s becoming an embarrassment.

The issue is that the two women raising this child +++publicly+++ oppose Church doctrine, e.g., homosexual couple raising a child.  If, for example, the parents of a student publicly support artificial contraception or abortion-let’s say at a local protest, then the school should dismiss the student.  Yes, it is sad the child leaves the school.  Yet the child can always remain faithful to Mother Church (even if at a later age) and as for the school itself, FAITHFUL, TRADITIONAL Catholics will still have proper guidance and teaching of their children.  Maria, ora pro nobis!

Perhaps the best response to this situation is prayer and fasting..that the Catholic school does not go the way of the numerous adoptions agencies sponsored for decades by Catholic Charities. In many major cities the gay sub-culture has forced their closure. That this lesbian couple placed these innocent lives in an environment that is in teaching opposition to their chosen lifestyle and expected them to thrive defies any normal explanation..and none has been forthcoming. The Archbishop has done these children a great service by pointing this out to these women and has pointed out to the rest of the us that education of children, whether public or parochial, requires cooperation between the parent and the institution. To feel otherwise is an example of mis-guided compassion.

Well-said, Adele.  May you have a fruitful Lent and joyful Easter.

Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Homosexual “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Adulterous Remarried “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Lying “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Devious “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Angry (Murderous) “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Unfaithful “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Covetous “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Fornicating “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Overweight “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Obnoxious “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Non-Catholic “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Non-Christian “Parents”?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of “Parents” who Steal From Their Company?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Female “Parents” Who Wear Makeup?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Male “Parents” Who Shave Off Their Beard?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Women “Parents” Who Talk In Church?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of “Parents” Who Cheat On Their Taxes?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of “Parents” Who Dishonor Their Parents?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of “Parents” Who Don’t Read The Bible?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of “Parents” Who Don’t Evangelize?
Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of “Parents” Who Don’t Believe the World is Flat?
Should Catholic Schools Accept God’s Children and help them deal with Homosexual “Parents”?
.
Do we need to write a lot of articles on Who should be Allowed to attend a Catholic School?
.
Should God Accept People Who Turned Away His Children? What so ever you do to the least of my brothers, that you did unto me. If that’s what you sow, that’s what you will reap. “Be not deceived. God is not mocked. What YOU sow, YOU SHALL REAP.” Guess who will be turned away by God. HE SAID SO.

You’re all nuts, it’s like looney tunes here….you have lost your way.  Everyone of us knows what offends God and what a sin is, so stop fooling yourselves and read up and pray up. You all want to be your own gods.  I am amazed at how far away from God many of us have become.  Sin is a choice.  Now when you start to tell others and yourself that sin is not sin and give an excuse such as, ‘I was born this way’...you’re hanging on a cliff ready to fall into the pit of hell.  If you’re honest with yourself, then you will understand the sacraments and make use of the great graces available to change and get sin out of your life.  And it doesn’t matter what sins the priests commit, that is their sins, the teachings of the church as simply that.  You can believe you were born a homosexual, but you are required to live a chaste life and if you can’t, then you sin but don’t go around telling others that is is a good and holy thing to do.  If you murdered your baby, in or out of the womb because of whatever excuse you come up with, realize it is a sin but don’t go around telling others it is not.  If you have a tendency to drink excessively, then it is ok because I was born this way, with this addiction ...and if you openly live the sinners life and tell others it is a good thing and the Catholic school that you want to send your child to teaches that it is a sin…then you are the one who is screwing up your kid, not the teachings of the church.  As a matter of fact, I was one of those kids,  I had all kinds of sin going on at home but I was in Catholic school learning that that suff going on at home was a sin…a bit confusing but hey, I learned the truth in school and my parents never told me that their sins were not sins….

THE DECEIVER BY LIVIO FANZAGA- our daily struggle with satan…fab read..#1 best seller…read up…the rosary, pray up, then the supernatural may enter your dimly lit minds just a tad.  The teachings of the Catholic church must remain solid even if you don’t.

Question

How do same sex human beings manage to have a child? Biology tells us that you need an egg (from a female) and a sperm (from a male) to enable the formation of an offspring - be it a tree, frog, snake, elephant or a human being

It is the Western world Governments that allow same sex human beings adopt children of school going age - what is their motive? This problem would not arise if these couples were allowed to adopt children above 18 years

Matthew 18:13-17 tells us exactly what Jesus would do:
“If your brother sins, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.”  Gentiles or tax collectors were , I might remind everyone, refused entrance into Jewish society and this statement was made prior to the opening of the Church to the Gentiles.

The problem with the situation, as some have pointed out, is that these women could easily have kept the nature of their relationship out of the public arena by simply referring to their relationship as “roommates”. However, they chose to make public the nature of their relationship and thus make it a scandal for the children and adults who would be interacting with them. The Church does have not only a right but a responsibility to protect its flock, where possible, from wolves - and wolves who seek to destroy its mission by introducing grave sin amongst it and then encourage others of the flock to accept that sin as normal and acceptable. That these women’s children lose out on Catholic education is a sad byproduct of these women’s choice to engage in public scandal. Sometimes it is only when our children are hurt, and we see the hurt we have caused them, by our sins that we find the courage to repent and come back home. As harsh as it seems, this may truly be the most compassionate thing the Bishop and the school can do as it may be what it takes for the women to repent and the children to see their caregivers relationship for the problem that it is.

I returned to catholicism in 2005 after 40 years away.  I only returned because of God’s Love and not evangelization.  I left the faith 40 years ago because I did not experience God’s Love in the people who taught and practiced the faith.
God’s Love is everything.  Those who are fearful become rigid and cut themselves off from God’s Love.  Their faith is in the fear and the rules they create to keep themselves safe.
God’s Love invites everyone into the Catholic school in order to teach them about God’s Love.  LOVE IS OPEN AND ATTRACTS.  fear inhibits and repels.
Which one do you live?

I say, shame on the parents of this child for exposing their innocent child to ridicule which could have been avoided.  What homosexual couple is not aware of the Church’s teachings on their lifestyle?  And more to the point, once aware of this teaching, why would these same parents overstep their bounds and parade an innocent child through admissions to a Catholic school only to be rejected?  That child was nothing more than a political ploy and a prop for their supposed lifestyle choice.  I feel sorry for that child, but more because of his or her parents than for the ruling of the school.  What a heartless and unfeeling thing to do to an innocent child and one that no parent should tolerate much less condone.

Mary Ellen-

I’m sorry, but I do have good company:

Check out the pamphlet offered by the Catholic Mediacl Association:
http://flrl.org/PDFs_and_Docs/HSaH.pdf

Or http://www.narth.com/menus/positionstatements.html:
“NARTH agrees with the American Psychological Association that “biological, psychological and social factors” shape sexual identity at an early age for most people.
But the difference is one of emphasis. We place more emphasis on the psychological (family, peer and social) influences, while the American Psychological Association emphasizes biological influences—and has shown no interest in (indeed, a hostility toward) investigating those same psychological and social influences.
There is no such thing as a “gay gene” and there is no evidence to support the idea that homosexuality is simply genetic. However, biological influences may indeed influence some people toward homosexuality; recent studies point to prenatal-hormonal influences, especially in men, that result in a low-masculinized brain; also, there may be genetic factors in some people—both of which would affect gender identity, and therefore sexual orientation. But none of these factors mean that homosexuality is normal and a part of human design, or that it is inevitable in such people, or that it is unchangeable.
Numerous examples exist of people who have successfully modified their sexual behavior, identity, and arousal or fantasies. “

For that matter, even the APA has changed their position from one of there existing much research supporting a ‘gay’ gene to one of there being no known cause (the previous research having gone missing??).

I agree with the last statements; and in a particular way I would like to focus on the second-to-last statement in regard to the topic at hand: the “parents”, the child, the Catholic school and the idea that some of you have put out there that it is cruel to the child not to allow him to go to school due to a fault not his own.  In the first place, it is wrong to place the blame on the local Church and its decision. The first ones who are depriving the child are the “parents” for obvious reasons. Secondly, if this is somehow punishing to one child, why punish whole classes of children by the demonstrations of homosexual activists and media protests against the school? Thirdly, it is a subject that needs to be addressed clearly and decisively, and this corrective and prudential message leaves no room for doubt that as a Catholic, the basic truth of marriage is something to be protected and encouraged, and that homosexual activity mixed with either keeping or subsequent adoption of a child by a couple is not at par with real marriage. I want to commend both the bishop and everyone involved in a decision that they must have known wasn’t going to win them many friends in the mass media not to mention those who are enemies of the Church in matters of sexual ethics and morality in general.

A.J. - I agree with your comment:“Secondly, if this is somehow punishing to one child, why punish whole classes of children by the demonstrations of homosexual activists and media protests against the school?”
The hypocrisy is indeed astounding.

Remember the parable of the lost sheep?  What about God is Love?

MY ANSWER TO RONALD REGARDING HIS POST BELOW:

I love this-you have blamed other people for you not experiencing the love of God…please, think about that statement—
life can suck at times AND PEOPLE CAN BE MEAN AND PEOPLE WHO GO TO CHURCH CAN BE REAL SINNERS AND ROTTEN BUT GUESS WHAT, THAT IS WHY THEY GO TO CHURCH BECAUSE THEY ARE SINNERS, ONLY THE NON-SINNERS DON’T GO TO CHURCH.  .. but blaming others doesn’t make an excuse because you left the church 40 yrs. ago…the teachings have alwasy been there, the same…you didn’t like the messengers…but THOSE MESSENGERS ARE the ones God chose….you must SEE beyond blaming others….GOD HAS ALWAYS LOVED YOU and you will always meet people who aren’t kind because that is life and what are YOU CALLED TO DO, love them anyway.  If you really want to return to the Catholic church, then read up on the teachings and stop blaming others for the love you don’t feel…Learn to love yourself because God loves you unconditionally.  God loves the sinner but hates the sin and that is why the Catholic church should not allow the children of open homosexuals in their schools.  We have rules, the gospels to live by.  Loving people has nothing to do with accepting sin in our midst. 

*** “If you believe what you like in the Gospel and reject what you don’t like, it is not the gospel you believe, but yourself.” St. Augustine*** *** “He who purifies himself from his faults in the present satisfies with a penny a debt of a thousand silver pieces: and he who waits until the other life to pay his debts consents to pay a thousand silver peices for that which he might have paid before with a penny.” St. Catherine of Genoa*** *** Nothing can be more dangerous than evil companions. They communicate the infection of their vices to all who assoiciate with them. St. John Baptist de la Salle***“Our Lord gives to souls of prayer a deep understanding of Himself. He never deceives them.”—St. Peter Julian Eymard *** “A FRIEND IS ONE SOUL ABIDING IN TWO BODIES”***The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Posted by Ronald King on Friday, Mar 12, 2010 9:52 AM (EST):

I returned to catholicism in 2005 after 40 years away.  I only returned because of God’s Love and not evangelization.  I left the faith 40 years ago because I did not experience God’s Love in the people who taught and practiced the faith.
God’s Love is everything.  Those who are fearful become rigid and cut themselves off from God’s Love.  Their faith is in the fear and the rules they create to keep themselves safe.
God’s Love invites everyone into the Catholic school in order to teach them about God’s Love.  LOVE IS OPEN AND ATTRACTS.  fear inhibits and repels.
Which one do you live?

I JUST RECEIVED THIS FROM FR. TOM EUTEUENER, A FAITHFUL SERVANT OF JESUS CHRIST..

Hannity and Repentance

It was three years ago this week that I sat before the Secular Tribunal of Mr. Sean Hannity in a Fox News interview and inadvertently became the whipping boy for the Catholic Church’s teaching on contraception. In times past, the enemies of the Church would whip and hang a faithful Catholic from a platform with a piece of cord before an angry mob. Nowadays, the whiplashing is more like a tongue-lashing and is carried out on an electronic stage with an audience of millions. I am so happy to prove my love for the Church, though, by getting whipped for the Faith - and I would do it again without hesitation!

Despite the overwhelming attention that I received as a result, this was never about me, nor Mr. Hannity. It was and is about the basic honesty of Catholics with regard to their own Faith and the responsibility of priests (every last one of us!) to teach, uphold, and defend that Faith until our dying breath! Fidelity to the teachings of the Church is nothing less than fidelity to Christ. We are not free as Catholics to just pick and choose what parts of Christ’s teaching we want to adhere to and which ones we want to ignore, cast aside, or - as in the case of Mr. Hannity - to mock and dismiss as outdated and impractical. We are free to leave the Church, though, if we disagree with its teachings. That would be the honest thing to do. What is intolerable to faithful Catholics is the disingenuousness of those who enjoy all the privileges of being Catholic, but who feel no obligation to embrace the responsibilities of our Faith. This was what the Hannity interview highlighted, and it is an endemic problem in our Church.

Generations of martyrs made a much greater sacrifice for their beliefs than those who are inconvenienced by the prohibition on contraception. As the English martyr, St. John Noughton, stood at the gallows with the rope around his neck, he said, “I am bound in conscience and am ready and willing to suffer every kind of torture rather than deny a doctrine of the Church.” Wow! That is Catholic fidelity and integrity to the limit.

Perhaps better known is the story of his fellow martyr, St. Thomas More, who died essentially because the pope wouldn’t issue an annulment to the murderous Henry VIII. The issue of who exactly would control the Church in England was based on Henry’s adamant rejection of the Church’s - that is, Christ’s - teaching on marriage. Less than five hundred years later, Henry’s Anglican church is in utter disarray on all the issues of marriage and human sexuality precisely because of the original dishonesty upon which it was founded. Such chaos is the inevitable result of any church’s betrayal of Christ’s teaching.

This same rejection of centuries-old, well-articulated, infallible teaching is what we are faced with in modern America. We have to admit that the failure of millions of Catholics to uphold and live according to the truths of our Faith has led us down the heinous path of rampant promiscuity and institutionalized child-killing. “You are the salt of the earth and the light of the world,” said the Lord and added, rhetorically, “but what if salt goes flat?” That’s a good question! If Catholics alone would have been strictly faithful to our own doctrine in the last half century, we would have preserved our society from the degraded culture of promiscuity and death that we lament today. Alas, Catholics who preserve themselves from childbearing rather than preserve the moral integrity of our society have betrayed Christ in His deepest agony since the Garden. Because we let the pagans break down the walls of faith and morality, all families in our country, our own included, are rendered vulnerable to the pernicious culture of death. We did it to ourselves.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of that Hannity interview was the way in which Fr. Jonathan Morris, Fox News priest advisor, defended Mr. Hannity in his dissent against a Catholic priest who was actually defending the orthodox teaching of the Church. The priestly sell-out on contraception and church discipline is a painful corollary to Hannity’s lay dissent. The shameful silence of the clergy on the issue of Catholic morality in the era when it has been most needed is an insufferable failure of those responsible for being its guardians. We will be for generations digging ourselves out of this clerical mess, and although the tides are indeed turning toward greater orthodoxy in the clergy, the damage has been done, and priests bear the lion’s share of the blame for the degradation of the moral fabric of our world.

As the years go on, and especially during this Lenten season, I hope that the Hannity interview will be a clarion call to Catholics urging them on to greater fidelity to Christ. And, no, Mr. Hannity did not respond to my request to meet after the interview, nor has he revisited the issue in any way since that time. I still pray for him and hope for his conversion. What I hope and pray for even more is a total return to fidelity of all Catholics to the Truth on the critical issues of life, marriage and family, and the sacrificial commitment that alone will bring America out of its moral decay.

Sincerely,

Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer,
President, Human Life International

and Ronald, you thought you were treated without love….what about Fr. Tom and all the saints…looks like you don’t want your cross which usually makes the cross much heavier because you run from it…

No children of same-sex couples need apply
By Mark Silk on March 8, 2010 2:43 PM
| http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/03/no_children_of_same-sex_couples_need_apply.html

What to make of the decision in the Land of Chaput, aka the Archdiocese of Denver, to boot a preschooler out of Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School in Boulder for having two mommies?

The archdiocese says it must do so because it “would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.” The parish priest in charge of the school is a bit more forthcoming:

If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don’t want to put any child in that tough position—nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.

How exactly would the parents or teachers be put at odds with church teachings? What Fr. Bill Breslin knows is that having little Kevin in school will mean that parents and teachers (and he himself) will be loath to engage in the kind of denunciation of same-sex relationships that Archbishop Chaput specializes in. And there would be those pesky field trips and parent conferences and sleep-overs etc., all creating the impression that Kevin’s family is pretty darn normal. No, the real danger contemplated here is not that the child might be upset but that the presence of the child would upset the church’s teaching authority. It would be an Occasion of Scandal.

Of course, Catholic schools are not unfamiliar with problems involving families who violate the principle invoked by the archdiocese to exclude this child; namely: “Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment.” Allowing as how the parish and archdiocese are “within their rights” not to admit children from families who are in such violation, America’s James Martin rhetorically inquires:

So do the same rules apply to a child of parents who [are] in similar discord? That is, the child of a single, divorced parent? To a child of divorced and remarried parents? To a child of a single, unmarried mother? To a child of a parent who commits adultery? To a child of a parent who uses birth control?  To a child of a parent who steals from his company? To a child of a parent who fails to forgive his neighbor? To a child of a parent who fails to care for the poor? To a child of any parent who sins? They too would be in “open discord.”

The answer to all of the above is, Martin implies, of course not. But the difference is that in all the above cases, the parent in question would be likely to admit that the violation in question was a bad, or at least regrettable, thing. Members of same-sex relationships, not so much. Therein lies the real discord.

Touche, JR. I think you are right on the mark with your last paragraph.

Do you want to write for the Register???

Cheryl, you wrote that “even the APA has changed their position from one of there existing much research supporting a ‘gay’ gene to one of there being no known cause”.  But that is not true.

In 1998, the APA’s position stated: “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation. Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age. There is also considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. It’s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people.”

The APA continues to publish that very statement today.  You can read it for yourself on their website at http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

What’s “changed” is that today, in addition to the above statement, the APA now ALSO publishes this statement: “There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles.”

Not only has the APA not changed its previous statement, for in fact the APA continues to make that very statement today, but importantly, your claim that the APA’s position was “there exists much research supporting a ‘gay’ gene” is not true, nor does the APA’s statement today exclude the possibility of a “gay gene”.

What the APA said in 1998 in regard to genetics was that genetic factors (which is not in any way necessarily “a gay gene” nor was any “gay gene” either claimed or even mentioned in the APA’s statement) are a part of biology, and that biology (not just genetic factors) might (for scientists then as now don’t claim with absolute certainty) play a “significant role”, but “most likely” NOT to the exclusion of the roles played by non-biological factors such as environment and psychology (which themselves may be more or less significant than genetic factors).  Again, the term “genetic factors” is not equivalent to simply “a gay gene”, because genetics is far more involved than simply whether or not there’s “a” gene for something.  Moreover, the phrase “significant role” does not necessarily mean most important or primary role, because even a minor role can be (and is) of significance.  In other words, the APA said then (as it does today) that evidence suggests that biology (which includes many genetic, inborn hormonal and other factors) may be playing a contributing role of some significance.

And indeed, today, it remains today that there is “considerable” (as in much and/or worthy of attention) evidence to suggest that biology plays a significant role in a person’s sexuality.  The meaning of the word “significant” is semantics.  Even NARTH admits that biology (including genetics) plays a role of some significance.  A question is what exactly is that role and how to quantify it.  Different studies suggest different answers.  For example, the recent (2008) twin study in Sweden, the largest study of its kind ever to be done, reported that “genetic factors” explained 18-39% of the decision in choosing a same-sex partner rather than an opposite-sex partner, but that “the environment shared by twins (including familial and societal attitudes)” had only a 0-17% impact.  The greatest impact (61-66%) was the environment NOT shared by the twins.  Again, as the APA said, “the reasons may be different for different people”.

IN RESPONSE TO:  GERALD AND CHERYL AND OTHERS—-

Posted by Gerald on Friday, Mar 12, 2010 6:21 PM (EST):

Cheryl, you wrote that “even the APA has changed their position from one of there existing much research supporting a ‘gay’ gene to one of there being no known cause”.  But that is not true. etc.

WHO CARES, OUR GENES MAY BE PART OF OUR CROSS IN LIFE—- I GOT AN ‘ALCOHOLIC GENE’ AND MY HUSBAND GOT A ‘MEAN GENE’ AND MY FRIEND GOT A ‘DRUG ADDICTION’ GENE AND MY PRIEST GOT A ‘PEDIFILIA GENE’ AND MY AUNT GOT A ‘FAT’ GENE AND MY OTHER FRIEND GOT A ‘KILL’ GENE BECAUSE OF HIS ‘ANGER’ GENE, AND THE LIST GOES ON…..The point is that we must fight our addictions and our sins on a daily basis and never give up…...and never say it is ok to commit a sin by denouncing that it is a sin….that is the worst thing you can do….

JR,  Your prejudice and lack of knowledge about interpersonal relationships and the effect on gene expression and neurobiology is clear.  With over 30 years of education and experience in this vocation that God had led me to I have been blessed to learn a great deal of what harms and what heals relationships.  I point out the dynamics and you call it blame.

Ronald dear….you most certainly blamed other people in your life for not feeling the love of God…they were mean to you….and you have taken 30 years of study to do what?
get over yourself…you see, sometimes life is just black and white….like most of the time….me, prejudiced about what?....lack of knowledge, about what, neurobiology (YUP) I know that God has always loved me, big time sinner and all, mean people and all, on the street and all…gene expression is what people who have an alcoholic gene and they go get drunk….da…you want to call me an idiot or stupid, YOU BLAMED PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT THE FAITH FOR YOU NOT FEELING THE LOVE OF GOD…YOU DID…

JR,  See what I mean?  You do not know me and do not know what I am saying.  That is what I mean.  What you wrote are your thoughts, not mine.

JR, you asked, “who cares”.  The truth cares.  The Church denounces lying, calumny, and other offenses against the truth.  Charity and respect for the truth should dictate every communication.

Ronald, you are so intellectual, it took you 40 yrs. to come back to the church….and you are quite a ‘master debater’!

liseux—-I am sure you have changed your mind by now…:)  I am too blunt for the psychological, intellectual ‘master debaters’....

Gerald…I am being charitable, you just like a lot of words…I prefer the blunt truth….

JR,  I come from a coal mining family.  I had social phobias and I knew how judgemental and hurtful people are because I was the target.  I went into the military.  Then college and had to face my fears and be humiliated when I froze in public.  I now thank God for all of this because pain was and is a great teacher.
What I talk about is black and white.  It may appear gray because you have not experienced what I did.  I was blessed and everything I have I do not deserve.  I pray that everyone is blessed like I have been.

Gerald, you are a master at rephrasing things to suit your likes.  The APA most certainly changed its document:

“Consider the following statement from the first document:

“There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”

That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following:

“There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles…”

[quoted from http://www.narth.com/docs/deemphasizes.html]

FROM

“...biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role…”

TO
“...no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor…”

shows a certain direction – a direction AWAY from a PURELY biological role.  Plain and simple.  Play with the nuances of word usage and syntax all you want.  The fact that the APA admitted to having “considerable recent evidence” in 1998 but somehow by 2008 there was no conclusive evidence, leaves one wondering.

Besides, all your pounding away at the keyboard does nothing to change the fact that Mary Ellen’s claim: “You are either born a heterosexual or a homosexual..or bi-sexual,” is UNTRUE.

Just reading the first two posts leaves me sad at the lack of the obvious with some of the posters, if they are indeed Catholic.

The difference between anything from those practicing contraception or not believing in the Trinity to an openly prideful homosexual couple is just that:  the lesbian couple is OPENLY thwarting or thumbing their nose at Church teaching.  Kind of like public politician supporters of abortion.  Whereas you don’t know someone’s personal opinion about abortion sitting next to you in church, you know every Sunday where the public politician stands on that issue and the scandal he/she pridefully causes receiving communion (but that’s another argument).

You DON’T know by your appearance if someone is contracepting.  You MAY know someone is divorced, but do not know the circumstances of that person or their status in the Church.  Someone has issues with the teaching on the Trinity or Mary’s co-redemptrix status?  It’d be a problem if a student or parent was constantly undermining the teachers by passing out subversive anti-Catholic pamphlets against these teachings to the students. 

HOWEVER, YOU DO KNOW WHERE TWO OPEN LESBIANS STAND ON THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUALITY and are therefore a cause of scandal to the parents and students.  A private institution has a right to exclude OBVIOUS and proud dissenters of their teachings, which obviously these two women are. 

The people who should be blamed here are the “parents” of these children who are not only willing to put their children through this, but are also willing to teach “their” child to live in sin and proudly so.  If they’re not Catholic, then they have the option of going to a school that supports and even celebrates unapologetically unrepentant and sinful lifestyles.

If the Church does not teach and tend to Her flock as our Lord has instructed Her to do so, then She is being disobedient to our Lord Himself.  So it is NOT PETTY, as the first poster Chuck Anziulewicz exclaimed, but VERY SERIOUS.

I don’t think you’re too blunt, JR, I just think you need to belly up to the bar and discuss without whining.

Oops, sorry, wrong guy.

The “what about other sinners?” retort is a turkey. As one commentor put it:

I think it’s very important to remember that if two lesbians are the “parents” of a child, the teachers are going to have to refer to them both as “your mother.” Think about that. The gay couple with the child in school forces the school personnel to affirm the homosexual agenda continually in words and in deeds. This does not apply to heterosexual couples, yes, including those who are divorced and remarried without annulments. It is far, far more of an affirmation of a perverse attempt to remold reality for the teacher to refer to a child as having “two mommies” than for the teacher to refer to the stepfather as “your dad” and the biological mother as “your mom.” The situation with the two lesbians co-opts the school for the homosexual agenda in a special way. Consider the implications for a situation like the one with Lisa Miller that we have discussed elsewhere. Her former partner is claiming to be the child’s other mother and demanding full rights in law. Imagine if they had stayed together longer before Lisa repented and got out of the relationship, and imagine that they had sent the child to, say, a Catholic preschool. Janet Jenkins would be able to say, “The Catholic teachers at the Catholic preschool called me Isabella’s mother! What’s the matter with all the rest of you?” A very powerful sociological message, there, and one which Catholic and other Christian schools should not cooperate in sending.

Cheryl, you wrote, “The APA most certainly changed its document… That statement was omitted from the current document and replaced with the following…”.  No, there are TWO documents and both are “current documents”.  The APA’s “Psychology Help Center” document contains the first wording while the APA’s “Psychology Topics” document has the other wording.  It’s different wording, but the same message.

You wrote that it “shows a certain direction – a direction AWAY from a PURELY biological role.”  No, it does not, precisely because the APA’s 1998 position was very clear that sexual orientation is NOT purely biological.  The APA’s 1998 statement said that “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation.  Most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is MOST LIKELY THE RESULT OF A COMPLEX INTERACTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, COGNITIVE AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS,” and “It’s IMPORTANT to recognize that there are PROBABLY MANY REASONS for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT PEOPLE.”  None of that says it’s “purely biological”.  Even if biology plays a “significant” role (and the APA statement did not conclude that it does), the word “significant” does not mean exclusive or “PURELY” biological.

You wrote that “The fact that the APA admitted to having ‘considerable recent evidence’ in 1998 but somehow by 2008 there was no conclusive evidence, leaves one wondering.”  No, it leaves me wondering if you understand science, logic or the English language.  Even taking the phrases out of context as you’ve done, that there is “considerable recent evidence” of something does not mean it’s “conclusive”.  What’s more, that there’s “considerable recent evidence” that BIOLOGY plays a significant role in no way means that there’s conclusive evidence of “a gay gene”.  Where did you get such a wild idea?  There is no mention of “a gay gene” anywhere in the APA statement.

Just to demonstrate, I can even join the two APA statements together without contradiction: “There are numerous theories about the origins of a person’s sexual orientation, and much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation.  But there is as yet no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation, and no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors.  Rather, many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles, and indeed, most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors (including genetic or inborn hormonal factors).  There is also considerable evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality. It’s important to recognize that there are probably many reasons for a person’s sexual orientation, and the reasons may be different for different people, although in most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.”

Finally, you wrote “that Mary Ellen’s claim: ‘You are either born a heterosexual or a homosexual..or bi-sexual,’ is UNTRUE.”  The APA statements do not quite say it’s untrue (and moreover, Mary Ellen’s claim, as you’ve presented it to me and as I may charitably interpret it, does not necessarily contradict Church teaching).  The APA statements say that while most scientists agree that it’s “most likely” a combination of factors, “most likely” is not certainty and there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons, particularly in regard to any particular person.  The reasons may be different for different people.  And so it could be that people, or at least some people, are “born that way” and highly unlikely to change thereafter, even if some small number of people have reported some amount of change later in life.

Because America’s spiritual security is at stake it is time to capsule review the greater context of what the gay agenda is in recent times and their sometimes ingenious methodology. One example is this forum’s topic, its central matter being well and properly handled by Archbishop Chaput and the school. Some specific problems are the “real discord” JR described, always latent, hence available for disruptive-use at any time, something the school has every right and duty to avoid, plus ongoing daily problems cited by Scott W..

 
Currently in DC, Catholics are de facto being told by city council we have to give up Romans 3:8 – ‘do no evil that good may come of it’ – if the Church wants to continue to arrange for adoptions for which gay & lesbian couples will apply as equals and so Catholics had better give it up or step aside. The specific problem is that the gay-influenced DC council would not give the usual religious exemptions; instead they openly try to crush us by interfering with the protection of the “free exercise of religion” clause in our First Amendment, thus illustrating that the pro-gay agenda is hostile to basic human freedoms and therefore no friend of God. This early in their new momentum, they already illustrate some of the wickedness cited in Romans 1. As time rolls on, other citations will roll out as niceness disappears.

And in our Military they want “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repealed on the basis they are just as dedicated & brave as others and bring no special risks. I don’t question the first two but the mixing of blood under unstable battle conditions DOES involve unnecessary risks to other soldiers who are risking everything for us.

Worse, the bible, in Romans 1:24-28, warns that the practice of homosexual acts can involve God’s handing them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper and so there is a scripturally based risk (that “studies” can’t dispel) that American soldiers don’t deserve being forced upon them. The worst situation in wartime is to realize God may well not be in good relationship with a supposed battlefield buddy on whom you must depend, whose heart is not with God, as taught by the Holy Spirit via St. Paul. The sins involved are rather unique to merit such scriptural warning, for ordinary sinning seems not-so-equally described. Do gays now demand we reject St. Paul on this, too?

If Admiral Mullen gets his way, for the first time there will be increased chance of great compromise of team-dedication because of gay-lovers being in the same or nearby foxholes or in other crucial positions producing dangerous “conflicts of interest” situations. Reportedly, some are seeking concessions for separate partitioning of barracks. Since even businesses know it’s important to success to head-off “conflicts of interest” of many sorts, it’s vital to avoid gay-induced “conflicts of interest” in military situations. The more open gay-pursuits are, the greater the problem.

Two relatively short articles to study are indicated below. The first is an honest, fair treatment of “Homosexuality in the Old Testament”. It prepares one to better to see the errors in the second article which, if carefully studied, unwittingly exposes the invalid basis for the false gay-confidence in going after long standing Church teaching. The first article rightly does not place blame on the homosexual community for all that is wrong in this world. Both straights and gays contribute heavily to that. The specific overall problem is that pro-gay scripture interpreters “make themselves the source of truth”. Some even insist the bible is just human-sourced and so they presume to adjust millennia old Natural Moral Law to gay agenda, claiming that certain acts are normal despite the fact the body is medically and structurally known to NOT be robustly designed for such acts.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/humanity/homo3.htm
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27025.html

Scott W, you wrote, “I think it’s very important to remember that if two lesbians are the ‘parents’ of a child, the teachers are going to have to refer to them both as ‘your mother.’”

No, I can also refer to either woman as “your parent”.  Or I might call the biological parent “your mother” and the other woman simply “your parent”.  And there is nothing necessarily wrong with calling either woman “your mother”.  Any female parent can be considered a mother, as not all mothers are biological mothers.

Definitions of “mother” include “female parent”, “a mother-in-law, stepmother, or adoptive mother”, “a term of address for a female parent or a woman having or regarded as having the status, function, or authority of a female parent”, “a term of familiar address for an old or elderly woman”, “a woman exercising control, influence, or authority like that of a mother”, “someone who exercises protecting care over someone else”, etc.

I can also refer to the women as Mrs. Jones and Mrs. Smith, or by whatever their surnames are.

Eugenia, you wrote, “You DON’T know by your appearance if someone is contracepting… HOWEVER, YOU DO KNOW WHERE TWO OPEN LESBIANS STAND ON THE CHURCH’S TEACHING ON HOMOSEXUALITY.”
 
What is an “open lesbian”?  If two women appear before me and tell me they’re living together and have a girl/daughter that they’re caring for, I in fact do not know how they stand on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.  I don’t even know that they’re lesbian.  Even if they tell me they’re lesbian, I still don’t know how they stand on the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.  For all I know, they fully agree and abide by it.  There is no requirement that says two lesbian women living together caring for a child must be engaging in any illicit sexual acts together.  Rather, the requirement is to the contrary, and so would be my presumption, even if I might be a bit suspicious.

>>>Gerald: “There is no mention of “a gay gene” anywhere in the APA statement.”<<<
And, likewise, there was no mention in my post.  Only yours.

>>>>>“Gerald:”...and moreover, Mary Ellen’s claim, as you’ve presented it to me and as I may charitably interpret it, does not necessarily contradict Church teaching).” 

Again, Gerald - you are the one to say that.  I never claimed Mary Ellen’s comment contradicted Church teaching.

>>>>>Gerald: Blah, blah blah ad finitum.<<<<<
Enough already. Find a job that pays better :-)

Here is an interesting tidbit – Father “Know It All,” as heard on Relevant Radio, once had religion teachers that were in a common-law marriage.  When he found out, HE FIRED THEM.  Where were the news crews and picketers then???? I never heard about this in the media!! Did you?
He fired them because they were not living what the church believes and teaches.

Posted by Cheryl on Saturday, Mar 13, 2010 12:23 AM (EST):>>>>>Gerald: Blah, blah, blah, ad INfinitum.<<<<<
Enough already. Find a job that pays better :-)

Had to fix that.  Bad editing.

Cheryl, you made your claim about “a gay gene” in your Friday, Mar 12, 2010 1:05 PM (EST) post.  And in regard to your claim of “I never claimed Mary Ellen’s comment contradicted Church teaching”, you claimed it’s “fact that Mary Ellen’s claim is UNTRUE” and I responded by pointing out that her claim is neither necessarily untrue per the APA statements nor per Church teaching.  As to your “find a job that pays better”, I have no need for such.

No, I can also refer to either woman as “your parent”....

None of this mitigates the fact that the “what about other sinners?” argument is lame.

It really doesn’t matter what anyone thinks, we are called to be obedient to our bishops. If he made the wrong decision, he will be held accountable before God!

Why punish the child?  I can’t believe this - what an un-christian and un-catholic action Archbishop Chaput has done.  Denying the an exposure to Christ.

Gene, I agree- why punish the child.

Let’s start with the child being deprived of a mother AND a natural father as a role model and protector. That is the core of punishment here- not that the mean school principal has denied admittance to a Catholic school.

So, the child’s being loved by two parents who are women is punishment?  The principal is not mean when he denies access to Christ because the child has two mothers?

Take a step back and suppose that it just might be possible that Bishop Chaput is looking out for the good of the children—something many Americans find unthinkable. I suppose it’s generally agreed that young children find themselves in a delicate stage of psychological development. Placing a young child from a gay or lesbian family in a catholic grade school with children of what I would call normal parents—forgive me for expressing my opinions bluntly—provides for the opportunity of confusion which would put tremendous strain on a child. Whether or not the parental topic will always be raised among children, we can at least assume that it very well might be raised over the course of a year. We shouldn’t deny the possibility that this might trigger a gross lack of Christian charity in young children who are not mature enough to handle the debate fairly. As well it would expose children to the reality of GLBT couples which some good Catholic parents expressly wish their little tikes to innocently ignore until adolescence…or simply greater maturity. The school is doing all the children a favor. To see this as intolerance is unfair. Mark Twain once said, “we do not know good fortune from bad, and are always mistaking the one for the other.” I’d simply like to posit that this may be such a case.

Yes, when that child needs a father, having two mommies starts the kid out with punishment.

Tom,  I do see what you are saying.  If adults cannot love as we are to love then how can we expect the children in the catholic school be able to love as Christ wants us to.  Exclusion would be the logical solution and gives evidence to the reality that adults have only a limited understanding of God’s Love and thus teaching truth is limited to their understanding of the truth which is God’s Love.

God’s love doesn’t include condoning open and public sin.

Where did you observe this public sin being committed?  Did your question come from your understanding of God’s Love?

I completely in agreement. Love cannot condone public sin, or any sin at that. Sin is always poisonous to the sinner. The trick is applying charity as the remedy. Somehow we must make it clear that we love the sinner, and for the sinner’s own sake and for God’s detest the sin.

Tom, loving the sinner, which includes adhering to God’s word, sometimes causes hurt feelings.

When John the Baptist condemned the adulterous marriage of Herodias, her daughter got upset. So upset, she was compliant in John’s murder.

I’d like to see some more John the Baptist types out there instead of the politically correct types. Men should be men and stand up for the truth.

Women too.

The archbishop could have said something like “Well since I am the teacher of the truth and the Truth is God is Love and His Love is infinite and mysterious and I am finite, it follows that my understanding of God’s Love is limited and therefore I am not able to love this child or her parents as clearly as God can and therefore I would be unable to ensure the safety of this innocent child in our school because I and we do not know how to love like God.  It would be too dangerous for her to be here.”
That I could support.

I hope you’re not assuming that Bishop Chaput in fact doesn’t love the child or the parents. I don’t think you are. But I can say that I’ve met Bishop Chaput, spoken with him, and can say without the shadow of a doubt that he loves every human individual and cares for their eternal salvation. He’d agree that he can never love mankind the way Christ did, but I would add that he does try his best to imitate the Master. None of us are perfect copies, but he’s a lot closer than most of us.
And a comment such as you propose might be misleading. And one thing Bishop Chaput should never do is give Catholics the impression that God is indifferent to sin. He’s not. Otherwise Christ never would have died on the cross. And Catholics can’t grow indifferent to sin, especially in their own lives. To say that God’s mysterious love makes him indifferent to the sin might lead to a certain permissiveness of which our culture already has in abundance. We can all agree that sin is wrong. We can all agree that God is open to forgiving the sinner; in fact he longs to forgive the sinner. However it’s essential to see that Forgiveness is forced on no one, and that man must recognize his own sins and repent from his own sins in order to fully benefit from God’s infinite love. God has indeed loved us so much that he gives us the freedom to love him in return.

Sin can be intentional or unintentional.  Love invites and fear expels.  Love communicates and fear excommunicates.  Who is indifferent to sin?  I hold us Catholics to a higher standard of love than anyone else.  We are told to be perfect as He and the Father are perfect and united in love so that the world knows that He was really here.  Read John 17

I have been praying about this-posted my thoughts on Catholic Exchange. I speak to high school teenagers preparing to receive the sacrament of confirmation. Their teachers told me that the majority do not attend Mass. One teacher was looking for a video of the Mass because students did not know what she was talking about, having been absent from the Mass since their first Holy Communion. All of them have been in Catholic schools since Kindergarten. Their parents do not follow the mandates of the Church. Yet, they are not refused the Sacrament. We seem to give away the Sacraments of the Church lightly. Then there are the well-known ‘Catholic’ politicians who not only support abortion, the killing of human babies in the wombs of their mothers, but try to encourage others to support abortion: they are not turned away from the Communion rail…despite the fact that Archbishop Burke, who heads the Vatican Court, has stated over and over that Canon law forbids the giving and the receiving of the Eucharist to those who publicly reject Church teaching. Yet, we turn away a child because of the sins of the ‘parents’...it doesn’t make sense. “Let the little children come to Me and do not prevent them.” - sure, there could be problems but the ‘parents’ could be asked to sign a legal agreement to not interfere or go against Church teaching…the school is not the only place where the children will hear that what their ‘parents’ are doing is not only morally wrong, but unnatural…they will not be taught not to love their ‘parents’, but could be a source of grace and conversion for the lesbian couple.  Did Nancy Pelosi’s children go to Catholic school?  How about Biden’s and Kerry’s and Kennedy’s and Dodd’s, etc? Yet, all those parents publicly advocated for the killing of unborn babies…we need to rethink this after prayer and fasting ...“Let the little children come to Me, and do not prevent them!”

I don’t know where half of the bloggers are coming from. The argument regarding the opinion of the APA is totally irrelevant. God said in Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.”, therefore homosexuality is wrong. Case closed, no matter what anyone thinks.

But that is not what the article is about. After reading it three times, I do not read that the homosexuals were trying to influence the teachings of the church. It simply states the archbishop “backed the school up when it refused to allow two children of lesbian “parents” to renew their enrollment.” So far, we do not know if the lesbians are lesbians because they have not had exposure to the teachings of God. I met people who were homosexuals and repented when they finally read the scripture itself. They were not convinced by the opinions of other people, like bishops or priests, but when they read the scripture they started working on the problem.

The point that the teachers, parents, or other children could not handle it, in its many ways of describing it, is irrelevant. God called us to plant His seeds of truth, the scripture. God said “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” When my wife divorced me, it really messed up our kids at first. They didn’t know how to handle it because they loved mom, but they loved dad, and they loved God, and they didn’t want to hate mom, or have to chose between mom, dad, or God and on and on it went. But God had an answer for them and all of us. I just told you: “Love the sinner, hate the sin.” Tell mom you love her, tell dad you love him, tell God you love him. Don’t sin. Hate the sin. Shun the sin. The divorce is evil. The other guy(s) who even show up at the house to date you mother are doing evil. The guy who pretends he remarried you mom is doing evil. She has a major sin that hopefully she can give up before she dies so she doesn’t go to hell, because God is no respecter of persons and will not tolerate that in heaven, but your job is just to love her and remind her she needs to repent if she wants to be saved. This is how we are supposed to treat everyone. And there isn’t anyone who didn’t start off with sin. The teachers, the parents and the other children need to learn how to handle it. It is the main reason they are in Catholic School. They need to learn two things, the rest is trivia or supposed to be helping them learn the two things: 1) Love God with all your heart, mind, sole and strength, 2) Love your neighbor as yourself. Since we all live in a glass house, none of us should be throwing stones.

As for the comment regarding none of this matters, the bishop made his decision, we should just abide by it. We already are abiding by it. The writer of the article recognizes that the Archbishop is not God, or the Pope practicing infallibility with regard to determining doctrine. This is not doctrine. The Pope and other leaders of the church make mistakes all the time. The writer correctly is asking a legitimate question. He is also getting a lot of both relevant and irrelevant feed back to consider. We, who care enough to read and possibly respond to this type of article are getting a good perspective on the topic, and might be influencing an important decision. I for one do not see the point that the homosexuals were attempting to influence the teachings of the church. Therefore I think they and the two children might benefit from the scripture and hanging with the excellent examples they might see at the Catholic School (pun intended, I’ve been there frequently).

If the sin is particularly heinous, isn’t it all the more important that we confront it, God’s way, with His sword of the spirit, the scripture. We should pierce the sinner in a place more fundamental than their genetic code. We should use His sword, which is thee most effective. Since the homosexuals, two children, teachers, parents, other children, and all of us readers need major spiritual surgery, shouldn’t we come together and read the scripture together and work on our faults, and isn’t this the purpose of going to church (one hour per week), and going to Catholic School (30 hours per week). Turning the homosexual “what evers” (sinners) away isn’t going to help. If you want to see a massive improvement, have the kids read and learn scripture 30 hours a week for 13 years. These folks, even if they started out as homosexuals, will know God’s opinion when the graduate and have a profound effect on the world. But we all know that’s not going to happen. Satan has too strong a grip in our church and our schools . . . and after all . . . it sounds too hard . . . and WE might have to learn scripture . . . and WE might discover more of our own sins . . . and . . . and . . . who are we to stand between anyone and God. Let’s just do His program His way. I think the bishop needs to repent.

To Chuck, Erin, Mary Ellen and all other uninformed posters, in an attempt to instruct the ignorant please read Archbishop Chaput’s column: http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3560

Before making fools of yourselves by saying his decision was “petty,” educate yourself.  Then I suggest, since you have publicly criminalized him that you publicly apologize - you all at least owe him that.

Henry Vanden Brook, you wrote, “God said in Leviticus 18:22… therefore homosexuality is wrong.”

No violation of Leviticus 18:22 is required for two persons of the same sex to raise children.  Not even if they’re lesbian.

Sam, have you read the Archbishop’s comments on this issue?

Hello Gerald,

But do you agree with what Leviticus 18:22 does say about homosexual acts?

“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman: such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent.”

Liseux, I agree that ALL sexual sins, whether heterosexual or homosexual, are sins, and that all parents, whether they’re lesbian or heterosexual, can sin.

But do you agree that lieing with a male as with a woman is an abomination?

I’m not sure of your definition of “sin,” so I’m asking if affirm the message of this passage.

Yes, I have read what Arch. Chaput wrote…several times. He is one of my favorite Bishops and I try to read everything he writes, and I will write to him personally about this. I tell people that life isn’t a chess game…we can’t really know what the consequences will be for our actions so we have to try to conform to God’s will. There were Bishops who allowed the morning after pill for rape victimes in Catholic hospitals even without knowing if the woman was already pregnant..the pill causes an abortion. They were convinced by Lawyers and politicians to do this or… or what?  What if Catholic Hospitals and schools close down because of obedience to God’s law?  Let it happen…at first, I agreed with Arch. Chaput but after praying long and hard about this, I believe the children should remain in Catholic school. Slaughtering unborn babies in the wombs of their mothers is a far more grievous sin than lesbians putting children in Catholic school…the greater influence is goodness and these children could influence the lesbian women in ways that nothing else can…Nancy Pelosi once stated that if her Bishop had told her not to present herself for Holy Communion, she would have been devasted - which meant it could have been a catalyst for conversion. But she continues along the way, becoming more arrogant and openly defiant of Church teachings and influence. Yet she, and others like her, are not turned away from the Eucharist despite continued public scandal…she even challenged a Cardinal, telling him to bring his lawyers and she’d bring hers about a point of canon law…there’s a double standard here…Pelosi and her Catholic pro abortion colleagues have power…these children do not so it’s safer to turn them away…sure, there are risks…but souls could be saved…if the children are rejected, in my opinion, it only makes matters worse and shuts the gates of charity and hope…

The Deceiver by LIVIO FANZAGA***

Satan seduces, but you are the one who decides. Even though his seduction is very powerful, he can not bend your will to do evil. Even though the tempest of thoughts, desires, resentment, and hatred he stirs in your heart is overwhelming, there is no sin without your free and conscious consent. Eve sinned because she wanted to sin. God has put our will exclusively in our hands.

The Corruption**
There are apostles of evil. They are people who besides ruining themselves drag along other souls also. They have perverted themselves into becoming demons, as Saint Catherine of Siena asserted, and thus “fulfill the office of the demons,” inducing others to sin. It is truly said that one never sins alone. Our sin is negatively reflected in our neighbors. If we do not repent quickly and return to God the heart is hardened and, almost to reassure ourselves, we drag others along the way of ruin.

Eve was so possessed by evil that she did not hesitate to entice Adam also. “She also gave some to her husband, and he ate” (Gen 3:6). When you examine your life, remember all the times that by your words, evil example, and complicity you have pushed your neighbor into the arms of the evil one. Think of all those souls that are lost in sin because of you. Repent before God, repair the damages you have caused, and make yourself an apostle of good.
The corruptors of souls are the great strength of the demon. In the contemporary world, they occupy very significant and visible positions in various fields such as culture, science, politics or economics, including the realm of the mass media. They have learned the vernacular of flattery and lies from their teacher. Despising truth and exalting error, they disparage good and virtue while exalting evil and vice. They are the faithful servants of Satan, and they will go with him to his kingdom of death in recompense.

Watch out for such people, even if they are very close to you and united to you by bonds of affection. You show your worthiness as a human being by saying no to evil, even if the one who proposes it is most dear to you. If Adam had said no to Eve, he would have undoubtedly saved himself and perhaps even her. No human respect, no bond of friendship, no reason of human nature, nor any interest must ever cause you stay with anyone who proposes evil. It is much better to lose a friend or family member than to lose God for all of eternity.

Nevertheless, Adam took the fruit Eve offered him without argument, and he ate it. He blindly followed his wife, even when fell into the abyss. How many behave like this! Like leaves in the wind, they are dragged where the world wants, and Satan rejoices over the spoils obtained so cheaply. The law of the herd, public opinion polls, and social brainwashing dominate the modern world. You, however, must be very attentive to the voice of God.  Keep your conscience illuminated by the Church and never stray from her, no matter what others think, even if they are those whom you love the most.

From Disillusionment to Illusion**
When man commits evil, he is inevitably degraded. He then opens his eyes and all that before seemed beautiful and desirable, afterwards entirely loses its attractiveness. First evil attracts you, then it poisons you. From the illusion of obtaining much happiness follows both disillusionment and disappointment. Once the fruit was eaten “the eyes of both were opened.” Adam and Eve had deluded themselves into thinking that they could become “like God” but found themselves deprived of divinity and its gifts. The conscience begins to feel remorse. That God Whom you have driven from your heart by sinning does not abandon you. In His goodness He makes you hear His voice in the depths of your being. It is a voice that disapproves of the evil you have committed and at the same time is an invitation to return to the straight way.

Consider this great grace that opens the eyes after the satanic temptation. It is the moment in which, if you are honest with yourself, you realize that Satan has deceived you. With all that he has offered you he has succeeded in destroying your dignity, morality and your soul. He has given you something, but he himself has taken your heart. You, like Adam and Eve, realize your nakedness. You have been stripped of sanctifying grace and of the gifts of spiritual beauty and wisdom that adorned you: now you see yourself in your misery.

The disillusionment that comes after every sin, with the verification of the deception, the remorse of conscience, and the consciousness of the damages you have suffered, constitutes a moment of great grace, even though in the context of a spiritual catastrophe. After every sin, the Divine Wisdom opens our eyes so that we see the despicable face of evil. This always happens unless a person, persevering on the way of ruin, suffocates his conscience and hardens his heart.

Adam and Even, having realized the lie of the tempter and the existential catastrophe into which they had fallen, would have been able and should have cried out to God from the depths of their misery. The Creator in His goodness would have listened to them and would have come to their aid. So we, dear friend, have at the moment of the grace of disillusionment the possibility of a ready rehabilitation, if we turn humbly and contritely to that God Whom we have foolishly abandoned.

Unfortunately, this happens all too rarely. More often, man falls again into that satanic deception, desiring to try again the fruit which has proven to be so untrustworthy and poisonous. The disillusionment is followed by a new illusion, and this process continues, so that man enters into a deadly mechanism that crushes the soul, driving it to blindness and to total death.

Many men waste their lives following illusions which are followed immediately by disillusionment. “Every one who drinks of this water will thirst again,” declare Jesus (Jn 4:13). Only the mercy of God can break this satanic chain which renders us slaves, but you must cooperate with the grace which opens your eyes every time you do evil. Think of the last sin you committed.  Were you happy to place your trust in the demon? Didn’t you become disillusioned, saddened, and degraded? Why then do you wish to repeat the same experience, believing again and again the allurements of the tempter?

There may come a time in which, having sinned, your eyes are no longer opened. It is a very alarming signal, because it means [ou are entering the spiritual status of impenitence. This happens when you advance unperturbed along the way of perversion and our conscience is finally snuffed out completely. Then the worst crimes can be committed without your feeling remorse. How many souls move in this level of deep darkness, in which they have given their unconditional consent to Satan and to his kingdom of perdition! Only a great grace, with the awakening of conscience, could now save them.

I see your point, Sam.

But I do realize the broader implications.

Do you not ask these and other homosexual parents to be “room” mothers? What about chaperones on field trips?

As a parent, I would not want my child on a bus with a male homosexual parent. That’s my preference.  The Boy Scouts are now defamed because they will not have homosexual den leaders.  Good for the Boy Scouts.

There is some good in what you say, but I believe many evils in our society are “partially good.”

GREAT POST SAM!

SAM…you’re thinking the wrong way—-
Nevertheless, Adam took the fruit Eve offered him without argument, and he ate it. He blindly followed his wife, even when fell into the abyss. How many behave like this! Like leaves in the wind, they are dragged where the world wants, and Satan rejoices over the spoils obtained so cheaply. The law of the herd, public opinion polls, and social brainwashing dominate the modern world. You, however, must be very attentive to the voice of God.  Keep your conscience illuminated by the Church and never stray from her, no matter what others think, even if they are those whom you love the most.

THIS IS WITHOUT A DOUBT AN OXYMORON—-
I am surprised it came from Liseux….

but I believe many evils in our society are “partially good.”

JR,  I agree with you about the law of the herd.

Does anyone know how this story was made public? Did the ‘couple’ protest the children’s rejection? If not,then maybe they just want the children to get what they can’t give…a relationship with the Church and with Christ…and maybe the child/children will lead that couple to Christ…unless we are telling parents who promote abortion, or prostitution, or drug taking, or adultery, etc., to take their kids out of Catholic schools, I don’t understand why these children should be singled out.  Sure, homosexual sin is a grave moral evil…but the slaughter of innocent human babies in the wombs of their mothers is worse and yet, those who promote and support this abomination are allowed to come to the altar - without being turned away like those children - and receive the Body and Blood of Christ.  This just does not make sense!!!

Gerald,
You are off topic as are many of the bloggers. The reason I quoted Leviticus 18:22 was to prove God said homosexuality is wrong so there is nothing to discuss among Christians. That’s also why I added “case closed”.

You are opening a new can of worms. The topic isn’t about whether homosexuals should be allowed to raise children. It is about whether the Catholic Church should allow children being raised by homosexual “parents” to be allowed to attend Catholic School. That is what I addressed.

Your apparent topic, should homosexuals be allowed to raise children, should be discussed in a different blog. As to your topic, I think you need to consider that we, assuming you are a Christian, are the sojourners in a foreign land. God has a decree: “The sole that sins will die.” He created another decree that essentially states that if someone else, who never sinned, is willing to take your punishment for your, and you accept their substitute sacrifice for your sin, then you will be forgiven. This is what Jesus, the Christ, did. God has already decided He is going to destroy this world with fire. He’s just giving us an opportunity to be saved. As his new children sojourning (visiting, walking through) this evil world (experiencing it), we are supposed to be planting His good seed, the truth, His Word, the scripture and helping get people saved (evangelization). We expect the world to be evil. We expect our members to have problems with sin. We are striving to improve ourselves to be worthy enough to hear our Father say “Well done thy good and faithful servant.” Hopefully other members of the church and the world see our good deeds and ask us for advice on how they can be like us. And hopefully we are knowledgeable enough of the scripture that we can properly guide them to the correct scripture, or tradition passed down from an apostle if there isn’t sufficient scripture on the topic.

Experiencing homosexuals in this world raising children only seems odd because this country was originally Christian in nature. As Satan influences his children, who are obviously among us, we can expect to see more of his fruit (homosexuality, gambling, drunkenness, drugs, prostitution, etc.); it’s growing in America, and the country is plummeting in respect around the world. Anyway, the Church is told in scripture that people who have a problem controlling their sexual desire are handed over and allowed to become homosexuals. They have “a depraved mind”, which I believe includes the meaning that they don’t see how bad their condition is. Whether they are born with a lack of control, or they lose control over time, doesn’t matter. They give in too easily. Since we are warned about this, we realize that this is a bad situation for a child to be raised in, so if we, Christians, are in a position to make a decision, we make a difference (the salt on the poop pile) not to condone homosexuals raising children. Since this is not the topic, I don’t want to elaborate more on it. But my opinion is I think God doesn’t want children raised by homosexuals.

To Gerald:  When little Mary Joe tells her teachers and playmates even as she gets older that she has “two mommies,” that’s an indicator she has lesbian “parents.”  When two lesbians make news and name the school they’re wishing to demonize, that’s an indicator of lesbian “parents.”  When two women or one (but are both referred to as “mommy”) show up for parent/teacher conference, field trips, school plays, that’s an indicator little Mary Joe has “two mommies.”
When little Mary Joe gets upset during religion class because she’s taught that her “mommies” are living in sin BY CHOICE AND PRIDEFULLY so, that’s an indicator of lesbian “parents.” 

Don’t be disagreeable, Gerald, for its own sake. Hypotheticals don’t work in the real world.

What we’re seeing here is a lot of variants of “what would Jesus do?” Then, from various perceptions of scripture, posters recall or construct reasonable sounding, heartwrenching scenarios they offer as proof that Archbishop Chaput is wrong according to their analysis. The problem with most “WWJD” methodology is that most such challengers forget (some don’t know) God also said “My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.”

For magisterium-faithful Catholics, God left us HIS teaching authority (magisterium), not well meaning posters nor the gay-community which tries to recast the Natural Moral Law (NML) in their favor. Above, Allan is right about baptism having to be denied in some cases (scroll to March 10, 5:22 PM) for reasons I’m sure some here would declare wrong. The Catholic faith is sacred and is to be protected from misuse which has wide scope. Do we not know that NO ONE goes to hell unless it is their own fault? Long before Abraham and Jesus, and baptism, people were “saved”, basically by how well they followed the NML within them.

If you refer to my post above (scroll to Mar 12, 10:51 PM), you’ll see just part of the broader picture of the gay-agenda working against the Catholic faith and against scripture. Do you think Jesus did not know this phase would come about when on earth? The lesbian couple discussed may be open to learning about and possibly embracing the faith. On the other hand, they could be part of the overall national agenda. If they are sincerely searching, I’m sure they can explore that with magisterium-faithful groups nearby. Their first sign of sincerity would then be to not demand their kids be retained. They need to make up their mind in their own time frame and to strive to live chastely in the meantime. I do not accuse them of sin; but they do place themselves in the occasion of serious sin by living together if each is in fact attracted by the other.

The agenda you are talking about is the backlash against the prejudice and violence of the past against the human person with a same-sex attraction.  By speaking out against homosexuality you join those who have hated and abused them no matter how much you say hate the sin and not the sinner.

Liseux, you asked, “But do you agree that lieing with a male as with a woman is an abomination? I’m not sure of your definition of ‘sin,’ so I’m asking if affirm the message of this passage.”

And I’m not sure of your understanding/interpretation of Leviticus 18:22.  The translation you offer is not in modern English and may be understood differently by different people.  As I’m not sure you understand it as I might, I will not answer your question with a yes or a no.

For example, it’s not necessarily a sin for a woman to have sex with a man as with a woman, or for a man to recline with a man as with a woman.  And quite frankly, in the sexual act sense, as women do not have penises and men do not have vaginas, I’m not sure it’s even possible for one to lie with a man as with a woman.

Henry Vanden Brook, you wrote, “You are off topic as are many of the bloggers. The reason I quoted Leviticus 18:22 was to prove God said homosexuality is wrong so there is nothing to discuss among Christians.”

No, there is no homosexual act mentioned in the story about the two alleged lesbians.  Just because someone is or may be lesbian does not mean there is, was or ever will be any homosexual act going on between the two women.

You wrote, “the Church is told in scripture that people who have a problem controlling their sexual desire are handed over and allowed to become homosexuals.”

You appear to be using the word “homosexuals” in a non-standard manner, as a noun meaning people who actually engage in homosexual acts.  That is not the common meaning of the word.  The common meaning is a person with a sexual orientation toward (some but not necessarily all) persons of the same sex, who might or might not engage in sexual acts with person(s) of the same sex.  There are many lesbian and homosexual couples who do not have any “problem controlling their sexual desire” toward one another, and in fact, have NO sexual desire toward one another (any more than you have toward the Pope).

Romans 1 tells a story of God giving some idolaters over to their desires and they engaged in homosexual acts.  It does not say they “became homosexuals” and it does not say that heterosexual persons “who have a problem controlling their desires” become homosexuals.  Many heterosexual persons may experienced tremendous problems controlling their sexual desires but it doesn’t mean they ever engage in any homosexual acts, and there are many heterosexual persons who have engaged in sexual acts with persons of the same sex but do not “become homosexuals”.  Likewise, there are many homosexual persons who do not have a problem controlling their sexual desires, and they’re still homosexual persons.

As to raising children, the research shows that there are probably many homosexual persons who do or can do as good or better raising children than many heterosexual married couples.  If homosexual persons raising children is not the perfect arrangement, I have news for you:  Heterosexual married couples do not provide perfection either.

To Ronald King:
You stated that sin can be intentional or unintentional.  No, sin must be on purpose for it to be sin, for one to be culpable.

Eugenia, you wrote, “When little Mary Joe gets upset during religion class because she’s taught that her ‘mommies’ are living in sin BY CHOICE AND PRIDEFULLY so, that’s an indicator of lesbian ‘parents.’”

No, it can be an indicator that the teacher is teaching falsehood and engaging in calumny.  Just because a girl has two “mommies” does not authorize you or anyone to teach that child or her classmates that her parents are lesbian or living in sin.  Even if her parents are lesbian, that is not a sin.  It is not a sin to be lesbian, and it is not a sin for two lesbian persons to raise a child.

JR, it is true that most evils are packaged as “good.” The half-lies of the world have demolished our culture.

Gerald, that’s why I asked you in the manner I did, because you are the King of Relativism.

Do you need someone to draw you a picture of how a man would lie with another man as if he was a woman?  lol

I think you know good and well, but can’t admit the details.

You’re a sly one, Gerald.

Yes, Gerald, a Catholic school is authorized to teach Catholic teaching.

How brazen you are to continually pretend and beat around the bush about this idea with your limp relativism.

The two women would be creating scandal for sure, leading others into sin by their example, which by Catholic teaching is sinful.

Please play your games of relativism elsewhere where objective truth is not recognized.

Thank God for Catholic schools where we can still have the truth taught without the teachers being accused of teaching falsehood and “calumny.”

This isn’t Canada, and it sure ain’t England….. yet.

Maria, thank you for the correction.  So, if a sexual act is not experienced as a sin, then it is not a sin?
To liseux,  since God’s Love is mysterious and infinite, are we then as Catholics living our faith in a relativistic fashion based on how much we know about God’s Love?  If so, then everyone of us is relativistic.

Liseux, you wrote, “Gerald, a Catholic school is authorized to teach Catholic teaching.”

But the Church is not authorized to teach falsehood or engage in calumny.  The statement “her ‘mommies’ are living in sin BY CHOICE AND PRIDEFULLY so” is falsehood unless it’s true, and if falsehood, could be calumny and scandal to teach such a thing.

You wrote, “The two women would be creating scandal for sure, leading others into sin by their example”.

No, “the” two women in my post were not referring to any two specific women, and scandal “for sure” is not to be presumed of every two women caring for a child, even if they’re lesbian women.  Two women, even two lesbian women, caring for a child may lead others to do good.

Liseux, you asked, “Do you need someone to draw you a picture of how a man would lie with another man as if he was a woman?”

I do not need a picture to see that you replaced the words “as with a woman” to “as if he was a woman”.

Gerald, Catholic schools are not the secular arena where your relativistic ideas have some mileage.

A Catholic school will teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and they don’t need your permission. It will not be called calumny or defamation in this country.

You know exactly what is meant in Leviticus 18:22 and the wording is clear either way it is said, unless you want to falsify and change the meaning.

Please show in Christian history where homosexual acts were the norm and were not condemned. Please demonstrate using quotes from major Church figures who were accepting of homosexual acts and didn’t refer to them as sinful.  Quotes from St. Augusting, St. Jerome, or Pope St. Gregory the Great will do.

Liseux, you keep talking about homosexual acts.  There is NO homosexual act described or even mentioned in any of the stories I’ve read about these two women, and there is NO homosexual act required for two women to live together and care for a child, not even if they’re lesbian women or a lesbian couple.  There isn’t even a requirement that they find each other sexually attractive.  There are MANY same-sex/lesbian/gay couples who live together with NO sexual attraction between them, no homosexual acts going on, none of that.  If you don’t know any, I’ve known and/or worked with MANY such couples.

If you want to talk about instrinsically evil, CALUMNY is intrinsically evil.

Nice effort at evasion, Gerald.

I’m not playing your game.

Now how about those great Christian figures which demonstrate by example and word that homosexual acts are not intrinsically evil and that we should promote them?

Liseux, when the subject is homosexual acts, I’ll be happy to talk about homosexual acts.  But there is NO homosexual act described or even mentioned in any of the stories I’ve read about these two women, and there is NO homosexual act required for two women to live together and care for a child, not even if they’re lesbian women or a lesbian couple.  There isn’t even a requirement that they find each other sexually attractive.  There are MANY same-sex/lesbian/gay couples who live together with NO sexual attraction between them, no homosexual acts going on, none of that.  If you don’t know any, I’ve known and/or worked with MANY such couples.

Of course, some lesbian couples may be engaging in homosexual acts, just as a married man and woman living together may be engaging in spousal abuse, adultery, contraception, abortion, child molestation, etc.

If you claim that all lesbian couples are engaging in sinful homosexual acts, that is calumny.

Gerald:
Your paragraph 2:  You appear to be reading a different story. The one I’m reading says in the second paragraph “Basically, he backed the school up when it refused to allow two children of lesbian “parents” to renew their enrollment.” Lesbians are female homosexuals.

Paragraph 4: You can twist the definitions all you want. God said in Leviticus 18:22 “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” The common understanding of a homosexual is anyone who practices homosexuality.

Again you twisted what I said regarding their problem controlling their sexual desire. A homosexual may not have a problem resisting desire for someone they don’t find attractive. The problem is they are likely to act on someone that they are sexually interested in if they think they can get away with it.

Paragraph 5: You are confusing the truth with your perceived reality. When they practiced homosexuality they were homosexuals. They did it; they are it; they don’t have to stay it. They can repent.

Paragraph 6: Your “research” is totally bogus, and again, you twisted my words. I didn’t write or imply that ALL heterosexuals would make better parents than homosexuals. Anyone who can’t control themselves should not be in a position that is potentially detrimental to raising children. That includes homosexuals, murders, drunks, drug addicts, etc. They can repent, but while they have the problem, we should not expose children to the risk.

When my kids were growing up, if they took a chance of hurting someone, they got punished. If their excuse was that they didn’t actually make contact so the other person wasn’t hurt, I would reply, you took the risk, you are guilty. It’s not right to take the risk that the homosexuals and their associates might not be overwhelmed with desire and commit the act. They obviously have a problem, whether they know it or not. Our duty as Christians is to recognize it is wrong, an abomination, it is risky to the children, and if we can prevent the risk – we should.

Since your stance is pro-homosexuality, and you keep twisting my words, should we not assume you are a homosexual?

I’m not interested in your mental gymnastics, Gerald.  Giving scandal is sinful, according to Catholic teaching. You don’t have to abide by that- you have free will.

But you aren’t Pope Gerald in union with some make-believe “bishops,” and your relativism has no authority.

So where are those historical figures within Christianity that promote homosexual acts?

If you cannot answer this, then your games have reached their conclusion. I do not suffer charlatans, Gerald.  That’s not calumny, that’s a fact.

Henry Vanden Brook, you wrote, “The common understanding of a homosexual is anyone who practices homosexuality.”

No, a common term for that distinction is “practicing homosexual”.  The same goes for “lesbian” vs “practicing lesbian”.

You wrote, “A homosexual may not have a problem resisting desire for someone they don’t find attractive. The problem is they are likely to act on someone that they are sexually interested in if they think they can get away with it.”

Again, there are many, many homosexual couples where neither person is sexually attracted to the other or “likely to to act”.  The same goes for heterosexual couples.  Just because two people may be called a “lesbian couple” does not mean they’re likely to engage in sexual acts with one another.  But perhaps your private dictionary says otherwise.  I do not use your private dictionary.

You wrote, “They did it; they are it; they don’t have to stay it. They can repent.”

No, a person can repent, but that doesn’t make him not a homosexual person, because being a homosexual person is generally not someone’s choice.  Again, I and the vast majority of human beings on this planet do not use the term “homosexual person” to only mean a practicing, non-repentant person.

You wrote, “Since your stance is pro-homosexuality…”

If your remark is to say I’m pro- the practice of sin, you have engaged in an act of calumny.

Liseux, you wrote, “Giving scandal is sinful, according to Catholic teaching.”  Then don’t do it.

Again, when the subject is homosexual acts, I’ll be happy to talk about homosexual acts.  But there is NO homosexual act described or even mentioned in any of the stories I’ve read about these two women, and there is NO homosexual act required for two women to live together and care for a child, not even if they’re lesbian women or a lesbian couple.  There isn’t even a requirement that they find each other sexually attractive.  There are MANY same-sex/lesbian/gay couples who live together with NO sexual attraction between them, no homosexual acts going on, none of that.  If you don’t know any, I’ve known and/or worked with MANY such couples.

And Liseux, not all “giving scandal is sinful, according to Catholic teaching.”  Catholic teaching says that “Jesus gave scandal above all when he identified his merciful conduct toward sinners with God’s own attitude toward them. He went so far as to hint that by sharing the table of sinners he was admitting them to the messianic banquet. But it was most especially by forgiving sins that Jesus placed the religious authorities of Israel on the horns of a dilemma…” (CCC#589)

That is, in that the giver is not always guilty of sin.

I agree Gerald- just don’t give scandal. This includes the homosexual pair we have been discussing. Glad that we finally agree on something.

Gerald, your pro-homosexual acts point of view has no authority here.  Your failure to address major historical figures in Christianity that promote homosexual acts as benign proves you a charlatan. Your blowing much smoke and hot air.

I’ve enjoyed the conversation.

Liseux, your posts and opinions have no authority here.  I pray that no one is scandalized by them.

So you’re saying Jesus sinned?  If he brought scandal then he sinned. Whatcha think?

You are correct, my point of view and opinions have no authority here.

But when I give the point of view of the Catholic Church (to the best of my ability) it ceases to be my point of view, and it is that of the Church, with the ultimate authority.

1 Timothy 3:15- The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Scandal, according to the CCC- Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.  The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter.
CCC#2284

Please explain how this definition of scandal explains how Jesus tempted the Pharisees and how Jesus did evil.

Gerald, are you Catholic?  Just curious…

Above, at 9:46 PM, Mar 13, Gerald subtly makes use of the fact that God-Man Jesus never sins (“giver is not always guilty”). Whether consciously or not, he thus set the stage for the lesbian couple ALSO not necessarily sinning simply because they are perceived to be in an environment conducive to sinning-via-homosexual-acts. But a greater lesson he gives is to confirm what is said at 6:24 PM, Mar 13 about how much trouble one can cause by thinking WE humans surely can conclude correctly by presuming to know the answer to “What Would Jesus Do?”

CCC 589 does say: “Jesus gave scandal”. Technically, scandal is in the view of the beholder and of course Jesus knew the history and dispositions of the “religious authorities” in Israel. Being God-Man, hence never touched by sin, he gives us an historic demonstration of Isaiah 55:8 as he is perceived to be giving scandal by eating with sinners—“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways.”  ONLY God can do SUCH testing (or commanding or offering a very challenging opportunity to further explore Him) and not be sinning, even as God ordered deaths of some innocent by Israel’s warriors, also without sinning!

But what about the lesbian couple for as Gerald points out, we can’t know they are actually sinning together. Maybe they just get along partly because they like children in a good way and living together meets the needs of the kids. Unfortunately for them, their apparent scandal is not rescued by the Isaiah 55:8 protection the Father gives to His Son. What is known for sure is that the lesbians place themselves in an ONGOING occasion of serious sinning where the temptation to experience orgasm comes with no responsibility of pregnancy and so is more than just “likely”, at least periodically, notwithstanding estimates to the contrary.

Catholicism teaches ALL to avoid occasions of serious sin. And so what Archbishop Chaput and the school did is proper since that prudential judgment fits well with human nature’s well known weakness in the sexual area. Since the perceived scandal cannot be removed with confidence, the risk to the two kids especially commands top priority in the prudential judgment re their spiritual and developmental welfare. If the two lesbians decide to join the Catholic Church after proper study, they are obliged to avoid the ongoing occasion of grave sin and cease living together unless truly unavoidable circumstance requires it. Similarly for male-female heterosexuals living together outside of marriage and claiming they have temptation under control.

William F. Folger, you wrote, “What is known for sure is that the lesbians place themselves in an ONGOING occasion of serious sinning where the temptation to experience orgasm comes with no responsibility of pregnancy and so is more than just ‘likely’, at least periodically, notwithstanding estimates to the contrary.”

“For sure”, I do not know that these two women have any “temptation to experience orgasm” together.  Many lesbians or gay men live together with no more “temptation to experience orgasm” together than mother and daughter or sister and sister or Pope and a bishop.  So without special knowledge of these two particular women, I’d have no right to claim they’re “for sure… more than likely to at least periodically” engage in a homosexual act together.  Rather, it would be calumny.

You also wrote, “If the two lesbians decide to join the Catholic Church after proper study, they are obliged to avoid the ongoing occasion of grave sin and cease living together unless truly unavoidable circumstance requires it. Similarly for…”

Who said they’re not already members of the Catholic Church?  And again, whether it’s lesbians or gay men, etc. it is FALSE to claim that all those who live together are in an “ongoing occasion of grave sin” and “obliged to… cease living together”.  Indeed, such a statement would be calumny.  Many, many are not sexually attracted to one another and no way likely to engage in any homosexual act together.  For many, the very prospect of such a thing is actually rather repulsive.

Interesting reading. Interesting views.
Gerald- You are answering everyone but Jimmy Akin. (“At least that’s how I see it.  How do you?”)
So, how do you?

Children’s primary educator in the faith are the parents.

Catholic schools assist the parents in raising and educating their children in the faith. Non-Catholic parents who enroll thier children in Catholic schools, and Catholic parents who wish to depart or dissent from Catholic teachings need to understand this role of the Catholic school and either accept it or do not enroll their children in Catholic school.

The level of public disagreement or dissent may cause the school not to accept the enrollment.

What parents need to understand is that the children in catholic schools are being taught a faith that has the fullness of the Truth but no human being on the planet knows the fullness of the Truth that God is Love and therefore their children will only be taught a small portion of the Truth.  Consequently, it is dangerous to have a little knowledge and think you know everything.  A lot of innocent people are being hurt.

Gerald, you started off seeming to be knowledgeable about APA and science. But very soon you abandoned objectivity and become rather selective which then led to your hastily waving the “calumny charge” flag as at 3:33 AM twice this morning, and at other times. Consider your inappropriate use of it re my 1:02 AM post this Sunday morning.

Your 2nd paragraph ignores my agreement with you as seen in my 1st paragraph (you “thus set the stage for the lesbian couple ALSO not necessarily sinning simply because…” ) And in my 3rd paragraph I say “But what about the lesbian couple for as Gerald points out, we can’t know they are actually sinning together. Maybe they just get along partly because they like children in a good way and living together meets the needs of the kids. …”

First, my sentence involving “for sure” stands: “What is known for sure is that the lesbians place themselves in an ONGOING occasion of serious sinning where the temptation to experience orgasm comes with no responsibility of pregnancy and so is more than just “likely”, at least periodically, notwithstanding estimates to the contrary.”  Since a Church teaching is involved, “the lesbians” refers to the broader group which includes the couple of course but not for any special reason or assumption about their “mutual temptation-level” The Church’s concern applies to male-female heterosexual, unmarried couples, as well.
Second, you mistakenly particularized to just the couple, saying “So without special knowledge of these two particular women, I’d have no right to claim they’re “for sure … more than likely to at least periodically” engage in a homosexual act together.  Rather, it would be calumny.”  You assert “claim”.

What you don’t recognize is that all (heterosexual & homosexual) are bound to avoid occasions of serious sin. That you may know “many, many” gays & lesbians as you described them re “temptation” doesn’t matter because the Church’s concern is for every soul. Free will combined with ordinary human weakness is not so cleanly predictable as you seem to paint it and you can’t alter that fact. Statistics applied here is not important since God and His Church loves ALL.  Every time Church teaching goes contrary to your defense of “living together”, you again resort to the false calumny charge. You might look up “calumny” in the Catechism and legal dictionary to see what is missing.

Gerald: The article says the two women ARE lesbians. You don’t get to change the facts. We don’t have to see them having sex in the classroom to know what that means. You want to use worldly definitions and your perceived reality to discuss the topic. God is the one who takes offense to sin. He provided the understanding of what offends Him through the Bible. You, I, and the rest of the world don’t get to decide what sin is. One of the sins is homosexuality as defined in Leviticus 18:22. This doesn’t just include the act. It also includes desiring it. Jesus indicated that if a man is married and lusts other women in his heart, he is still guilty of adultery. He also indicated that if you are angry, you are guilty of murder if it is for the wrong reason(s) (unrighteous anger). The abomination of homosexuality doesn’t start and stop with the act. Ten minutes after the act the person is still labeled a homosexual unless they repent. To repent they had to not just quit having sex with the other person. The offense was against God. They have to satisfy His definition of repenting to be forgiven and to change the label. It’s His decision and He determines how His program (or whatever you want to call it) works. The two women need to apologize to God; they need to stop engaging in the act; they need to stop thinking about it; they need to stop living together giving the appearance of it. As long as they are living together and pretending they are both mom, Christians are going to assume they are still homosexuals, even if they aren’t “practicing” the act together in front of everyone else.

The point that you feel homosexual couples are not “likely to act” isn’t relevant. It’s what God thinks that matters. All the feelings, studies, and opinions of people don’t matter. God is “no respecter of persons”. He made that point clear with the flood; ‘everyone was doing what was right in his mind when God destroyed the world.’ God said that homosexuals have a depraved mind, therefore they have a depraved mind. The degree of likeliness as compared to heterosexuals isn’t relevant either. As previously pointed out, any class, group or whatever that can’t control themselves should not be in a position that is potentially detrimental to raising children. That includes homosexuals, murders, drunks, drug addicts, etc. They can repent, but while they have the problem, we should not expose children to the risk.

Next point: I didn’t use a private dictionary. I quoted scripture. Scripture is considered to be as close to God’s definition, expression, or understanding as we can get of God’s opinion on a subject. So, again, since this is God’s subject, and He says, has written, or whatever perception you need to comprehend, it is an abomination independent of how “likely” they are to have sex with each other.

Point: When people are of the same sex, friends, live together, and don’t have an interest in each other sexually, society doesn’t label them for that particular situation as homosexuals. They are labeled friends. If they are two guys, they don’t both call themselves father or dad. If they are two girls, they don’t both call themselves mother or mom.

Point: Calumny? If you quote all of my sentence you would know what I meant. Picking a phrase and distorting it’s meaning by adding your own words isn’t an example of calumny. You are guilty of distortion and deception. That is a form of lying.

For the rest of the blog, do you mind staying on the topic? “Should Catholic Schools Accept Children of Homosexual “Parents”?

I just got back electricity after a huge power outage. So what’s the question now?

GOD DID NOT SAY HOMOSEXUALS HAVE A DEPRAVED MIND.

William F. Folger, when I say “it” would be calumny, I’m saying that it would be calumny for me to make a remark with the particular meaning I’m pointing to by some words.  I’m not saying that any particular combination of letters are calumny, such that if someone else were to type the same combination of letters he would be engaging in calumny.  I respect that different people use words differently and have different writing styles, and therefore I do not ignore your agreement with me but rather express the fact that we may speak differently.

That also applies to your claim, “What you don’t recognize is that all (heterosexual & homosexual) are bound to avoid occasions of serious sin.”  No, I very much recognize that “occasions” can be risky.  I also recognize that such occasions and risk vary by person and circumstance.

You wrote, “That you may know ‘many, many’ gays & lesbians as you described them re ‘temptation’ doesn’t matter because the Church’s concern is for every soul.”  No, it very much does matter, because in concern for every soul, I do not desire to make false generalizations that are scandalous.  That “God loves ALL” does not give me the right to throw around false generalizations.  Fr. Breslin, pastor at Sacred Heart of Jesus, Boulder warned against “glossing over differences on essential matters”.

You wrote, “Free will combined with ordinary human weakness is not so cleanly predictable as you seem to paint it and you can’t alter that fact.”  But the fact is that I do not claim all situations are “cleanly predictable”, but rather only that many are.

You wrote, “Every time Church teaching goes contrary to your defense of ‘living together’, you again resort to the false calumny charge.”  No, that your interpretation of what I write might be contrary to your interpretation of Church teaching does not mean what I write (as I interpret what I write) is contrary to Church teaching.  Rather, it may mean you’re self-conflicted, a house divided.

You wrote, “You might look up ‘calumny’ in the Catechism and legal dictionary to see what is missing.”  If you think something is missing, you might look into your heart to see what is missing.  As I read/write the words on the page and give them my interpretation, not anyone else’s, I do not and have never charged you with anything.

Henry Vanden Brook, you wrote, “Gerald: The article says the two women ARE lesbians.”

What’s a “lesbian” to you?  The same word can mean different things to different people.  To me, two women can be “lesbian” and living together without engaging in homosexual acts or even being sexually attracted to one another, and there is nothing in any story I’ve read about these two women that says otherwise.

Gerald,  I am afraid that they cannot see what you see.  However, it is easy to see what they see.  Your comments are very clear and respectful.

Thank you Ronald King.

Ron King:  They do have a “depraved mind” (NIV) or an “undiscerning mind” (NAB). Read Romans 1:28.
The full context:
24: “Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. 28: And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper.” . . .

So as you can see, they were not born homosexuals and they ended up with a depraved (undiscerning) mind.

As far as what do I consider a lesbian, I already explained that using scripture Leviticus 18:22. You can also re-read the passage above. A discerning mind should have no problem figuring out the definition.

This is a private school!!! This sort of thing is a good reason to not accept government vouchers.

After this posting I must get back to other matters but will look when I can, in busy tomorrow. Gerald, your appending “Rather, it may mean you’re self-conflicted, a house divided” isn’t helpful.  You could have ended that section with its preceding sentence.

Re your “If you think something is missing, you might look into your heart to see what is missing” is another example. I had faint hopes YOU might recognize that the element of maliciousness is what is missing, by your visiting the two references. ‘Look into my heart?’ Wow. When young, and before gays came out of the closet in numbers, I went against fellow-straights who showed confusion-based “need” to harass those few local “gays” (folks knew about) whose inclinations we did not understand.

Re your “I also recognize that such occasions and risk vary by person and circumstance”.  We easily agree on that, provided we both value every soul and support the Church teachings to the point that your caveat “vary by person and circumstance” does NOT somehow mean circumventing application of the needed Church teaching, say, by making exceptions and “taking the risk” despite the teaching.
 
Re your “But the fact is that I do not claim all situations are “cleanly predictable”, but rather only that many are.”  I simply can’t understand your tendency to gamble with others’ eternities. People go to heaven or hell as individuals: what price the mis-estimated Risk?

Re your “… God loves ALL” does not give me the right to throw around false generalizations.  Fr. Breslin, pastor at Sacred Heart of Jesus, Boulder warned against “glossing over differences on essential matters”.” Total agreement, if that deck isn’t stacked. You should give and explain the TOP “essential matters”. Speaking of throwing around generalizations, Romans 1 – about “God handing them over”—is NOT about gays & lesbians automatically having depraved minds (THEY DO NOT) nor is it only about ancient idolators. The following footnote in the USCCB NAB is instructive, starting with verse 24. Modern idols are often self and ultra-pleasures.

“15 [24] In order to expose the depth of humanity’s rebellion against the Creator, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts. Instead of curbing people’s evil interests, God abandoned them to self-indulgence, thereby removing the facade of apparent conformity to the divine will. Subsequently Paul will show that the Mosaic law produces the same effect; cf Romans 5:20; 7:13-24. The divine judgment expressed here is related to the theme of hardness of heart described in Romans 9:17-18.”
The reason there is no automatic depraved mind consequence is because their situation is, as the Catechism notes, an individualized trial for them. Hence what happens will vary with individual and circumstance. The inclination can mitigate culpability which we can’t judge. An unfortunate aspect for the military, however, is that the scripture-indicated possibility of being “handed over” is not good for wartime needs. Historically, certain types of shortcomings rightly kept certain people out of the military. Buddies must be reliable and never in the state of being ”handed over” by God.

” I remember all too well when the Catholic church condemned inter-racial marriages…”

All too well, huh? Because there never was such a time!

I grew up in a Masonic household-Dad was a 33 degree Freemason, I was a member of the International Order of Rainbow for Girls for 8 years (1974-1982), and both parents (and later I for a couple of years) were members of Eastern Star.  My mother was a Rainbow Girl when SHE was young.

Yet, I went to a private Catholic school for six years, graduated, class of 1980.

Henry,  It appears that you took Romans 1 out of context.  There is a huge difference in disposition between depraved mind and undiscerning mind.  The expression we use shows what is in our heart.

I would suggest that you read John 17.

Ron King:
I did not take Romans 1 out of context. I first quoted the exact verse. Then I quoted the entire context. You can’t take it out of context when you quote to entire context.

Please refer to Wisdom 12 and 14 for the full understanding of what Paul is attempting to relate.

Gerald, (or fellow squiggly-line person)

There you go again. I invite you to look up the definition of ‘lesbian’ (here’s the second def. from merriam-webster.com): of or relating to homosexuality between females.

If two woman who are living together and raising a child are not in a sexual relationship, they are still a lesbian couple, and still attempting to square the circle. Words have meaning, and your attempt to obfuscate here and on other boards is unconvincing. The idea that words do not mean what they mean is as baffling as it is ridiculous.

“The expression we use shows what is in our heart.”

Aren’t we right back to a lesbian couple, who, by being a lesbian couple is expressing what is in their heart??

“Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment,” said a statement issued by the Archdiocese of Denver. from ncregister article http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/denver_stands_its_ground/

Hello Choir Loft,

You mentioned Jimmy Akin posting.  I don’t see his name. Excuse my lack of information, but which poster is Mr. Akin?

People,  Schools should not accept and should expel (maybe too harsh a term) children of couples living in homosexual union.  The schools are thinking of the children.  Our Church teaches that homosexual sex is a sin and that homosexuality is not a normal tendancy.  These children will be very confused that their school is telling them that their parents are wrong. There is a difference between this and other sins because the parents don’t accept that they are sinning.

The bishops and the Vatican do not speak for the Church on these issues.

Two-thirds of Catholics-in-the-pews reject the Roman hierarchy’s homophobic views, according to every survey.  About a third of American and European Catholics support full marriage rights including sacramental marriage, while another third support civil unions.

In fact, the “Church” is the millions who fill the pews and pay the bills, not the handful of self-appointed hierarchs.

Scripture refers to the Church as the “Ecclesia”—the “assembly” of the faithful, the full Body of Christ.  The Ecclesia supports same-gender unions, and many local priests quietly bless same-gender commitments.  This ‘sensus fidelium’ is the true teaching of the Church.

The most beloved gay Catholic of our time, Fr. Mychal Judge, ‘the Saint of 9/11’, often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love ?!”  He also urged us, “Don’t let the institutional church get in the way of your relationship with God.”
http://SaintMychalJudge.blogspot.com

It is ironic that this school is named for the Sacred Heart of Jesus who said, “Let the children come to me.”  He didn’t say, “except the children of gays”.  And Christ would most certainly never punish little children to punish the parents.

Great post Liz!

Since when is truth defined by what the majority of believers say??

(I’d like to see your source on your 2/3 of Americans support homosexual sex as moral.)

When asked who they wanted to be released on Good Friday, the mob said Barabbas, not Jesus. So much for polls to determine correct actions!

Sorry Liz, but it is exactly on issues of faith and morals that the Church hierarchy has authority to speak for us. The average Catholic is very ignorant of their faith.  Sadly, many CCD kids don’t know basic prayers, the concept of the Holy Spirit working in the world and our Church, how to pray.  The majority of Catholics stopped studying their faith with their last high school CCD class.  Our faith has a history and Fr. Mychal Judge may just be trying to bring people to the Church so they can BEGIN to be educated or he may be lost himself.  He took a vow of celibacy.  If he is homosexual he has given in to temptation and rejected grace.  Homosexual acts are not love, they are lust.  He is kidding himself and dragging others down with him

Liz Hale-
Huh??? (to your “The bishops and the Vatican do not speak for the Church on these issues.)
And,
the Church is not a democracy.  Truth is not decided by a vote.

P.S., liseux, Jimmy Akin is the blog author

Heterosexual sex can be lust also.  Do you know what happens during sex within the heart of the other, or, do you just imagine you know?

This issue is not about lust or sex.  This issue is about their children being denied a Catholic education based on what the priest and the archbishop imagine is the truth.  This is not about truth, it is about imagination and fear.  How far from the truth can they get?

Yes either can be lust and that is not what we were created for.  We are created for something much greater.  The act itself is not the love God created you for.  If you truly loved the other homosexual you would get as far from them as possible.  You would do what was best for their soul, not what was best for your libido.

No the issue is two people who publicly identify themselves as homosexual parents of children, in direct opposition to church teaching, trying to enroll those children in a school directly opposed to their beliefs.  Probably Christ would meet with those “parents” and he would understand their heart.  Is this a cry for help?  Is it a political tactic?  He would look deep in their eyes and ask them why they would put their children in a school that will teach them the error of their decision to live together. His gaze and truthfulness and holy beauty would make them convert or flee in shame.

Ronald King-
    You said – “This issue is about their children being denied a Catholic education based on what the priest and the archbishop imagine is the truth.“
    No.  They are being denied admission to this particular school. This is a private school.  The school has spoken. (“Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment,” said a statement issued by the Archdiocese of Denver. from ncregister article http://www.ncregister.com/register_exclusives/denver_stands_its_ground/)
    In addition, the children are not being denied a Catholic education.  The “[p]arents have the first responsibility for the education of their children….The home is well-suited for education in the virtues.  This requires an apprenticeship in self-denial, sound judgment, and self-mastery – the preconditions of all true freedom….Parents have a grave responsibility to give good example to their children.” [CCC2223] 
    No one is keeping the lesbian parents from educating their child any way they see fit. This is America, after all.

Liz Hale:

Sorry Liz, but you have it all wrong. The “... self-appointed hierarchs”  you speak of are not self-appointed at all. They are appointed by Christ Himself through His Church. It is your lack of belief, and the lack of belief of the two homosexual women that is the cause of pain and division in the Church and in the world.

Liz Hale,

“Two-thirds of Catholics-in-the-pews reject the Roman hierarchy’s homophobic views, according to every survey.”

And that’s why 70% of people vote against gay marriage…oh wait.
 
“the “Church” is the millions who fill the pews and pay the bills, not the handful of self-appointed hierarchs.”

If you really believe that the Pope, bishops, and priests are “self appointed,” well… It’s the Body of Christ, not the body of Liz or David.

“Scripture refers to the Church as the “Ecclesia”—the “assembly” of the faithful, the full Body of Christ.  The Ecclesia supports same-gender unions, and many local priests quietly bless same-gender commitments.  This ‘sensus fidelium’ is the true teaching of the Church.”

So…the laity are infallible? Where’s that in the Catechism?

“The most beloved gay Catholic of our time, Fr. Mychal Judge, ‘the Saint of 9/11’, often asked, “Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate against any kind of love ?!” ” 

We need the love of Christ, and that cannot be found in sex which is neither uniting nor fruitful. It is not love to pretend that lifestyles, harmful to the well-being of persons, are good for you.

liseux- I applaud your thought.  This was very good: “Since when is truth defined by what the majority of believers say??  When asked who they wanted to be released on Good Friday, the mob said Barabbas, not Jesus. So much for polls to determine correct actions!”

I read an interview with the Moms at NCRonline
Check it out if you want to stop imagining.

I say “Be not afraid” as John Paul II did. Our doctrines, values and beliefs will soon not be worth the paper they are written on if we allow for the continue watering down of our faith.  Most priests avoid speaking of social policy, i.e. abortion, for fear of offending parishioners.  Our backbone is turning into oatmeal.  Allowing our Catholic schools to be used in this liberal agenda just to prove a point will lead to additional loss of value.  If it is cool to be open to the point that values no longer matter, then I rather be uncool and square…. and I will be homeschooling.

Not that I approve of same-sex relationships, but I don’t think the children should be punished for the sins of the parents.

Now let us assume that the schools did allow the children to attend.  The teachers can drive the fact that homosexuality is a grave sin to the point of beating a dead horse.  The children repeat what they were taught in school to their “parents”.

Then it can be up to the parents to withdraw the children on their own, or realize what they are doing is wrong.  The “parents can’t change their behavior until they get it beaten in to their minds that they are committing a grave sin.

Why are you people so afraid?  Has anybody read John17?

Hello Choir Loft Member- The “voting for Barabbas” is not my thought; it’s just a recycling of what I hear Father Corapi say on EWTN.

Posted by Ronald King on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 7:15 AM (EST):Why are you people so afraid?  Has anybody read John17?

Likewise, why are you so afraid of people who don’t see the world as you do?

I talk with people everyday who do not see the world as I do.  As a matter of fact I see them face to face and we have a deep affection for one another regardless of our differences.  I work with their pain everyday as a result of not receiving love when they were in their most vulnerable developmental periods of their lives.  I welcome them.  Every person I see has an identity crisis as a result of a lack of love.

The acceptance, or lack thereof, of the homosexual lifestyle is not based on fear of it.  The fact is that as Catholics we know that marriage is between man and woman, you know Adam and Eve not Adam and Adam or Eve and Eve.  ANY sexual activty outside of the sacred bond of matrimony is wrong.  The assignment of reproductive organs to each gender reinforce his/her role in the process.  I guess our modern society will not drop the pretense because we just need to embrace everything and anything that comes our way in the name of being modern and cool.

I know what marriage is.  This particular incident is based on imagination and prejudice.  Check out yesterday’s interview with NCRonline with the mothers of the children.  Read that and then comment.  Must go to my vocation now and meet other people who have been hurt by prejudice.  Why would anyone want to speak out against homosexuality when you know how much violence has been committed against them?  Don’t you know that you become a part of that violent history?  Before you react think about that.

Ronald King - you say “Every person I see has an identity crisis as a result of a lack of love.”

God=love.

Therefore, let me rephrase your statement, “Every person has an identity crisis as a result of a lack of God.”

  Interesting thought.

“Why would anyone want to speak out against homosexuality when you know how much violence has been committed against them?”

So we must tolerate sin because some people abuse the sinner? What? How about being opposed to both the sin and also the abuse of the sinner. Furthermore, the ‘gay’ lifestyle isn’t exactly healthy for you, so pretending otherwise isn’t really nice. I thought about it, Ronald, and I think it’s stupid.

Interesting article at ncronline.  However, I’m not sure how you think any of that changes the fact that the Bishop has prudential judgment in this matter.  I’m not sure how you think the fact that other people sin in some way forgives this lesbian couple’s sin.

Also, how very sad that these 2 educated women (physicians!) brought these 2 children into the world with no prospect of knowing their fathers!  This act also makes the statement that they do not believe fathers to be necessary for the physical and emotional health of children.  Imagine!  Fathers as being optional!  What a blatant disregard for the natural order created by God.  What a blatant disregard for anything but these ladies’ individual wants and desires.

Boulder Colorado lesbian-mommies’ responses to a National Catholic Reporter interviewer suggest that they are NOT part of a carefully planned gay-agenda, though I could be wrong. Intriguingly, they took pains to assure their “last sentence” in a press release be NCR-reported ahead of actual release:  “We will CONTINUE to raise our children with STRONG Catholic VALUES and HOLD FAITH that through our actions, we are doing our part to create a MORE LOVING, INCLUSIVE world.” [emphasis added]  Clearly they want us to absorb and ponder the central context so-indicated. If they are part of a calculated gay-agenda at this point in time, they hardly would have also asserted “We just wanted to be a NORMAL family.” [emphasis added] For interview purposes & privacy, the names “Mary &  Martha” were employed.

“Children trump doctrine and adult issues” said a parishioner friend of the couple (per Boulder DailyCamera). But that unclear statement is not unqualifiedly so, for example, re some cases of baptism requests from problematic ‘straight’ parents. The lesbian couple could become explicit and publicly state they will teach their children that what they are doing is seriously wrong. Though they aim at being celibate, these wrongs still remain: 1) staying in an ongoing occasion of sin and 2) claiming “normalcy” as a family. So, would that really alleviate the legitimate diocesan concern over confusion for the children though other important concerns can still exist for the regular school environment that might not exist for a CCD environment?

Even if it did alleviate, somewhat, it would not spare the children embarrassment when heard in a class with friends and the lesson for them is that sinning can’t be all that bad for it’s being tolerated in rather compromising ways. MOST importantly, admitting doing serious evils on an ongoing basis, without repentance and resolve, is quite dangerous to Mary’s & Martha’s souls. Since the children will learn from them to rationalize evil for a subjective good (hence violating Romans 3:8), the two mommies really need to avoid their proposed “family” situation and just be friends who visit one another. Jesus would advise that. Catholics contracepting and divorcing are quite serious problems, too, but these do not involve changing the very meaning of marriage & family in relation to God. Rather, they are abuses of that sacrament involving serious personal sin but not redefinition which attacks both the sacrament and the whole faith! Both are dangerous to one’s soul in eternity.

Such a directly declared aim for “normalcy” in a Catholic context, though it be the gay-agenda DREAM, seems a bit premature for it to be a smart gay-attack on the Catholic Church in the U.S. at this time. In contrast, in Quebec Province, direct attacks are in high gear BUT they are already backed by law. N.B., all ye faithful U.S. Catholics, especially during election campaigns!
http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=5092

So, for the moment, let’s treat the case of the Boulder lesbian mommies as an example of two more Catholics either ignorant of important parts of their claimed Catholic faith or having their own personal agenda despite adequate knowledge of the faith. That they are intelligent physicians and had ample exposure to Church doctrine is self-revealing, given the intriguing words they carefully chose for their “last sentence”(above). Recall other claimants like “Catholic” Speaker Pelosi whose “knowledge” of the Church continues to amaze!

We can infer from the interview responses that the mommies don’t know or simply don’t accept Romans 3:8 – ‘do no evil that good may come from it’. Any Catholic who cites the couple’s view of such a “family” relationship as meriting of the label “normal” paid too little attention to Catholic schooling, was fooled by poor or false teachers or is pseudo-Catholic. So, the lesbian couple, Mary & Martha, IF truly magisterium-faithful, needs to start anew with Archbishop Chaput and Fr. Bill Breslin as a service to Christ’s Church. Both “sides” can admit unintended communication errors without betraying Catholicism.

First we pray that Mary & Martha rethink their position for their own souls’ sakes. Since my pre-NCR interview postings did not accuse them of acting out their alleged homosexuality, I can, without malice or anger point out that their emphasis on “what it means for them to live as a couple” (their words per NCRonline) is kin to Fr. Charles E. Curran’s early approach preceding his later attacks on Church doctrine re artificial contraception. Curran first paid serious attention to married Catholic couples and heard “what it means for them” to be able to use such contraception yet still be fully “faithful” – a contradiction of truth, however.  Not unlike the Curran case, what some fellow-parishioners supportively said to Mary & Martha at Sacred Heart parish is likely the First Wave—just as Curran-generated first waves to sweep across America’s lukewarm Catholics wanting the “freedom” of artificial contraception, but, in vain, because God’s design of the magisterium is unbreakable.

Indeed if before the NRC interview Mary & Martha were not clandestine lesbian-activists, they, like Fr. Curran, have now become activists “INSIDE” the Catholic Church. The double quote-marks mean that anything short of their publicly declaring they FULLY accept that their proposed “normal” family is NOT valid before Christ’s magisterium—will reveal a presence of “pseudo-Catholicism”.  If they refuse to affirm the magisterium in all its doctrine, their doings become a case for God to get good out of unwanted evil: their attempt to move the Church to their desires ironically becomes a “Paula Revere” warning ride - of sorts - that Quebec-style totalitarianism against Catholicism is not so far away if we choose to be silent in the United States. The NEW kind of “homophobia” which gay-activists are themselves generating these days is that in which the term’s defining characteristic - “irrational” - is de facto being replaced by gays with RATIONAL fear, based on their attempt to blunt the First Amendment right, under the “free exercise (of religion)” clause which must be kept alive and healthy in America.

http://www.michnews.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/163/8198

Anything short of a sincere declaration relates to the CAPS in Mary & Martha’s “last sentence” you saw in the first half, posted above.  As for postings by those who ask us to read John 17 or other references, we do, but they need to acknowledge three facts if they are faithful Catholics: 1) the bible & Tradition must be taken as one whole 2) the bible requires obedience along with any claim to believe in Jesus since the bible-as-one-whole teaches that, notwithstanding a few verses which, if wrongly taken in isolation, can mislead uninformed readers and 3) that bible interpretation is invalid when in conflict with the magisterium. Phrases like “Loving and Inclusive”, if isolated from the magisterial-guardian of Truth about God’s Word, are not automatically “of God”, given their subjectivity. Finally, listen carefully fellow Catholics for increasing implicit threats against faithful Catholics who do know about the detestable violence and do support prudent measures against such. But prudence does not mean going against God and destroying society because the gay agenda grows ever more demanding.

William Folger, you wrote “what they are doing is seriously wrong” and “staying in an ongoing occasion of sin”.  But as one of the two women said, “No one has ever asked us if we are celibates. How do they know we are not upholding official church teachings?” And, “People are making assumptions about us that are flat wrong, completely wrong.” Just because two lesbian women are living together does not mean they are engaging in homosexual acts or that they’re sexually attracted to one another or have any more of an “ongoing occasion of sin” than you may have as you continue posting on this forum.

Another point is this:  Why would lesbians want to enroll their child in a school where the idea of family is not compatible with their own?  That seems to be a cruel thing to do to a child.  Everyone was so concerned that the school was insensitive but I think that the “parents” are.  They did this for one reason only: to embarrass the Catholic Church - and they used their child to do it.  If that’s not enough for them to lose custody, I don’t know what is.

Ronald, thanks for pointing out the article.  I read it.  The two moms who are well educated and have strong Catholic upbringing somehow missed the lesson on grace. It is disingenuous of them to say they aren’t trying to change things and then say they want to make the church “more inclusive.”  Everyone is welcome at any Catholic church.  Not everyone is in a state of grace.  And obviously, not everyone recognizes sin - the greatest sin of the twentieth century according to Paul VI.  Grace would have kept them single.  Grace would have kept either from bearing a child to form a homosexual family.  Grace would have kept them from adopting the others child because they are a couple.  Everything is grace.  Sadly they are thinking as man thinks and not as God thinks.

Gerald, Thank you for going through his long post which actually supports what he already believes.  There was research with jury selection several years ago which revealed that jurists or people will not change their beliefs about a defendent even if the evidence clearly states that their judgement was wrong.  Now I know that this will be responded to by throwing it back at me and totally missing the point.
I believe you made a clear case for calumny earlier.

Two things.  First, James 3:9-10 “...we bless God…and curse men, which are made o the likeness of God…Out of the same mouth these things ought not to be.”  The catechism section 2478 “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way…”

Sorry Ron, No ones cursing or judging, just stating the obvious. You are hearing or reading something into things thats not there.

Pam, I guess you haven’t read your post.  It may not be obvious to you because you wrote it.

Um.  Where does celibacy come in?  And, is their implying they could be being celibate of any real worth?
First, two women cannot have sexual intercourse (coitus), so their “laying together” is technically “celibate,” no?  Second, what they are called to be is “chaste” – CCC2359: Homosexual persons are called to chastity.  CCC 2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.
So, I guess the question really is one of chastity.  And, if they are living as a married couple, raising children as a married couple, and otherwise giving the appearance of behaving as a married couple (versus as “disinterested friends[hip]”) then I would suggest the answer would be that they are not living chastely.

You may not understand because you don’t know Church teaching. These doctors aren’t idiots.  They grew up with Catholic teaching but they don’t agree with it.  Their actions show their disagreement.  Their words show their disagreement.  They want to make the Church more “inclusive”.  I want to help it be the HOLY Catholic Church Christ instituted.  Their life on earth is trumping their life in Christ.

Um, Pam, did you read my post?
I was writing mainly to address this young soul, Gerald, in his post from 5pm:
Posted by Gerald on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 4:59 PM (EST):William Folger, you wrote “what they are doing is seriously wrong” and “staying in an ongoing occasion of sin”.  But as one of the two women said, “No one has ever asked us if we are celibates. How do they know we are not upholding official church teachings?” And, “People are making assumptions about us that are flat wrong, completely wrong.” Just because two lesbian women are living together does not mean they are engaging in homosexual acts or that they’re sexually attracted to one another or have any more of an “ongoing occasion of sin” than you may have as you continue posting on this forum.

You see, he (Gerald) is focusing on the mommies claim of, “No one has ever asked us if we are celibates. How do they know we are not upholding official church teachings?” and their saying, “People are making assumptions about us that are flat wrong, completely wrong.”
I meant to point out that being “celibate” is not the main issue.  This is all smoke and mirrors (or at a minimum, ignorant.)  The main issue is CHASTITY - Homosexual persons are called to chastity [CCC 2359].  And, they are NOT living chastely, as defined by CCC 2337.  No one has to assume anything.  By them living the way they do (see my previous post) the whole world can see that they are not.  And, thus we are back to that “ongoing occasion of sin” that Gerald wants to ignore.

To their, “How do they know we are not upholding official church teachings?” I would have to answer that “by their fruits you shall know them.”

To choir loft.  No I didn’t receive it till after I posted my post.  You said it better.

Choir Loft, the question is not what the word “celibate” means to you, but what does it mean to the two women as they used it, and that may include “chaste” and “abstaining from sexual relations” in general and not just abstaining from male-female coitus.  Likewise, if “married couple” (as a term you, not the two women, used) requires at least a man and a woman, then I do not believe the two women are “living as a married couple, raising children as a married couple, and otherwise giving the appearance of behaving as a married couple.”  Rather, they may very well be living chastely, in “disinterested friendship” otherwise known as gracious friendship, from the Latin “amicitiae gratuitae”.  And as to “suggesting an answer”, the Church suggests in CCC#2478 that “everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way”.  Unless you have done that, you have not followed the Church’s suggestion.

The two women refer to themselves and the girls as a lesbian family. The doctors adopted each others children. They want to be thought of as a “normal family”.  Gerald they can’t be more explicit that they aren’t four individuals living together independently.  I’m sorry it seems so painful for you to face that.

Gerald, your method grabs certain phrases but ignores other nearby phrases which clarify it. For example, your latching on to “what they are doing is seriously wrong” and “staying in an ongoing occasion of sin” come from my fuller text—“The lesbian couple could become explicit and publicly state they will teach their children that what they are doing is seriously wrong. Though they aim at being celibate, these wrongs still remain: 1) staying in an ongoing occasion of sin and 2) claiming “normalcy” as a family.”

My preface which you ignored—“Though they aim at being celibate”— tells objective readers that I did give benefit of doubt, given what Mary & Martha said: “How do they know…” and “People are making assumptions…”  Long ago I learned to check myself for undue assumptions and rash judgments. Note that I speak of “wrongs [that] still remain”, followed by a colon—which should have suggested that you ponder the two other-than-sex-acts wrongs numbered just above. A “wrong” is obviously not necessarily a sin; it is usually an error in judgment, say, that one can linger with some likeable condition without going the full way to sin. Wisdom says we can’t fully know our bodies, minds and stress conditions as time and circumstance change; therefore we should be humble enough to admit that forbidden pleasure might be sought under some conditions. Hence, lingering indefinitely with opportune conditions is willingly, wrongly “staying in an ongoing occasion of sin”. It makes ZERO accusation about Mary & Martha possibly sinning. St. Paul commented on difficult to understand behavioral things happening in him. 

Note that an “occasion of sin” is not intrinsically, instantly a sin (it’s an opportunity to sin) and is general enough to apply to non-sexual sinning, too. Perhaps the word “occasion” threw you off.  So, an occasion of sin can become sinful to some degree only if one lingers with it too long. Since neither you nor I really know the degree of mutual sexual attraction between Mary & Martha, we must refrain from judging. However, Catholic practice urges giving charitable admonition re the danger of “occasions of sin” to another’s soul and remembering what St. Paul said. M &M did speak of not showing signs of affection in Church but still I refrain from judging because ‘signs of affection’ is not definitive enough for judgment.

Ronald, your mentioning the jury study was a mostly-pleasant surprise. It rocked me way back to when I had to hang a jury for the type of reason you mentioned. The charge was forced sodomy and some fellow jurors behaved as you implied. Though I got the defendant another chance I became an enemy to some thoughtless, quite angry jurors wanting only to impose punishment, regardless of reasonable doubt. During an overnight break we were told not to read anything related to the case; but next morning some had violated that, big time, even looking up things about black people and bringing negative attitudes toward blacks into jury deliberation. I could not justify being quiet and so kept sending out questions until the judge declared us something like incompetent.

I have to get back to other duties but will occasionally look and may comment if there is time. I hope to find that you two will approach debate opposition with more of the James and Catechism spirit that will show, in your remarks, that indeed you have pondered and connected relative surrounding texts before commenting. The reason is a practical one. It’s easy and quick to select a few useful phrases for taking a position; but it’s time consuming and takes MANY words to counter the few selective ones because the evidence is that the “few” selected indicates a host of misunderstandings, thus requiring more detail that could otherwise be avoided. We seem to be FOR God; so, let us be more efficient and mutually helpful in that direction.

If the “parents” were truly interested in the Catholic Faith, they’d start by living like Catholics. Not co-habitating, and not presenting themselves as lesbians. Which is more important, a good education, or a sound moral conscious?

If the “parents” were truly interested in the Catholic Faith, they’d conform their lives to Christ as the Scriptures and Christ’s words and actions suggest. Apparently by actively promoting that they are lesbians, suggests they are merely interested in the label of Catholic education and not its Truth.

William Folger, you made the statement that “The lesbian couple could become explicit and publicly state they will teach their children that what they are doing is seriously wrong”.  If by that statement, you are not claiming that the women are actually doing anything seriously wrong, but rather you simply mean that it is humanly possible for a person to say anything, whether it’s true or false or even rational, then yes, YOU could, for example, become explicit and publicly state that what YOU are doing is seriously wrong, e.g. raping the Pope’s wife.  But what I read on this forum would not be proof that you’re raping anyone (much less the Pope’s wife), just as what we’ve been reading about these women is not proof that they’re doing anything “seriously wrong” or that they’re wrongly staying in an ongoing occasion of sin.  Rather, I give you, as them, the benefit of the doubt.

Meanwhile, your word “though” in your preface “though they aim at being celibate”, rather than “tells objective readers that [you] did give benefit of doubt”, may imply that you are saying that though they “aim” at being celibate/chaste they are not celibate/chaste, which many would thus say is not giving them the benefit of the doubt.

You go on to make the claim that “these wrongs still remain: 1) staying in an ongoing occasion of sin and 2) claiming ‘normalcy’ as a family”.  But it is NOT proven that 1) Mary & Martha are wrongly staying in any ongoing occasion of sin or that 2) they’re “claiming ‘normalcy’ as a family”.

For example, in regard to “claiming ‘normalcy’ as a family”, what the women said was, “We just WANTED to be a normal family”.  Just wanting to be a normal family is not claiming to be a normal family, whatever “normal family” may mean.  And like “normal”, the word “family” has many meanings, including the meaning Pope Benedict XVI apparently had in mind when he spoke of “offering… a family atmosphere full of human warmth” to persons who are not one’s biological (genetic) children or spouse under the law.  Family is also people living together in the spirit of Christ, and family members may be lesbian, gay, heterosexual, genetically close or distant, adopted, etc.  Charitably speaking, the women and their children are indeed a “family” in a multitude of ways, perhaps even a “normal” family, whether they claim to be or not.

And finally, in regard to an alleged wrong of their “staying in an ongoing occasion of sin”, I have a couple of points.  First, there is no obligation to avoid a remote occasion of sin unless there is probable danger of its becoming proximate.  Second, and relatedly, the mere fact that the women are lesbians living together and/or that “we can’t fully know our bodies, minds and stress conditions as time and circumstance change” is NOT sufficient to establish that a proximate occasion of sin exists or probable danger of one arising, or that these two women are any more likely to engage in “forbidden pleasure” while living together than if they were not living together, or more likely than two saintly nuns living together in a convent, or more likely than you as you sit alone at your keyboard reading this post.  As you yourself said, “Since neither you nor I really know the degree of mutual [or non-mutual] sexual attraction between Mary & Martha, we must refrain from judging”, and that includes judging that they’re wrongly staying in any ongoing occasion of sin.

William, my comments are short and concise because I lose what I have written if it becomes too long as a result of the page restarting itself and what I have written disappears.  It just happened again.  I do not know anything about computers, except, the computers we call our brains and the fact that we are not programmed for cognitive dissonance.  I would love to be verbose.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Mar 16, 2010 10:00 PM (EST):To choir loft.  No I didn’t receive it till after I posted my post.  You said it better.

Pam-it makes sense now, as I see your response was to someone else.  I was sure we were on the same page.  Sorry about the “Um…”

Ronald, St. Therese of Lisieux said, “Everything is grace.”  Believing in God and Jesus is believing in God’s grace.  Every sacrament of reconciliation gives grace.  Every communion received outside of mortal sin gives grace.  Every sincere prayer gives grace.  Life with Christ is a life dependent on His grace.  So I can not even fathom a true Christian calling themselves homosexual any more than I can picture Mary Magdalene calling herself a prostitute after her conversion.  God’s grace can and does overcome any unnatural tendency.  So the two moms maybe were homosexual, but when they confessed the unnatural tendency they received grace to overcome it.  If they don’t want to overcome it, they don’t believe and they reject God’s grace.

[Gerald- are you sure you’re not from Philly, buster?  As your game seems to be one of obstruction and irrelevancy, IMHO.]

Gerald, it doesn’t matter a hoot what “celibate” means, as coitus doesn’t apply to gay ‘relations.’  And, to your, “they may very well be living chastely,” - people who are ‘roommates’ do not adopt each other’s children, nor do they claim they just want to be ‘a normal family.’

Your Relativism only stretches so far before it breaks down into complete irrationality.

Pam,  It was God’s Grace that returned me to Catholicism after 40 years away Easter of 2005.  It was Grace that God brought a person into my life for counselling who was dying of terminal cancer and developed stigmata and was cured in front of my eyes June of 2004.  It was Grace that appeared in the form of a Luminous Light and said “I LOVE YOU.” Christmas of 2004.  I know what Grace is.

Then Ronald you know homosexual relations are sinful and objectively disordered and can be overcome just as the cancer was.  God is light and in him there is no darkness.  The desire to change the world to conform to a defect as opposed to the desire to overcome the defect for love of Christ is darkness.

Pam,  I must go to my vocation now.  Do you know about the different frequencies of light?  This is not about homosexuality, heterosexuality or bisexuality.  This is about seeing everything in a luminous light.  So look up the definition of luminous and then look up lucifer.  This was revealed to me on a Thursday morning Rosary Run in the middle of the first decade and at that time I had no idea about the mysteries of the Rosary.  I just prayed it and ran.  More later.

Ronald, you are making up your own religion.  You need an orthodox holy priest.  God bless.

Pam,  you are prejudging.  You do not even ask questions.  I see that you do not want to see anything outside of your vision.  I am so orthodox it makes you look liberal.  Every thought, feeling or action that is not love harms someone somewhere and contributes to the culture of death no matter how small or hidden one may think it is.

Ronald King -
Again, God=Love.
Substitute that into your sentence:  Every thought, feeling or action that is not GOD harms someone somewhere and contributes to the culture of death no matter how small or hidden one may think it is.
Love does not make sense without God.  IMHO, it appears as if you are redefining Love.

Hello Choir Loft Member:

I’ve seen Gerald in action, and yes, he is all about “obstruction and irrelevancy.”

He is only consistent in being relative.

CLM, I am keeping him in my prayers.

Choir Loft, you wrote, “it doesn’t matter a hoot what ‘celibate’ means, as coitus doesn’t apply to gay ‘relations.’”  No, as the women did not use the word “coitus”, it doesn’t “matter a hoot” if “coitus doesn’t apply to gay relations”.  Rather, the women used the word “celibate”, and thus it is their meaning of the word “celibate” that matters.  As I said, many people use the word “celibate” to mean chaste and abstaining from sexual relations in general and not just abstaining from male-female coitus.  In addition, I might mention, the word “coitus” also has a meaning in the general sense of a union/uniting which can be applied to homosexual unions, planetary conjunctions, etc. and some people do use it in that sense.

You also wrote, “people who are ‘roommates’ do not adopt each other’s children, nor do they claim they just want to be ‘a normal family.’”  Who says the women are just roommates?  “Roommates” is your word.

Gerald-
You are a hoot.
Feel free to define it any way you want. Doing that however will not change my opinion of you.
Thank God the men who build bridges and design airplanes don’t define the terms any way they want.

Gerald, do you ever get the sense that they do not want to see what you or I see because it is impossible for them to see what we see without compassion or empathy because these attributes belong to God{Love).  They just feel more comfortable within what they know.  It is easy to see what they see because I was there.  They can’t see what you or I see.

Gerald and Ronald, I can appreciate that the two of you want a whole group of people to accept your behavior because you want to be accepted as you are. But your arrogance, pride, and disruptive strategies do nothing to persuade people.  What’s more your smarter than everyone else attitude, exhaustive posts, and abusive condescension truly violates the primacy of conscience of these people who disagree with you.  You are free to think what you want, and so are they.  You cannot bully anyone into agreeing with you, especially when it comes to matters of faith and God.  You came to an orthodox Catholic website to offend the senses of people you know do not agree with you.  You have dominated the entire conversation here, and thus disrupted and discouraged any real conversation to take place or for any truths to be found and for these people of like mind to have a place of their own.  Your comments stray greatly from the original article, which I might add doesn’t lend enough information for anyone to even make a qualified judgment about it either way anyway (nearly 300 posts later).  Someone else said it best when they said too much ink being spilt here.  However, I will add, that if you respect the authority of God, then you must respect the people he places in authority over us.  That means All of the people He places over us.  And as ALL people are sinners and fallible this respect for authority that we must grant to Archbishop Chaput, with regards to his decision whether it be right or wrong, while may be hard to do, must be done if we love and trust God.  So Gerald and Ronald, I respectfully request you two exercise some temperance and either enter into meaningful and charitable dialog here with the intention of at least trying to understand why we believe what we believe (considering this is our website) and stop with the tirades, or discontinue coming to this website altogether if these views distress you so much that you can’t control yourselves enough to behave civilly towards those you don’t agree with.  Your desire to disrupt, disturb and disparage is very apparent.  And I for one am tired of being disrespected by your tactics that do not acknowledge my authority over my own conscience.  If I am a bigot then let God deal with me, but if I’m not then may He deal with you.

Jennifer-
Thank you.
Very well said.

I’ll second that, and I liked your post as well, CLMember.

Jennifer, please read your post.  What was the disposition that motivated you to write that?

If you do not understand what I am saying just say so.  I know what I am saying and it is not what you understand about me.  I love my faith and I respect the Archbishop.  I do not agree with him and I am allowed to disagree.  I do not have to obey him because he is not in my parish.  If he were in my parish I would request a meeting with him to talk this out.  As a matter of fact feel free to show him this if you want.  I would love to talk to him face to face.

Why does your title put the word “parents” in quotes? Why are you implying that gay people aren’t real parents? For your information, gay men and lesbian women have always been parents, as real as any others.  But the traditional type of gay marriage—marrying a straight person who doesn’t know the spouse’s orientation—has proven to be unfair to everyone involved:  the gay spouse, the straight spouse, and any children born to the unhappy marriage.

“I do not have to obey him because he is not in my parish.” Ronald, I think there’s an inversion of order here.  If you were a soldier, would you say you don’t have to obey the general in charge of your division because he’s not in your platoon?  Or the U.S. Attorney because he’s not the DA?  In any argumentation, that’s sophism.  People say Aristotle is old-school, but that’s right out of the textbook!

“I would love to talk to him face to face.”  So you know, Archbishop Chaput has an e-mail address, and can also respond to ordinary mail.  I know, because I got a reply from him. Obviously, he can’t field an audience for everyone, but he is pretty good about writing back, even if not immediately (bishops are busy).

Honestly, I couldn’t really follow this thing too well; the topic evolved and shifted in so many nuances and twists and whatnot.  Ronald, what is your take on the central deal JIMMY posted—i.e., the school decision? Mr. King, what is yours?  And briefly, why?  Say the nucleus of what you want to say first, then put a couple reasons.  Otherwise, we never will be conversing, only shooting bullets past each other’s heads.  Capito?

Mac, I cannot write long here because this site keeps re-booting and I lose everything just like right at this moment.  Your statement to me was a good example of sophism.
The Archbishop and the Priest are wrong in their reasoning.  They dissociated from a difficult situation and hurt the faith.  They took the easy way out. 
Why give me directions how to write?

Of course not!  Catholic Schools should remain with their tradition of exclusion. For 25 years or more in Massachusetts and many other states, Catholic schools have been islands of exclusion for white families to keep their children away from the largely Latino population in their neighborhoods.  It would be horrible to have Catholic children associate with the poor or Latino or gay or non-white… How Christ-like would that be?

I would like to discuss three philosophical points with Gerald and Ronald.
    The first point is based on the principles that the meanings of select words have been brought into question and have been deemed relative, with this relativity acceptable. If this is true, why can you not accept the definition of gay marriage that people like Liseux, Pam, and Jennifer accept? Doesn’t the philosophy of relativism deny us the privilege to ask others to agree with us?
    The second point is based on the principles that God is Love, which was established earlier in the comments, and that people have sinned on this blog, which I assume we can all see. So, if God is Love and God permits sin, then there must be something loving about permitting people to sin. Why do you two resist this idea so adamantly?
    The third point is primarily for Ronald. I also experience the site refreshing, and I have sometimes had statements erased because of it. To solve this, I write my statements in a word editor before posting them. You might find this a more peaceful solution than complaining.

This is akin to the ostracization of illegitimate children and even the refusal to baptize them.  The sinful nature of the parents’ relationship does not effect the child. 

1) It will impede the ability of teachers to be frank about the nature of marriage due to the problems that will ensue with a child in this situation in the classroom.

—The parents and the child (if old enough, of course) should be very aware of the Catholic objection to homosexuality and that it may be brought up in class.

2) The child will also become a proselytizer for homosexual “marriage”

—Perhaps, but that is not necessarily true.  If the child is young, then probably not.

2b) and/or be tormented relentlessly by other children.

—This is true for secular schools as well.  Perhaps the language used by Catholic children might be a little cleaner though.

3) The other children will be scandalized (in both the proper and the colloquial senses) by knowledge of the child’s situation.

—They need to learn that there are all kinds of people in the world in various situations in life. Some of these situations are wrong, such as unwed parents or homosexual parents. But they still need to learn to get along with non-Catholics, people of other religions, atheists, homosexuals and everybody else.

4) All of the above will be exacerbated to the extent that the “parents” have any presence at or try to play any role in the life of the school.

—It could very well make parent-teacher conferences very awkward. But it’s not like it has to be brought up constantly.  *If* the parents cause disruptions, objecting to teaching about marriage and such, *then* the school could threaten to pull their children out.

—-

The idea that a large portion of the school may be scandalized is rather an outside possibility. It is not as though they will say, “Jimmy’s mothers are nice, therefore homosexuality is okay,” if they are being taught that it is wrong with the authority of the Catholic Church through the school. If the school is unfaithful, they probably will already be getting some strange ideas and be confused about what Church teaching actually is regarding a number of issues.

On the other hand, the possibility that the *child* may be scandalized is almost a certainty if they are rejected. They would say to themselves, “The Church hates me because of something I have no control over,” and have an opposition to the faith.

There is also the possibility that the child could have some influence on the parents, encouraging them to attend Mass and other religious functions at the school and parish. Gay people are not irreformable.

What role do children have in the decisions that their parents make regarding sexuality?  Is a Catholic school’s mission not one that is CHILD-focused?

If the sinfulness of homosexuality is to be taught in the classroom, one of two scenarios will play out:
1.) the “parents” will have a problem with it and pull their children out.
2.) the “parents” won’t have a problem with it and the teacher will be faced with a REAL-WORLD situation of explaining sinfulness to someone who may actually be very close to the sin.  (God forbid they actually have to treat the sinful [and their children] with humanity!)

Tamara, You seem to have a strong bias.  The parents were told they could not enroll the children because the parents were living openly in opposition to Church teaching.  The women are well educated and both raised Catholic.  They claim many family members knowledgeable about the faith, but they are both divorced - not at all encouraged by the Church, but sometimes occurs because there was never a marriage to begin with or because one party doesn’t care what the Church teaches about grace and has no desire to heal the relationship.  They also call themselves lesbian which the Catholic faith recognizes as objectively disordered.  It is unnatural for a woman to want to have sexual relations with another woman.  The parts just don’t go together and no life can be conceived in the natural order of the relationship.  God and nature are saying this isn’t the way it is supposed to be. They have adopted each others children and consider themselves a family and want to be considered a normal family.  This stems from wanting others to accept their relationship as natural? or good for society? or for the children?  It is all totally understandable on a human level, but it is disordered and sinful on the spiritual level.  Jesus Christ became man to open to us God’s grace which was lost by the sin of Adam and Eve.  He showed us what true love is.  He didn’t come to do His will.  He came to do the will of His Father, even though it meant His passion and death.  He showed us how grace works.  When we turn to God things change.  Temptations fall away or are overcome.  What is best for the heart, soul, mind and body of the other trumps any personal concerns. Now these women both had turning points in their lives.  Trouble in their marriages, questions about their own sexuality.  Issues about whether or not to move in together.  Issues about who the parents to these two girls are - the natural mother and father or the mother and the person she chose to live with.  How to educate their children.  All of these occasions needed spirit filled answers guided by the faith they profess to believe in.  The children are not helped by their choices.  One after another their choices have seemed to oppose Church teaching.  Sometimes the loving thing to do is to say NO.  This is what the Bishop did!  NO. I love you and you are self destructing.  NO I love you and this is NOT the Catholic faith.  NO I will help you learn the true faith any time you want to come to me, but I will not legitimize your !@#$% of the faith.  NO I will not help you confuse the souls of these two children any more than you already have. NO I will not help you confuse the parents and other children who will have trouble looking past two well educated women with two sweet children to see the treachery to their souls this situation is.  NO I will not change the faith to accomodate you.  The prodigal daughter has walked off.  Christ let everyone walk away when they could not accept his teaching that the Eucharist was His body and blood.  We have free will.  And the Truth is absolute. It and HE are the same yesterday, today and forever.  Don’t worry though.  God will reach out to those children in His time and they will have a chance to choose the true Catholic faith.

Mike,  Thanks for pointing out about my complaining.  You assumed you knew.  Next, to everyone who has been offended by what I have written and who has felt that I have been condescending I am sorry.  I do not want to hurt you.  I did not express any anger with anyone but my disposition of anger was present.  I am sorry for expressing the truth in anger which then no longer is the truth.

Tamara, Your post is excellent and very reasonable and rational.  Thank you for your thoughts.
d.h., Same to you.
Both of you are being true to the Faith.

Mike, you asked, “why can you not accept the definition of gay marriage that people like Liseux, Pam, and Jennifer accept?”

As I’ve said before, I respect that different people may use words differently, and as such, a word or term such as “gay marriage” can mean different things to different people, and even at different times and circumstances.

You asked, “Doesn’t the philosophy of relativism deny us the privilege to ask others to agree with us?”

Who is the authority on “the philosophy of relativism” to say what it denies or doesn’t deny, or who is practicing it and who isn’t, or who is asking whom what?  If you claim that Joe is practicing relativism and that he’s asking you to agree with him, who says so?  That is, who says you aren’t practicing relativism or that there is any disagreement between you and Joe at all?

You asked, “if God is Love and God permits sin, then there must be something loving about permitting people to sin. Why do you two resist this idea so adamantly?”

As God respects the freedom of his creatures, I respect your freedom to fantasize and ask questions like “Why does the sun resist me from seeing it?” and “Why do you two resist this idea so adamantly?”

Gerald, you are unable to have a coherent conversation because of your relativism.

When you disagree with someone, you quibble over the meanings of words. For example, when you state, “As I’ve said before, I respect that different people may use words differently, and as such, a word or term such as “gay marriage” can mean different things to different people, and even at different times and circumstances.”

However, I’ve seen that you can’t wordsmith history and Sacred Tradition of the Church (thanks Holy Spirit!).

You’re awash in the sea of relativism. You need a true anchor. I think Mike is throwing you one.

To Gerald,
    You have not answered my questions. Let me restate them here.
    1. If you live by a relativistic philosophy, why can you not accept
      the definition of gay marriage that people like Liseux, Pam, and
      Jennifer accept? If you respected their definition, you would not
      be trying to correct them. Doesn’t the philosophy of relativism
      deny us the privilege to ask others to agree with us? You can
      refer to <a href=“dictionary.reference.com”> if you are confused.
    2. Why do you so adamantly resist combining the idea of loving with
      permission to sin? By the way, what did you mean by “the sun
      resist[s] me?”
    Perhaps Liseux is right: I am throwing you an anchor. That could explain why you are sinking. Would you like a lifesaver instead?
To Ronald,
    Thank you for the positive feedback; I am glad to see that you found my input insightful and are willing to have a conversation. I realize that this might sound sarcastic but I assure you I am serious; unlike other people whom I have tried to speak, you haves provided a meaningful response. I wish I could continue the conversation, but I think that enough has been said about how to lengthen posts.

Mike, your truth reveals much: in Gerald’s relativism, we’re all right. If fact no one is wrong- except the person who points out the sin or the incorrectness of another.

Man, I’ll sleep better tonight knowing that I am always right!

Pam: “Tamara, You seem to have a strong bias.”

I have an opinion, I’m not sure you could call that a “bias”.  My only real bias is “salus animarum suprema lex est” (“the salvation of souls is the highest law”, the last line in Canon Law).  I respect the decision of the bishop and it is his call to make.  However, we get to play “Monday morning bishop” on the blogs. ^_^

Pam: “The parents were told they could not enroll the children because the parents were living openly in opposition to Church teaching.”

Is this uncommon in Catholic schools?  Most Catholics schools do not even require parents to be Catholic, or even religious, which would be obviously in opposition to Church teaching. Yet the school’s rules only objected to parents in “open discord with the Church or school”, which is apparently something greater than just living in a state of sin or being excommunicated / not in communion with the Church.

Pam: “The children are not helped by their choices.  One after another their choices have seemed to oppose Church teaching.  Sometimes the loving thing to do is to say NO.”

The children are not being helped by their choices, no.  But why condemn a preschooler for the sin of their mother(s)?  After all, aren’t the children’s teeth not supposed to be set on edge when their fathers eat sour grapes?  We suffer the consequences of our parents’ actions, whether they are alcoholics or divorced or whatever, these consequences are *natural*.  Banishing the child from the school as a result of their parents’ actions is an *artificial* consequence.  Certainly, it is within the bishop’s power to do so and I support bishops taking stronger stands on issues, not only in the parishes in their diocese but also the schools (and especially universities, which are often deplorable).  But from a layman’s perspective, of someone who will never have to make that sort of decision, it is not the best pastoral decision. 

If the subject was a teacher or other employee of the school, then certainly they should be removed, if a student was pro-homosexual or opposed Church teaching in other areas, then they should be disciplined and possibly removed. But here is the case of a young child being removed for the actions of their parents, which had not caused an issue in three years.  It seems, from the parents’ statement and from the news articles, that it is actually causing a backlash by the other parents who are seemingly scandalized by the bishop’s decision.

The archdiocese made this comment:

“To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.”

Except that if the children were transferred to public schools, there would be no opposition (except whatever happens in the schoolyard).  Indeed, the parents’ sin would be confirmed as acceptable by the actively pro-homosexual culture entrenched in the public school system, rather than contradicted by the Church through the school.  The purpose of excommunication is to “deliver unto satan” for the salvation of their soul, that is, it is a pastoral decision intended to lead to the conversion of heart of the excommunicate.  Now, this is not excommunication, of course, but it is ostracization tantamount to excommunication because after this, what is the chance that the parents and the children when they are older will continue to associate with the Catholic Church in any capacity except formal opposition?

A woman at my last job, upon learning that I was Catholic, told me that she left the Church because she was shunned, she said that even the priest looked down on her, because she was illegitimate.  There used to be rules that illegitimate children could not receive holy orders and in some places they have even been refused baptism.  Now there is no canonical distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children (which is good for me, since neither my mother nor grandmother were married in the Church—they both married Protestants, and such marriages are invalid, thus rendering both my mother and I illegitimate).  It seems that whereever I go, that people find out I’m Catholic, I always tend to meet lapsed Catholics who have stories about why they are not part of the Church anymore.  I would like to avoid seeing the childrens’ stories added to that list.

Parents are ultimately morally responsible for the education of their children, yes. The Church also has a duty to ensure that children will be raised in a Catholic environment at home.  But these should be held as *ideals*, not pre-requisites.  If the parents are living in a state of sin, of whatever kind, that should not mean that their children should be deprived of the Sacraments or of a Catholic education.  This is probably the only chance for a decent Catholic education and moral impression that these children will get.  In their statement ( http://bit.ly/9oXUaL - PDF), the parents keep following the whole “devout Catholic” line that liberal un-devout Catholics usually use to emphasize their moral superiority.  The parents also imply that they know what they are doing is a sin when they say, “There seems to be a subjective rating system of which sins are more unacceptable.” But there is that usual liberal distinction between the Church’s teaching and personal belief prevalent throughout.  Personal beliefs must, of course, be a superset of Church teaching in order to be orthodox.

Pam: “God will reach out to those children in His time and they will have a chance to choose the true Catholic faith.”

However, I just know how strongly and openly I fought the Church and Christianity in general for many years because I felt condemned for my nature rather than anything I had done.  If a better pastoral approach would have been taken, I feel that much of that could have been avoided.  I do not know if the parents had been helped by the years they spent in the parish and the three years their children have been in that school, but certainly shutting them out is not helping and, more importantly, it does not help the children but rather harms them.  “Suffer the little children to come unto me.”

PS: Bah, where is the Cure d’Ars when you need him?  St. John Vianney, pray for us! St. Aloysius Gonzaga, pray for us! St. John Bosco, pray for us!

Mike, I do not “live by relativistic philosophy”, and the meaning of the words “gay marriage” that I “accept” is the meaning in accordance with Church teaching that “everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way.”  As I’ve said, I respect that different people may use words differently, and as such, that a word or term such as “gay marriage” can mean different things to different people, and even at different times and circumstances.  That is not relativism.  It is charity.  The Church “speaks every language, understands and embraces all tongues in charity, and thus overcomes the dispersion of Babel.”  Whatever I say is to be heard/interpreted in that way.

As to “combining the idea of loving with permission to sin”, God permits people to sin because he respects their freedom and knows how to derive good from it, but that does not mean that sin is not contrary to God’s love, or that the exercise of freedom implies a right to say or do whatever.  Jesus did not tell the woman in John 8, “Go, you have my permission to engage in adultery all you like.”  Rather, he said “Go and sin no more.”  The same applies to the use of words, including “gay marriage”.

And that brings me to the term “gay marriage”.  Neither the women in their published interview nor the Archbishop in his March 10, 2010 column used the term “gay marriage”.  A quick search of the posts by “Liseux, Pam and Jennifer” in this discussion also showed no use or mention of the term “gay marriage”.

Depending on the particular meaning of the term “gay marriage”, it may be either right or wrong to say that the two women are in a “gay marriage”.  For example, I will not say the women are in a “gay marriage” in the sense of saying that the women are committed to engaging in or open to sexual acts between them if in fact the women are neither committed to engaging in nor open to sexual acts between them.  And I have read nothing which proves the women are committed to engaging in or open to sexual acts between them.

Finally, you asked, “what did you mean by…”  I mean you can ask why something is the way you think it is, and you can also ask if it really is as you think it is.

Tamara,  Sorry but you totally avoid the concept of “grace” and the teachings of our faith.  Yes salvation of the soul is paramount and that is exactly why these women and their kids need to leave the Catholic school environment!  The parents are different from other people in sin because most either are ignorant of it or at least are smart enough not to proclaim it!  People of other faiths are in Catholic schools but they are not people in open opposition to their own faith.  They embrace their faith.  These women want a Catholic school to accept them as Catholic when in fact they openly reject the teaching.  Your blog is about “feelings”.  It isn’t about truth.  It seems mean to keep the kids from getting a Catholic school education, but it is the height of charity.  These kids can not learn the true faith while their Mom’s oppose it.  All the souls of the mothers and other children have been harmed because of the actions of the women, not the Church.  The women have confused the school members so that they do not understand their own faith. They present a picture of “goodness” at odds with true goodness.  Jesus Christ often let “good” people leave or sent them away because they could not accept the truth.  He watched the rich man’s son walk away when He asked him to give away his property.  He watched the crowds walk away when He said they would not live unless they ate His body and drank His blood. Because both these groups lacked the GRACE to accept the teaching.  That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive it at some point, but they didn’t have it at that time.  God’s work is unscrutable and miraculous and no it won’t be easier for the children if they get the Catholic school education now, it will hurt the true faith they need to acquire.  The Bishop spoke from wisdom and the people are hearing with secular hearts.

Gerald – still up to your obfuscation, are you?  The quote you like to bandy about, that “everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way,” cannot be removed from the rest of Church teaching.  Sure, it may be one of the teachings you ‘accept’ because you like to use it to promote your agenda, but you fail to notice the important part of the sentence: “insofar as possible.”  I believe the interpretation that these ladies do not exactly agree with Church teaching concerning their lifestyle, based on the information available, is an appropriate and charitable interpretation.

Pam,  Are you casting the first stone?  Our Lord also said that if you broke one commandment you have broken them all.  Please just stop the attacks on those poor children and mothers.

No stone casting at poor children and mothers.  The truth is the truth.  How sad you are not open to it.  The father let the prodigal son walk away.  The Lord let the rich man walk away and the crowds.  He even asked his apostles if they wanted to leave as well.  Some things are NOT negotioable.

Pam, I beg you to read your posts and to be truthful with yourself about the disposition in which these posts are written.

Choir Loft, you wrote, “I believe the interpretation that these ladies do not exactly agree with Church teaching concerning their lifestyle, based on the information available, is an appropriate and charitable interpretation.”

If your interpretation is not the truth, then it is neither appropriate nor charitable.  “Based on the information available”, your interpretation is not proved true.  One becomes guilty of rash judgment when, even tacitly, one assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor.  It could be that the women “do not exactly agree with Church teaching”, just as it could be that you, the Archbishop, and/or the parents of every child at that school “do not exactly agree with Church teaching”.  But I will not claim that in fact they “do not exactly agree with Church teaching” unless in fact it is true, nor will I even tacitly assume it to be true without sufficient foundation, and even then, I may not disclose another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them without an objectively valid reason.  Everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect.

As I have said, I know many, many lesbian/gay/same-sex couples who live together without engaging in sexual acts and without any sexual attraction toward one another.  These two women may be another such couple.  I do not have “sufficient foundation” to say otherwise.

What the hell dude?  Really, I’ve got two gay dads and I’ve turned out fine.  They aren’t, “parents” as you say, they are my parents - note that that isn’t in quotations.  Without them I’d be living in the streets with my 17 year old mom with no education whatsoever. 
    I respect Catholic beliefs and whatever, but the Constitution clearly states that EVERYONE should be given fair rights.  You really need to educate yourself. 

LONG LIVE THE GAYS!!!

—- f u kurt cameron.

Which Constitution? The US Constitution? One of the Constitutional Amendments? One of the State’s Constitutions? Where does it say “fair rights” in this “constitution”? And to what “rights” does it refer? I’m uneducated on this articulation or where it may be found. What is the metaphysical and philosophical underpinnings of these “fair rights”? Do they find precedent in natural law from which common law is based? Does this articulation meet any meritable standard of jurisprudence?

And why the obscene language? To see it is an irony considering the supposed need for education for others. Does Truth, Courtesy, and professionalism apply to everyone else but you?

Oh Jesus Christ, I have two dads I go to a Catholic school. We’re catholic too. As you can probably tell by my name, I’m male. And, wait for it, I’m straight!!! It’s a miracle!! Ha ha, just kidding weirdos. And remember, if you don’t like gay people blame straight people, they’re the ones who make the gay babies.

This should also mean that children of divorced parents should not be allowed to attend as they will have to stand up for their lifestyle.

ASFDASDGASDADFHGAD<a >hair extensions</a>  DSGAASDGASDSDGASD
YUYZSDGASDDSFGHADS<a >Chamilia Charms</a>  ERYERSDGSADADFHGAD
ERYERSDGSADSDAFHSAD<a >clip in hair extensions</a>  QWERSDGSADADSFHGADFS
YUYSDGSADGXZCBZX<a >tape in hair extensions</a>
YUYADFGASDGXZCBZX

I’m in a same-sex relationship and we are seriously considering adopting a child. I guess the Catholic Church has every right to discriminate against a segment of the population (it is discrimination. Look up the definition). But, JIMMY AKIN’s reasons are simply ridiculous. It seems to me that it would benefit the other children in the school because they would be exposed, at an early age, to people who are different. Otherwise, they are going to graduate without the knowledge on how to deal with gay families. Also, I would hope that the Catholic school would prevent the children of gay parents from being “tormented”.

Also, Mr. Akin’s condescending use of quotes around “married” is completely unacceptable and just plain rude.

I would never send my child to Catholic School. The Catholic Church is stuck in the middle ages. The rest of the world will evolve while the Church continues to become more and more obsolete and meaningless.

Kelly, To understand where the Catholic Church is coming from you have to answer the big questions.  First, Who are you?  Catholics know they are children of God.  That He is the Creator and they are the created. They know they are of Holy lineage.  They know that Jesus Christ was the Christ, Messiah and came to show us who God is and to restore our relationship with Him. In showing us who He is He showed us that we are sinners and that He has overcome ALL sin.  Nothing is impossible with Him. Second, Why are you here?  Catholics know they are here to love and serve God first and to be with Him in eternity and through that loving and serving they will receive the grace to love and serve each other and all people. So starting with just these two big questions, do you realize who you are?  It seems you don’t.  You are much more than you imagine. You are not your sexual orientation.  You are a child of God.  Because you seem to reject that by your actions, you are making a choice against faith.  If that is not true and you are open to learning the Truth as handed down by Jesus Christ and His Apostles, you would be welcome at any Catholic Church.  Why are you here?  Are you here to make a good life for seventy or so years? Or are you here to be fulfilled? Or are you here to live for today?  Then you are missing a big part of why you were created.  You were created for much more than that.  Marriage was in quotes, because we believe God created marriage when He created the perfect mate for Adam to be Eve.  We are humble enough to know His is the true definition and anything else deserves quotes because it’s our own concoction. The Catholic Schools would not tolerate any child being tormented but individuals might and most bullying is subtle and nasty stuff.  The child might not experience any, please God, but why would two people who have rejected the faith even consider placing a child in a faith-based school? Most moral lessons will be at odds with their life.
As much as today’s media or secular culture might like to make the Church seem “stuck” in the Middle Ages, it is actually way ahead of the times.  The love that is demanded, the dying to self, the mystical connection of God and man are so far above what we put up with today and consider good. Mother Teresa called what we have settled for a “poverty” and if you understood who you truly are you would know she is right.

Not too long ago an article appeared in the local newspapers about a young neo-Nazi couple in the U.S. who had named their son after Adolf Hitler. The family’s school district contacted CPS because they considered this naming to be a form of chid abuse.  Somehow the parents thought their choice of a name was appropriate and not harmful to their child. Should the local Hebrew school be required to accept little Adolf if the public school has a problem with his name?  If the Hebrew school refused, would it be discrimination? Why would little Adolf’s parents want him to attend a Hebrew school? Maybe for the same reason a lesbian couple would want to send a child to Catholic school—to create an issue and to destroy a religious tradition for which they have contempt.

Kelly, there are many people in the world who are “different.”  Some people are different in that they have a difference which is neither better nor worse than another person—e.g. people are of different races.  Some people are different because they suffer from some physiological or mental defect for which they do not bear any responsibility—e.g. paraplegics, people with Down’s Syndrome, etc.  The third category consists of people who are different because they suffer from some moral defect and volitionally act in ways which are disordered and immoral and this category would include all manner of criminals, rapists, murderers, feminists, homosexuals, etc.  It is to this third category, not the first, that homosexuals belong.

The natural order is clear that there are men and there are women.  In order to procreate, you need a male and a female.  Even if you produce a test-tube baby, you still need a male sperm and a female egg and a female womb for the child to grow in.  This is the natural way of things.  The purpose of marriage is the generation and care of children.  Now, it may happen that a married couple is unable to reproduce and may choose to adopt instead.  But a homosexual couple is intrinsically unable to reproduce because of their biological reality.  This is why there is no such thing as same-sex marriage—it’s not about the civil law, it’s about the natural law.

The Catholic Church does indeed condemn all morally disordered acts—from murder to lying to unnatural sex.  She also preaches the moral goodness of true marriage.

You may consider the concept of objective morality a “medieval” notion, but there is indeed such a thing as objective reality and, like Wile E. Coyote, one can only deny reality for so long before everything comes crashing down.  Reality is not dependent upon the day or the year, it’s always the same.  Some things are not morally wrong one day and right the next; some things are not impossible one day (like same-sex “marriage”) and possible the next.  Same-sex marriage is not something that becomes possible with new advancements in technology, like landing on the moon, but rather something which is inherently contradictory, like a square circle.  The world cannot “evolve” into a place where square circles or same-sex marriage are possible.

It is not as though I lack sympathy with your situation.  I am sure that you care about your partner but when a friendship with a member of the same sex turns into a romance, that is simply disordered because it is not ordered towards the generation of children.  A man and a woman court and marry so that they may have children.  Homosexual relationships are based not on this natural good but rather on disordered lust and something that is fundamentally disordered can never be made ordered by a decree of the government.

It is simply unfair to the child to bring him or her into a disordered “family” and corrupt him about what is right and wrong, natural and unnatural.