Bishop Brown answers my letter and sends one the same day to SJB pastor, 2-10-05

[demolitionman65]

All I can offer is this: as a former Catholic school principal, two issues would drive my decision:

1. Avoiding scandal in the Church and school
2. Providing what is best for the students (including the twins in this case)
3. is solved (at least partially) by forbidding the parents to exhibit their lifestyle in the school environment. They are not listed as “father and father” in the phone book, they are not allowed to come to school together with their wedding rings on. Any other behavior that offers outright scandal for church and school is prohibited.
4. is solved by allowing the children to attend so long as (1) is obeyed. If (1) is repeatedly broken, the family is asked to leave (I have asked a family to leave in the past when their obdurate behavior against charity persisted. . .it was unfortunate for the children)

 

[Catholic_Heart]

katherine2:

I don’t know what church you belong to, but my Church was founded by He who said “Let the little children come unto me”

I’ve checked the Scripture and there is no asterik to indicate that this was only children with heterosexual parents.

The twins are staying. We can only pray for conversion of heart for those hateful people who seek to expell these darling children.

I completely agree with you…No child should EVER be turned away from ANYWHERE because of what his parents are or have done. Jesus did, indeed, call for the little children to be brought to him.

I find it absolutely repubnant that ANYONE would consider asking these children to leave…Children are children, and just as we say that you should not punish the unborn child for his/her parent’s acrions, you should not punish “born” children for the same reason…

 

[jim_orr]

Catholic Heart:

No child should EVER be turned away from ANYWHERE because of what his parents are or have done.

The children are there so the homosexual “fathers” can be there, not for the children to be raised Catholics for there are other ways that can be done, but so the two men can be seen and “force” the Church to face the scandal head on or waver and let it continue at the risk of all the other children and their families. If we had a bishop and pastor who were concerned with ministering to sinners, that would be one thing, but we have a bishop and a pastor working hand in hand to pervert the teaching of the Church and corrupt the flock.

 

[demolitionman65]

The children are there so the homosexual “fathers” can be there, not for the children to be raised Catholics for there are other ways that can be done, but so the two men can be seen and “force” the Church to face the scandal head on or waver and let it continue at the risk of all the other children and their families.

And you have testimony from the “parents” to this effect? Take caution in leaping so quickly in defining the reasons for the actions of another. “We have no window to look into another man’s soul.”:tsktsk:

I maintain my previous solution as workable in this case. You do not penalize the children for the sins of the parents until the source of scandal continues after correction.

Now, if correction is not taking place (as appears to be the case based on what is said in this thread), the dispute needs to be taken up regarding the poor shepherding in the Diocese of Orange, not with the children.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Catholic Heart:

I completely agree with you…No child should EVER be turned away from ANYWHERE because of what his parents are or have done. Jesus did, indeed, call for the little children to be brought to him.

I find it absolutely repubnant that ANYONE would consider asking these children to leave…Children are children, and just as we say that you should not punish the unborn child for his/her parent’s acrions, you should not punish “born” children for the same reason…

It appears that you do not know some of the facts of this case. Please read up on it and then you can discuss whether you think it’s appropriate for two men to flit around a Catholic school presenting themselves as a “couple”.

This case is not about the children–it’s about the two “fathers” and the aggressive promotion of their sin.

 

[jim_orr]

demolitionman65:

And you have testimony from the “parents” to this effect?

By their action they present their “testimony,” as do we all.

demolitionman65:

Take caution in leaping so quickly in defining the reasons for the actions of another. “We have no window to look into another man’s soul.”:tsktsk:

Your “cautioning” is illustrative of how we, as “thinking” beings, are able to observe someone’s action and come to some conclusion about what their thinking may be. We may be correct in our observation, or we may not. But when patterns develop, it becomes easier to draw a conclusion. This is what is meant by the phrase - “connecting the dotes” that we heard so much about in the 9-11 hearings.

In the case of the two men, it is very easy to see what they are doing.

In the case of the bishop and the pastor it is easy to see they are not, and were not, concerned with their Church family in which they have unwarrantably inserted this situation into their lives. Certainly the life style of this “gay” couple is a private matter, but when a bishop and pastor install them into the Church school setting, the clergy have created a scandal with which the Church must now deal. By the clergy’s action, they have dismissed, outrightly, consideration of their flock i.e., the Church community, not unlike the recent state and federal courts refusal to consider the Teri Schavio civil rights case about life and death. The Church community has no recourse left to them other than turning to the Vatican, thousands of miles away, which is also the source that had installed the bishop, who is in the center of the scandal in the first place. As the members of the Church community reached out to the church-school and diocesan leaders, it became clearer that the bishop and pastor were “hell bent” on creating this scandal…but for what purpose? There are three possible answers: they are ignorant; they are stupid; or they want to corrupt Church teaching for their own personal reasons, which they have not revealed.

demolitionman65:

I maintain my previous solution as workable in this case. You do not penalize the children for the sins of the parents until the source of scandal continues after correction

I reject the accusation that the adopted children are being “penalized”. Children are taken out of schools every day for various reason. And, if giving them instruction in the Catholic faith is the real reason for enrolling them in that school, they can receive that in CCC training.

If any children are being “penalized” it is the other students; they are being subjected to unnecessary risk to their well being and spiritual development. And it is the “gay” couple, themselves, that are subjecting the twins to any “penalty.”

 

[demolitionman65]

I reject the accusation that the adopted children are being “penalized”. Children are taken out of schools every day for various reason [sic].
Administratively speaking, the only reasons that a child might be asked to leave are for the following reasons:

1. Child is disrupting the environment
2. Parents are not fulfilling their contractual obligations
3. Parents are providing a source of scandal
   3a) Parents have not corrected source of scandal after correction.

(1) and (2) are apparently not occuring. (3a) has not been met, as is being addressed by taking Brown et al to higher authority.

Ergo, to remove the children at this point is to penalize them.

And, if giving them instruction in the Catholic faith is the real reason for enrolling them in that school, they can receive that in CCC training.

In the hands of competent teachers/parents (which may not be found in Orange), this is true. Given the state of things in Orange, you are being disingenuous.

And it is the “gay” couple, themselves, that are subjecting the twins to any “penalty.”

This is true. but to expel the twins is to compound this penalty.

 

[God_saves]

katherine2:

I’ve read all of that information. it simply proves that there are some hateful people in Orange County. Fortunately, the Church has refused to allow their hate to stop its love these darling children. I praise Jesus for the love for these children shown by the pastor, school principal, the vast majority of parishioners and school parents and partiuclarly the Nobertine Priory, which even though known for its conservativism, has stood with the pastor and decency.

Exactly what is your source that the Norbertne Priory “has stood by the pastor and decency?” There has been no statement from the Priory or its Abbot to that effect. If there were any way to circumvent what is happening at SJB you can be sure it would be done. Unfortunately, the Abbot has no control over the parish or the school which is under the control of the Bishop. The only action the Abbot could take to indicate his displeasure is to remove the Norbetine pastor, and since the Bishop approves same sex unions that would not serve to change anything. In fact, it could conceivably make matters worse.

 

[jim_orr]

demolitionman65:

…to expel the twins is to compound this penalty.

What kind of “penalty” do you think it will be for these two children when they begin instruction about sexual sin and specifically, homosexuality? Or is the school going to skip over that for the protection of these two children?

 

[demolitionman65]

What is the point of that last question? If it were my school the instruction would go as normal.

 

[OriginalJS]

I agree with the last writer. In Western Europe, and moreso in the United States it is taboo to punish children for the errors of their parents. In our courts it is generally recognized that you should not be able to impreach a person because of his family because no one can pick their parents or other relatives.

At the close of WWII Joseph Goebbels and his wife killed their children and committed suicide. I think this stunned a lot of people in the United States because no matter how bad Goebbels may have been, nobody was thinking about torturing his children.

The Chuch has always had a special mission to children. If you want to save their souls and convert them to the Faith you just don’t send them away. I dread to even think about the day when the Church turns snobbish and decides that it will control the entryway based on the actions or inactions of one’s parents.

Another aspect of this problem is to consider whether these children need help. If we really believe they are being subjected to bad influence shouldn’t as much as possible be done to help them?

 

[Lurch104]

OriginalJS:

IAnother aspect of this problem is to consider whether these children need help. If we really believe they are being subjected to bad influence shouldn’t as much as possible be done to help them?

I think we are (mostly) all on board with you. However, in todays climate, were I a parent of a child at that school I would demand assurances that the Church’s teaching regarding the sin of homosexual RELATIONS would not be watered down for the sake of these children.

 

[jim_orr]

demolitionman65:

What is the point of that last question? If it were my school the instruction would go as normal.

So you think allowing them to continue in a school where at some point they will be instructed that their “parents” are living in sin and if they do not repent and stop their cohabitation they will spend eternity in Hell? And you are not concerned about the “punishment” they will suffer from their fellow students as each appropriate grade level becomes aware of the Church’s teaching?

And you believe that the rest of the student body will be immune to the spiritual confusion the “parents” of the adopted boys inject into their minds about Catholic teaching when they see them wearing wedding bans, attending daily prayer before school, and receiving Communion at the youth Mass?

 

[jim_orr]

OriginalJS:

I agree with the last writer. In Western Europe, and moreso in the United States it is taboo to punish children for the errors of their parents. In our courts it is generally recognized that you should not be able to impreach a person because of his family because no one can pick their parents or other relatives.

I reject that the adopted children of these two active homosexuals are being “punished” by their removal from the school. I myself went beteen Catholic and public schools seveal times very early in my life and have no memory of why, nor any memory of being rejected by either of the schools. The idea of '“punishment” seems to me to be more in the minds of adults than what will be in the minds of the two kindergarten children. I am more concerned about the minds of all the other children and their families seeing this scandled played out before them.

OriginalJS:

The CIhuch has always had a special mission to children. If you want to save their souls and convert them to the Faith you just don’t send them away.

And the souls of the other children are not a concern?

OriginalJS:

IAnother aspect of this problem is to consider whether these children need help. If we really believe they are being subjected to bad influence shouldn’t as much as possible be done to help them?

And what would that be when their “fathers” aren’'t even being counseled by the bishop who has authorized this and the pastor who has accepted this?

 

[jim_orr]

Lurch104:

I think we are (mostly) all on board with you. However, in todays climate, were I a parent of a child at that school I would demand assurances that the Church’s teaching regarding the sin of homosexual RELATIONS would not be watered down for the sake of these children.

That still does not deal with the scadal being played out every day before them.

Let me give you an example. I was a born and bred a liberal Catholic Democrat from an “Irish” Catholic, blue collar, pro-union Democrat family from Chicago/Joliet Illinois. To give you an idea of how Catholic and Democrat we were, my mother was raised two doors down from Knute Rockny in South Bend, Ind, her brother became a Holy Cross priest and later Proculator General of the Holy Cross Order, and then a bishop and arch bishop and Vatican spokesman for all English speaking news services before dying of a heart attact in his 50s. My older brother was best friends with the only son of our Democrat state representive who lived across the street from our Catholic Church where the legislator attended. My other brother, who was vice-president of the Will County Democrats, introduced Senator Jack Kennedy, running for President in 1960, at a rally held in the center of downtown Joliet. What changed me into leaving the Democrat Party after several years was their tolerance and support for abortion, the hypocrisy of it.

Children and young people can see hypocrisy far more readily than can adults. That is why so many older Catholics are still “in love” with the Democrat Party; they can’t see the hypocrisy of the party or themselves.

Either the children will be taught the truth and begin to see the hypocrisy in the Church, and question their remaining Catholic, or they will not be taught the truth and accept any contradictions as “tolerance, loving and spiritual.” And what will happen to their souls, then?

 

[demolitionman65]

So you think allowing them to continue in a school where at some point they will be instructed that their “parents” are living in sin and if they do not repent and stop their cohabitation they will spend eternity in Hell? And you are not concerned about the “punishment” they will suffer from their fellow students as each appropriate grade level becomes aware of the Church’s teaching?

Another strawman. You can’t have it both ways. To allow them to stay at the school is to have them exposed them to the truth (we hope). You are telling them to leave either to protect the others in the school or to protect them, that it is in their best interests. Nonsense.

And you believe that the rest of the student body will be immune to the spiritual confusion the “parents” of the adopted boys inject into their minds about Catholic teaching when they see them wearing wedding bans, attending daily prayer before school, and receiving Communion at the youth Mass?

THis madness is all around us. Properly instructed, I see this as a great opportunity to educate the twins and the rest of the students about the dangers of homosexual behavior.

This paragraph again punishes the twins for their parents’ [sic] behavior.

 

[demolitionman65]

And the souls of the other children are not a concern?

Strawman. Of course they are. You can accomplish both goals.

And what would that be when their “fathers” aren’'t even being counseled by the bishop who has authorized this and the pastor who has accepted this?

This has been answered. You are essentially saying now that the kids are to be punished for the idiocy of the bishop. THAT is where the real culpability lies. Why is Brown not shepherding?

Either the children will be taught the truth and begin to see the hypocrisy in the Church, and question their remaining Catholic, or they will not be taught the truth and accept any contradictions as “tolerance, loving and spiritual.”

Right. Again, the shepherding issue. That means punishing the parents, not the kids. To punish the kids does NOTHING to address your concern, save to sweep it under the rug.

 

[jim_orr]

demolitionman65:

Another strawman. You can’t have it both ways. To allow them to stay at the school is to have them exposed them to the truth (we hope). You are telling them to leave either to protect the others in the school or to protect them, that it is in their best interests. Nonsense.

If the bishop and pastor and principal are going to approve the introduction into their school and religious services two active homosexual men living as two fathers caring for adopted children then I have no confidence that authentic Catholic teachings are going to be taught.

I say that based on the following scenario:

Do you think the bishop or the pastor would allow a member of the laity to receive Communion in his hand when they know that that member, upon receiving the host, flips it like a coin into the air and catches it in his month like a jelly bean? Do you think a priest would allow that behavior in his church without reprimanding the person, and the person contiues doing it afterwards? Why would a priest want to reprimand a person for such behavior? If they are not going to instruct the person in the proper way to receive Communion and make sure that the person complies, how can you think that anyone at that church is going to be taught respect for the Body of Christ in the host, let alone in the Sacrifice of the Mass?

A laity that would put up with that kind of behavior from one of their own is in pretty bad shape, too.

Isn’t serving Communion to two known active homosexuals more of an affront to the Body of Christ then someone in the state of grace who disrespects it by flipping it up in the air?

If these two men were serious about doing what is good for these two little boys they would never have done what they did. They are using these two boys for their own personal political objectives. And they are doing it with the cooperation of the head of the Church in the diocese. You, the bishop, the pastor and the principal seem focused on a flock of two children and are willing to let the other 500 children bare the consequences. I don’t see that as a wise or fair trade off, let alone a spiritual act.

demolitionman65:

THis madness is all around us. Properly instructed, I see this as a great opportunity to educate the twins and the rest of the students about the dangers of homosexual behavior.

And what are those dangers?

demolitionman65:

This paragraph again punishes the twins for their parents’ [sic] behavior.

The twins are going to be “punished” no matter what happens unless these two guys seek redemption, which doesn’t look like its in the script they are following.

 

[demolitionman65]

If the bishop and pastor and principal are going to approve the introduction into their school and religious services two active homosexual men living as two fathers caring for adopted children then I have no confidence that authentic Catholic teachings are going to be taught.

I say that based on the following scenario:

Do you think the bishop or the pastor would allow a member of the laity to receive Communion in his hand when they know that that member, upon receiving the host, flips it like a coin into the air and catches it in his month like a jelly bean? Do you think a priest would allow that behavior in his church without reprimanding the person, and the person contiues doing it afterwards? Why would a priest want to reprimand a person for such behavior? If they are not going to instruct the person in the proper way to receive Communion and make sure that the person complies, how can you think that anyone at that church is going to be taught respect for the Body of Christ in the host, let alone in the Sacrifice of the Mass?

A laity that would put up with that kind of behavior from one of their own is in pretty bad shape, too.

Isn’t serving Communion to two known active homosexuals more of an affront to the Body of Christ then someone in the state of grace who disrespects it by flipping it up in the air?

If these two men were serious about doing what is good for these two little boys they would never have done what they did. They are using these two boys for their own personal political objectives. And they are doing it with the cooperation of the head of the Church in the diocese. You, the bishop, the pastor and the principal seem focused on a flock of two children and are willing to let the other 500 children bare the consequences. I don’t see that as a wise or fair trade off, let alone a spiritual act.

This continues to illustrate my point that the issue is the shepherding of Orange, NOT THE TWINS.

And what are those dangers?

Damnation. Come on. Stop being disingenuous.

The twins are going to be “punished” no matter what happens unless these two guys seek redemption, which doesn’t look like its in the script they are following.

So you are going to compound it by expelling them? You are only proving my points.

 

[Lurch104]

jim orr:

Either the children will be taught the truth and begin to see the hypocrisy in the Church, and question their remaining Catholic, or they will not be taught the truth and accept any contradictions as “tolerance, loving and spiritual.” And what will happen to their souls, then?

Or possibly (hopefully) the children will embrace the Church’s teaching and realize that their “fathers” are the true hypocrites?

I know it seems unlikely, but in charity I have to hope this happens. As long as the school teaches firmly the Church’s position on homosexuality and homosexual relations, I still won’t have a major problem with it. However, my fear is that the teachings will indeed be watered down so as not to offend these children, thus confusing everyone.