[Denver] Catholic school boots student with gay parents [AP]

[Mystic_Banana]

seldylidne,

I do appreciate the sincerity of your response, but the problem is, again, their lifestyle is currently incompatible with Catholic doctrine and with the very teachings that would have been imminently presented to their child in any Catholic school. (Starts right from the beginning, in the young grades, with the definition of family. They may teach that family is just anything in publics, but count on them not teaching that in a Catholic school.) The discomfort, embarrassment, self-conciousness that would await the child is something not escapable in a Catholic school environment, and presents a two-way problem for both school and the illegitimate family unit understood as such, and taught as such, to such a child.

I didn’t see references to kicking them out of the Church. That’s a different matter. Let the women come to true contrition, renounce their errors, live apart or as sisters, and then bring the child into Catholic education. As single, celibate women not claiming dual motherhood, but respecting a life born to one of them, however illegitimately that was done, they can live a decent Catholic life and become part of a school community.

The child can be catechized inside the church but outside the school community, where the family unit is such an integral part of the direct and indirect education. Anything else publicly scandalizes the other families in the school.

My point in the quote you boxed was that any gay ‘couple’ who feels strongly that their lifestyle should be accepted on face value within the RCC, is not a couple who either understands the theology behind it, or a couple who prioritizes membership in the RCC over adherence to their lifestyle. In that case, when the lifestyle is more important to you than the church you’re affiliated with, you should indeed leave that church – temporarily or permanently – and find a different church with the same priorities you have. Hope that’s clear now.

Luke 19

To some who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everybody else, Jesus told this parable: 10"Two men went up to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood up and prayed about[a] himself: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men—robbers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week and give a tenth of all I get.’

13"But the tax collector stood at a distance. He would not even look up to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, have mercy on me, a sinner.’

14"I tell you that this man, rather than the other, went home justified before God. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

I suppose the question is, who humbles themselves, and who exalts?

 

[rlg94086]

Actually, looking at this, they are practising Catholics, and** they even consider themselves in error for their own lifestyles** - what do you want?!?

Where did you read that they consider themselves in error?

A good priest we had explained that when it comes to confessing sin, your contrition isn’t valid if you are doing nothing to change it. The example he gave was a couple who is “living together” who comes in to confess the sin of fornication.

If this Lesbian couple truly believes they are in error and wish to be faithful Catholics, their first step is to leave the relationship. Jesus did go to the sinners but his consistent message was “go and sin no more.”

I have no doubt that if the couple were to split up, go to Confession, and then the maternal half of the former couple went to enroll the child in the Catholic School, there would be no problem.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have no doubt that if the couple were to split up, go to Confession, and then the maternal half of the former couple went to enroll the child in the Catholic School, there would be no problem.

I completely agree with this (and might have said that earlier, too).

 

[Mystic_Banana]

All very easy to say, but it’s neither of you that would have to do this. As for your Priests interpretation, well, that’s interpretation for you - another Priest may well interpret it differently.

Faced by a harsh demand by the material culture we live in to accept those who live in ways we consider sinful as being blameless, I feel sometimes we leap to excacerbate the conflict by being harsher in application of our beliefs on those performing such sins within the faith. We’re not meant to be moneygrabbing materialists either, but how many stockbrokers are thrown out of Church? None, I’d say, but I’d say many such live a life in the same degree of error as a those whose sin is sexual.

Are they genuinely committed Catholics, despite their error? That’s the question. If they are, then I’d not reject them so easily I think - I think we all make errors. To deny it - well, you’d have an argument.

The Bishop suggests it’s a political move on the Mothers part. Well, if it is, I’d agree with his decision. Otherwise…

Tolerance is not the same as acceptance. But as Catholics, we should be tolerant I think, and not be so quick to reject those who break the rules, if they’re otherwise sincere in their faith, even in such error.

 

[rlg94086]

All very easy to say, but it’s neither of you that would have to do this. As for your Priests interpretation, well, that’s interpretation for you - another Priest may well interpret it differently.

My priest’s interpretation of what? A faithful priest can’t have an interpretation that differs from the Magisterium.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

My priest’s interpretation of what? A faithful priest can’t have an interpretation that differs from the Magisterium.

Oh aye - I mixed up your 1st 2 paragraphs in post 241 - so you haven’t dealt with the quote, I don’t think

All in all, I suppose we’re all just guessing about the situation. Actually, I wonder what the father wants (if he’s interested at all) - ah, well. I just hope the Bishops estimation of the situation is correct (i.e. that is it is a socio-political move), otherwise I’m still personally uncomfortable with the idea. And no self-righteous interpretation of Dogma will change that, I think

 

[redrosetea]

Oh aye - I mixed up your 1st 2 paragraphs in post 241 - so you haven’t dealt with the quote, I don’t think

All in all, I suppose we’re all just guessing about the situation. Actually, I wonder what the father wants (if he’s interested at all) - ah, well. I just hope the Bishops estimation of the situation is correct (i.e. that is it is a socio-political move), otherwise I’m still personally uncomfortable with the idea. And no self-righteous interpretation of Dogma will change that, I think

How do you know there is a father? It might have been a donor in a clinic…If they aren’t going to obey one church discipline they might not have problems ignoring other ones to

This is what happens when you decide to flaunt church teaching

It is in the best interests of all of us to to give our Bishops our support in matters of church teachings

 

[redrosetea]

And he rebuked the apostles for sending away little children. He welcomed and blessed little children (with no strings attached).

He had harsh words for those that give scandal …he said it was better that a millstone was tired around their neck and they were drown

These children are not being prevented from attending church nor CCD classes

 

[rlg94086]

Oh aye - I mixed up your 1st 2 paragraphs in post 241 - so you haven’t dealt with the quote, I don’t think

I have no idea what you are saying here.
Mystic Banana:

All in all, I suppose we’re all just guessing about the situation. Actually, I wonder what the father wants (if he’s interested at all) - ah, well. I just hope the Bishops estimation of the situation is correct (i.e. that is it is a socio-political move), otherwise I’m still personally uncomfortable with the idea. **And no self-righteous interpretation of Dogma **will change that, I think

What “self-righteous interpretation of Dogma” are you referring to?

 

[Zoe_Brain]

\we ought deny the Gospel to the child who, by virtue of his or her “parents,” is nothing more than a proto-apologist for the homosexual lifestyle.

Wow. 5 years old and a proto-apologist already.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[OriginalJS]

You have to wonder what percentage of children in the school system are Catholic, in the first place. My impression is that the number of Catholics in the Catholic private school system has been falling for a while, and that Catholic schools are increasingly becoming a way of ensuring that children, from a variety of backgrounds, receive a quality education. I wonder what percentage of families are sending their kids to Catholic schools to Catholicize their kids (some are obviously, but I wonder if they can continue to operate schools with that expectation and pay their bills at the same time).

I am also curious if they are going to purge their school of children living with unmarried straight-couples. Children living with divorced and remarried couples. Children whose parents volunteer at the local Planned Parenthood. etc. etc. etc.

Everybody knows that many expensive Catholic schools admit non-Catholic students whose families are able to pay the tuition and costs. I wonder if that is true at the school covered by the report? If so, how could non-Catholic parents be considered to be living within the school’s guidelines? This may develop into something interesting.

 

[Other_Eric]

Wow. 5 years old and a proto-apologist already.

I feel sorry for you.

Are you seriously denying that a child, even one that young, would seek to defend his or her caretakers from the suggestion that they are involved in something evil? Are you unaware that any such defense would be diametrically opposed to what the Church teaches? Do you, perhaps, not know that one of the definitions of “apologetics” is the “formal argumentation in defense of something, such as a position or system?” (1) If your answer is “yes” to any of these questions, then I am afriad it is I who feel sorry for you.

(1) “Apologetics.” The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. March, 22 2010.

 

[asymm]

"BOULDER, Colo. — A Catholic school in Colorado is kicking out a preschooler because the child’s parents are lesbians.

In this circumstance, I believe this is not a fair choice for the child. If the child is not promoting the gay lifestyle of his/her parents to his peers, then I don’t see the problem here. The parents, not the child, should be punished. The child is entitled to a Catholic education regardless of her guardians’/aunts’/uncles’/cousins’/siblings’ sexual orientation.

 

[rlg94086]

In this circumstance, I believe this is not a fair choice for the child. If the child is not promoting the gay lifestyle of his/her parents to his peers, then I don’t see the problem here. The parents, not the child, should be punished. The child is entitled to a Catholic education regardless of her guardians’/aunts’/uncles’/cousins’/siblings’ sexual orientation.

It is the parent’s job to ensure that the child receive a Catholic education, but no child is entitled to enrollment at a Catholic school. If the Church can refuse baptism to a child based on his parents (and it can), then the Church can refuse enrollment at a Catholic school due to his parents.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, in Catholic education, it is the child’s entire family unit (child + self-declared guardians, child + true biological parents, child + adopting parents, etc.) that has a contractual relationship with the school. The child and the immediate adults in the home environment cannot be separated. It simply does not work that way. Not theoretically. Not practically. Over. Out.

In fact, technically, much more is put on the parents in the enrollment process than the child, particularly (obviously) the young child. It is up to the parents to profess unity with Catholic Church teaching, and not to demonstrate the opposite by their overt behavior, which has always been potential grounds for dismissal, or refusal to enroll. As the child ages, increasingly more responsiblity is put on him/her to comply in addition. So if parents or guardians were supposedly teaching respectful behavior during Mass, yet the child repeatedly showed disrespect and incorrigibility and even disruption during school Masses, that could also become grounds for dismissal, no matter how truly innocent the parents were. (Because the child would not be fulfilling his part of the contract.)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I have no idea what you are saying here.

What “self-righteous interpretation of Dogma” are you referring to?

I thought you wre saying your Parish Priest told you how to interpret this particular parable, but apparently not, so you haven’t addressed it

Your insistence that your interpretation of how to enact Church teachings is the only valid one

 

[Mystic_Banana]

How do you know there is a father? It might have been a donor in a clinic…If they aren’t going to obey one church discipline they might not have problems ignoring other ones to

This is what happens when you decide to flaunt church teaching

It is in the best interests of all of us to to give our Bishops our support in matters of church teachings

All assumption - I say again, I don’t think any of us have all the facts.

Bishops also disagree, you know, and I may support him as in his Bishopric, but I reserve the right to disagree over particular cases of application of doctrine. It’s not like I’m calling for him to be defrocked!

Humph - all this is taking far too much away from my favourite CAF activity of arguing down heathens!

 

[rep140]

To advance the homosexual agenda and a lawsuit intended to discredit Catholic teaching.

---

Look at what went on in the U.S., Ireland, Germany, and God known where else. We have had the homosexual agenda being advanced for years in our Church. Chaput loves an audience. He sees the Church as exclusive and not inclusive.

 

[Elizabeth502]

All assumption - I say again, I don’t think any of us have all the facts.

Here are the facts that we know:

They call themselves a “lesbian couple.”
They call themselves “two Mommies.”
They continue to live that lifestyle.

If they weren’t still lesbians, and no longer a couple, they would have said so and done so. (Separated, and renounced their previous lifestyle.) But it’s a current lifestyle. Get it?

Ergo: child will be confused and contradicted in her upbringing – between the lifestyle her “Mommies,” plural, are living, and the moral teachings she would have been taught in the school.

By those definitions above, the self-described (illegitimate) “parents” are not in line with Catholic church teachings, no matter how much they protest that they are.

No one has brought this up yet, but the priest who used, i.m.o., the poor judgment to baptize the child, has been “reassigned.” Hmmm.
When you as direct guardians agree to have the child baptized, you “stand in” for the child, and assent to baptismal promises which include following the teachings of the church. The baptism should never have been conducted, and could even be considered invalid, if there was never the disposition on the part of the parents to be the model of basic Catholic morality demanded by such baptism of their child. Since clearly they hadn’t renounced their lesbian relationship, and in fact openly continued it, it would be not different, from the viewpoint of sacramental validity, if a non-Catholic partook of the Eucharist prior to membership.
Again, this is not a matter of sin but of fundamental compliance. You’re not spotless when you get married, either, but a Catholic ceremony cannot be held without certain assumptions and agreements.

 

[rlg94086]

I thought you wre saying your Parish Priest told you how to interpret this particular parable, but apparently not, so you haven’t addressed it

Your insistence that your interpretation of how to enact Church teachings is the only valid one

What parable are you talking about? What interpretation? What Dogma? You are all over the map, so it is impossible to understand what you are referring to. I will guess what you are referring to.

If you are saying that Jesus didn’t tell people to “go and sin no more,” then your problem is much greater than interpretation. There is no other way to interpret that.

What my former priest explained regarding Confession is not an interpretation of Dogma or a parable. If you are in a situation of continuous mortal sin (e.g. living together outside of marriage and engaging in sexual acts), then your confession is not contrite. In order to repent, you need to move out and remain chaste. In the case of a homosexual relationship, the same thing would apply. That isn’t “Dogma” - it’s common sense…once you understand what contrition means.