Exclusive: Mexican archbishop defends school that refused admission to child with ‘two fathers’

[josh987654321]

The article plainly states that the man insisted on listing his status as married, he forced the young child to be held from Jesus, not the school and definitely not the Archbishop.

My apologies, I missed where it said that.

Why start a thread called "Mexican archbishop defends school that refused admission to child with ‘two fathers’ "?

I said before that probably most parents would like to place their pre-school children in a daycare where the subject of sexual deviancy will not be forced to come up and where their innocence will not be violated. It’s not an appropriate matter to have to discuss with four and five year old children.

I agree.

And yes, I think that real agenda of the father in this situation is to force the acceptance of his own disordered sexuality not only on his own child, but the children of others. He wants his child to teach the others–by her presence if nothing else–that homosexual behavior is normal rather than disordered. That is a disservice to the school and to the other children and the other parents. It is a sad situation in which he has placed his child. He, not the daycare provider, is responsible for that.

True, I missed where it said that the father demanded the day care to recognise them as married, in that situation, the day care centre is hardly the one who refused admittance, but rather the father who took her out of the day care centre because they refused to recognise their union as a marriage.

I don’t know why the thread was titled "Mexican archbishop defends school that refused admission to child with ‘two fathers’ "

Instead it should be “Mexican archbishop defends school that refused to change it’s teachings on homosexuality/marriage”

Because the school isn’t refusing admittance to their daughter, as that would be wrong, instead it is them who are refusing to adhere to their morals and thus the father who is refusing to admit his child into the school.

Thank you.
Josh

 

[Corki]

I don’t know why the thread was titled "Mexican archbishop defends school that refused admission to child with ‘two fathers’ "

Instead it should be “Mexican archbishop defends school that refused to change it’s teachings on homosexuality/marriage”

Because forum rules require that thread titles in the news forums match the title of the linked article.

 

[josh987654321]

Because forum rules require that thread titles in the news forums match the title of the linked article.

Okay, thank you, my apologies.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[John_Savage]

For now .

I’m sure the US Supreme Court will decide to take it up in November; the appeal is still pending until then, and considering there are five extremely conservative Justices on the Court, I find it exceedingly unlikely that the NM court’s ruling will stay.

5 “extremely” conservative judges? Ha!

 

[pnewton]

So you would condemn this little girl for this same reason? to avoid the necessity of having to explain things to a child that is not age appropriate?

I condemned no one. No one here has condemned this girl. I think this is a poor strawman argument.

 

[Corki]

I condemned no one. No one here has condemned this girl. I think this is a poor strawman argument.

Hey! He already apologized. No piling on.

 

[Cricket2]

Shame on the Bishop. More politics over the Mercy and Love of God. A child is not responsible for adult choices or his/her family situation. So rather than “let the children come”…this Bishop sends him away. This has nothing to do with God.

 

[Corki]

Shame on the Bishop. More politics over the Mercy and Love of God. A child is not responsible for adult choices or his/her family situation. So rather than “let the children come”…this Bishop sends him away. This has nothing to do with God.

Once again (sigh), not a Catholic school.

The Bishop didn’t send anyone away.

He agreed with the administrator of the school who declined to enroll the child under the conditions the father was dictating.

The child is not responsible for this situation but neither is the administrator of the school. It’s the father that decided to use his child as a pawn. I am sure the child will be enrolled elsewhere and be none the wiser.

 

[josh987654321]

Shame on the Bishop. More politics over the Mercy and Love of God. A child is not responsible for adult choices or his/her family situation. So rather than “let the children come”…this Bishop sends him away. This has nothing to do with God.

Hi Cricket2, I said nearly the same thing after reading the thread title and skimming through the article.

The Bishop didn’t send anyone away.

He agreed with the administrator of the school who declined to enroll the child under the conditions the father was dictating.

In other words, the school didn’t refuse admittance to this little girl because she had two fathers like the article claims, as I believe they would be plainly wrong just as you said.

Instead they refused to change their teachings on marriage and thus the father refused to admit his daughter into the school, clearly the author of the article gave a very one sided and biased report on the matter.

As Lapey said -

“The man insisted on listing his status as married, he forced the young child to be held from Jesus, not the school and definitely not the Archbishop.”

Jesus dinned with sinners as we should too, but he didn’t condone, teach or advocate their sins in order to dine with them and I believe neither should we, thus I believe it was the father who did the rejecting and certainly not the archbishop or school.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[pnewton]

Hey! He already apologized. No piling on.

I have no idea what you mean. I think you slipped a post or two.

BTW - I said nothing negative about the poster, only a fact about my own statements and an opinion about one argument, which is truly a strawman. No one is blaming or condemning the girl, are they? (unless I missed something)

 

[Corki]

I have no idea what you mean. I think you slipped a post or two.

BTW - I said nothing negative about the poster, only a fact about my own statements and an opinion about one argument, which is truly a strawman. No one is blaming or condemning the girl, are they? (unless I missed something)

Read post #109. (and I was joking about the piling on)

 

[SMGS127]

5 “extremely” conservative judges? Ha!

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy.

The first four have never had a single liberal judgment (and no, citing ObamaCare as constitutional is not “liberal;” John Roberts still heavily opposes it, but views it as constitutional), and the only liberal judgments Kennedy makes have to do with the basic premise of Roe v. Wade (very unfortunately) and extensions of the right to privacy (e.g. the right to not be arrested for being gay, the so-called right to birth control, etc.). On every other judgment, he has extremely conservative positions.

 

[marymary1975]

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy.

The first four have never had a single liberal judgment (and no, citing ObamaCare as constitutional is not “liberal;” John Roberts still heavily opposes it, but views it as constitutional), and the only liberal judgments Kennedy makes have to do with the basic premise of Roe v. Wade (very unfortunately) and extensions of the right to privacy (e.g. the right to not be arrested for being gay, the so-called right to birth control, etc.). On every other judgment, he has extremely conservative positions.

Kennedy conservative??? Never in his life. He sporadically swings with Roberts but that can be counted with the fingers of one hand. Kennedy tends to side with liberals most of the time and has been one of the biggest deceptions for conservatives together with Souter. And is not true either that he sides with Roe as he was one of the votes that got Roe partially overturned. You don’t have a right picture of the Supreme Court.

 

[ProdigalSun]

Well that’s depressing. I didn’t know that Catholic schools allowed kids with gay “parents”. They shouldn’t -in just the same way they shouldn’t (and don’t) baptize children with gay “parents”.

…but I don’t think all kids who fall into this type of position should be banned universally (globally) from attending school (whether they be Catholic or not as the Bishop stated) as a Catholic teaching. I simply don’t understand why you and others believe that its a good thing. Its just not the Catholic way.

…you must believe that all kids that fall under this category should be home schooled then as law…? Or would that still be an unacceptable solution in your opinion?

Hey Tepo, I get why you are upset but I believe you are confused about something. No one here is advocating that the child be denied an eduacation. The Archbishop did not advocate for this either. The argument is that a catholic or any other private scvhool should be allowed to make there own rules for admission.

Cheers!

 

[estesbob]

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy.

The first four have never had a single liberal judgment (and no, citing ObamaCare as constitutional is not “liberal;” John Roberts still heavily opposes it, but views it as constitutional), and the only liberal judgments Kennedy makes have to do with the basic premise of Roe v. Wade (very unfortunately) and extensions of the right to privacy (e.g. the right to not be arrested for being gay, the so-called right to birth control, etc.). On every other judgment, he has extremely conservative positions.

So they are conservative except when they’re not?

 

[Cricket2]

Again, the only one refusing admittance to this little girl is the father.

I disagree. The child should be allowed to enter the school, regardless of her “parents” orientations, ideas…etc. Let her learn another perspective and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work within all souls. Keeping the child away will only serve to alienate her from her Church regardless of denomination.

 

[marymary1975]

So they are conservative except when they’re not?

Oh and I forgot to add that Scalia and Thomas in the past have had sided with liberals on certain issues, not frequently though but it has happened. The only who you can fully say is truly conservative and never sided with a liberal is Alito.

 

[Corki]

I disagree. The child should be allowed to enter the school, regardless of her “parents” orientations, ideas…etc. Let her learn another perspective and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work within all souls. Keeping the child away will only serve to alienate her from her Church regardless of denomination.

The administrator told the man he could enroll the child. But he wasn’t allowed to list his lover as his “husband” The man refused those conditions and went away.

It’s one thing to say the child should be “allowed” to attend. It’s another to say that the school should be required to participate in the father’s description of his relationship.

 

[josh987654321]

I disagree. The child should be allowed to enter the school, regardless of her “parents” orientations, ideas…etc. Let her learn another perspective and allow the Holy Spirit to do His work within all souls. Keeping the child away will only serve to alienate her from her Church regardless of denomination.

You are absolutely correct to say this I believe, but Cricket2, the school isn’t refusing this little girl admittance, the father is refusing to admit his little girl into the school until the school changes it’s teachings on homosexuality/marriage. The father is demanding the school to recognise his homosexual union as married.

So it’s not the school or archbishop who are refusing admittance to this little girl at all, the father is.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

The administrator told the man he could enroll the child. But he wasn’t allowed to list his lover as his “husband” The man refused those conditions and went away.

It’s one thing to say the child should be “allowed” to attend. It’s another to say that the school should be required to participate in the father’s description of his relationship.

I believe Jesus didn’t welcome sinners by condoning their sins.

Thank you for reading
Josh