Mass. Catholic School Won't Admit Lesbians' Son

[Polycarp1]

The same is true today we cannot say Jesus is a Catholic QUOTE]

Christ, as the Founder of the Catholic Church, was of course a Catholic.
God gave the true religion to mankind gradually, so that men would be prepared by more simple doctrines for still more noble truths. Thus He sent Moses the lawgiver, and after him a series of prophets to explain the law and to predict the coming of the Messiah. Christ fulfilled these predictions and taught the perfect law of God. The religion known by the Jews before Christ was therefore but imperfect and preparatory. The religion of Christ was its perfect fulfillment, and the Jews should have recognized and accepted it. They did not, and then Christ sent his Apostles to preach it to the Gentiles. Christ did not therefore establish another religion. Christianity is the perfect development of the Jewish religion, just as the perfect tree is the perfect development of the seed from which it grew.

 

[TMC]

All people are unique and all are loved uniquely according to the justice due their virtue. That means they are not loved equally. You must quit getting your religious directions from the American Constitution it says nowhere in the Bible that God loves everyone equally. This is one of those instances when the protestant writers of the Constitution got their theology wrong.

Men are not created or loved equally. Not all people are the children of God. You must be baptized to become a child or God. Heaven and the experience of Heaven will be unique to each individual there is nothing and no one in Heaven equal except the three persons in God.

While there are some religions that teach and believe this, Catholicism is not among them. The Church teaches that all people are the children of God, created in His image, imbued with His dignity and loved unconditionally by Him.

 

[Polycarp1]

God offers us all His love equally but we don’t all accept that love equally. God is Love and is perfect. God wants us all to love Him but can’t force us as that would take away our freewill. The only thing God can’t do is force someone to love Him as that would be against His very nature. If we benefit from God’s love differently it is only that we accept it differently. We determine what benefit we get from God’s love by our behavior in this life. We obtain or reject His graces by our own actions not by His loving one more than another.

“If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15); and, “He who has my commandments with him and keeps them, he is who loves me and he who loves me will be loved by my Father. And I will love him and reveal myself to him” (John 14:21); and, “If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept the commandments of my Father, and I abide in His love.” (John 15:10).

Abiding in His love is clearly connected to “keeping the commandments.”

 

[mandateman]

Being loved unconditionally does not mean equally. That means since God created us with our defects and weaknesses He does not hold them against us.

God gives us love but we can only receive from God the Love that we can contain God’s Love we call sancifying grace. There is no equal share in sanctifying grace because we ourselves are only capable of obtaining the unique amount that we have prepared our soul to contain.

God cannot really be a member of His own religion. He is the end and object of the religion. Catholicism is not a continuation of the covenant of the Jews the first covenant was fulfilled by Christ and ended the new covenant is far more extensive then the later and is eternal.

Jesus will be our only means to knowing God even in Heaven for all eternity. He is the incarnation of the Blessed Trinity and will eternally be our connection to the Trinity. Jesus will be as important in Heaven for us as He is in the practice of our faith on earth. Jesus is Eternally the Way to, the Truth from and the Life of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[Polycarp1]

Being loved unconditionally does not mean equally. That means since God created us with our defects and weaknesses He does not hold them against us…

So God offers us the fullness of His love equally, but we don’t accept it fully or equally.

God gives us love but we can only receive from God the Love that we can contain God’s Love we call sancifying grace. There is no equal share in sanctifying grace because we ourselves are only capable of obtaining the unique amount that we have prepared our soul to contain…

Okay

God cannot really be a member of His own religion. He is the end and object of the religion. Catholicism is not a continuation of the covenant of the Jews the first covenant was fulfilled by Christ and ended the new covenant is far more extensive then the later and is eternal. .

If He is not a member He is the founder and He identifies the Church with Himself as his mystical body.

Jesus will be our only means to knowing God even in Heaven for all eternity. He is the incarnation of the Blessed Trinity and will eternally be our connection to the Trinity. Jesus will be as important in Heaven for us as He is in the practice of our faith on earth. Jesus is Eternally the Way to, the Truth from and the Life of the Blessed Trinity.

The chief happiness of heaven will be eternal union with God, and the immediate Vision of God. As surely as the eye can now see some transcendently beautiful natural scene, so will the mind be immediately conscious of God’s infinite perfection and beauty in Himself.
Just as the eye now sees the things of this world, so the mind will see God’s own personal perfections. Instead of being merely self-conscious, the soul will become God-conscious; and in God we shall find in an ever so much better way all that we ever found to be good in created things or in self.

 

[mandateman]

Hello,

Sorry to disagree but Jesus is God and as God is the object of worship and eternal endo of our faith in that he cannot be a member of the religion He is God.

Jesus will be the chief vision of the Blessed Trinity in Heaven. The Blessed Trinity is united to the Body of Jesus not just in life but for all eternity. Jesus is the incarnate blessed trinity. He is the trinity made manifest eternally.

The Blessed Trinity is not somehow higher or above Jesus they are the same.

What really seperates the holy people of God from His saints is that the saints take their devotion to Our Blessed Mother very seriously. Most saints themselves would point to their devotion to The Blessed Virgin Mary as their greatest spiritual triumph.

In my own life I feel that all the dealings where I needed help to deal with demonic persecutions that it is my devotion to Our Blessed Mother that has been my strength over demonic power.

 

[Polycarp1]

Hello,

In my own life I feel that all the dealings where I needed help to deal with demonic persecutions that it is my devotion to Our Blessed Mother that has been my strength over demonic power.

As a failled athiest I blame Our Blessed Mother and my eathly mother and her rosary for my ending up a Catholic!

 

[Petergee]

I’m pretty sure you pay adoption fees when adopting a child. Or, whilst still being homosexual, one can have heterosexual experiences leading to a child. I feel your use of the word theft is ill advised.

Fair enough. Make that “theft or child trafficking (paying a fair market price)”

 

[Petergee]

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t have a role in deciding who becomes pregnant and who doesn’t become pregnant? Are you suggesting that your God is powerless and has no role in conception? Are you suggesting that God does not personally intervene in allowing women to conceive? Hmmm…are you sure we’re both talking about the Christian God?

Are you suggesting that God doesn’t approve of IVF? Then why does God allow souls to come into existence, via IVF? Surely, if your God didn’t want a soul to exist via IVF, then a soul wouldn’t come into existence via IVF?

Did you not read the quotes from your Holy Bible? Your God is apparently the author of all life.

Are you suggesting that in the eyes of God, IVF is the same as rape?

Your post is most puzzling.

Puzzle no more, I’ll explain in simple English. You claimed that God supports IVF because children result from it and God doesn’t make mistakes. I simply asked whether you also claim that God supports rape because children result from it. Still waiting for your answer.
And He’s not just my God, He’s your God too.

 

[Petergee]

The Cardinal has niow corrected the media claims about his position on this issue. He has not overruled the parish priest’s refusal to enrol the child, nor has he said or will he ever say that it’s OK for lesbians to send a child in their care to a Catholic school and remain lesbians:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/boston-cardinal-supports-pastor-in-school-admission-row-says-policies-still-being-created/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29

 

[Julianna]

Fair enough. Make that “theft or child trafficking (paying a fair market price)”

Unreal… the poster was correct. A gay couple “can” adopt. There is no “theft”… perhaps you should use caution in misleading people.

 

[Polycarp1]

Unreal… the poster was correct. A gay couple “can” adopt. There is no “theft”… perhaps you should use caution in misleading people.

Again we cannot align what is legal in the secular world with what is moral and in line with God’s will. Many moral wrongs have been declared legal because society wanted to “justify” wrong behavior. Slavery, rape, murder, wife beating, bigamy are or have been legal in different times and places.

 

[Julianna]

Again we cannot align what is legal in the secular world with what is moral and in line with God’s will. Many moral wrongs have been declared legal because society wanted to “justify” wrong behavior. Slavery, rape, murder, wife beating, bigamy are or have been legal in different times and places.

Many issues in line with God’s will (the Chuch) have been delcared permissible, head coverings for women, marrying a non Catholic at the altar, the non Catholic in a marriage no longer has to “sign” a paper stating he/she will raise the children Catholic, not eating meat “every” Friday, women who are now cantors, lectors and Euch Ministers, the Inquistion…the Church has made peace with Copernicus …

Even as our country has made changes…so has the Church.

Bottom line, when dealing with the “human” species there are bound to be errors and recoveries. In America…all are not Catholic and cannot be treated as such.

 

[Petergee]

Unreal… the poster was correct. A gay couple “can” adopt. There is no “theft”… perhaps you should use caution in misleading people.

Read the thread. I was responding to the poster’s false assertion that for a Catholic school to reject a child in the care of taxpaying lesbians is “theft”.

 

[Petergee]

Many issues in line with God’s will (the Chuch) have been delcared permissible, head coverings for women, marrying a non Catholic at the altar, the non Catholic in a marriage no longer has to “sign” a paper stating he/she will raise the children Catholic, not eating meat “every” Friday, women who are now cantors, lectors and Euch Ministers, the Inquistion…the Church has made peace with Copernicus …

Even as our country has made changes…so has the Church.

Bottom line, when dealing with the “human” species there are bound to be errors and recoveries.

None of these issues concern morality or any supposed errors by the Church.
btw women can not be “cantors, lectors and Euch Ministers” in the Catholic Church. (They can be singers, lay readers, and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion.) The Church was never opposed to Copernicus (a Catholic priest who dedicated his life’s greatest work to the Pope, and who was bitterly opposed by the Lutherans who dominated his homeland).

In America…all are not Catholic and cannot be treated as such.

You have it exactly backwards. The issue here is active homosexuals trying to bully a Catholic school and priests into giving up their Catholic doctrine. Nobody is forcing them to send the kid to a Catholic school.

 

[TMC]

The Cardinal has niow corrected the media claims about his position on this issue. He has not overruled the parish priest’s refusal to enrol the child, nor has he said or will he ever say that it’s OK for lesbians to send a child in their care to a Catholic school and remain lesbians:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/boston-cardinal-supports-pastor-in-school-admission-row-says-policies-still-being-created/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+catholicnewsagency%2Fdailynews+%28CNA+Daily+News%29

This is a very misleading spin on the Cardinal’s statement. He did not overrule the pastor by forcing him to take the child, but he did grant the child a spot in any other Catholic school in the diocese. He also emphasized that “We have never had categories of people who were excluded.” Here is a link to his comments in full:

cardinalseansblog.org/2010/05/19/on-the-hingham-school-situation/

 

[Petergee]

This is a very misleading spin on the Cardinal’s statement. He did not overrule the pastor by forcing him to take the child, but he did grant the child a spot in any other Catholic school in the diocese. He also emphasized that “We have never had categories of people who were excluded.” Here is a link to his comments in full:

cardinalseansblog.org/2010/05/19/on-the-hingham-school-situation/

You are the one spinning. The Cardinal did NOT say that the child can go to any other school in the diocese. On the contrary he strongly implied that he would respect the decision of any other parish priest in the diocese to decline to enrol the child. Neither Fr Rafferty nor I claimed that there are whole categories of people who are excluded.

 

[TMC]

You are the one spinning. The Cardinal did NOT say that the child can go to any other school in the diocese. On the contrary he strongly implied that he would respect the decision of any other parish priest in the diocese to decline to enrol the child. Neither Fr Rafferty nor I claimed that there are whole categories of people who are excluded.

Maybe he wasn’t promised the school of his choice, that is not clear. But it is clear that the parents were told he could be placed in another Catholic school in the diocese.

“The archdiocese does not prohibit children of same-sex parents from attending Catholic schools,” said Mary Grassa O’Neill, the archdiocese’s secretary for education and superintendent of Catholic schools. “We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future.”

O’Neill said that the Boston Archdiocese met with one of the child’s parents on Thursday and that it has offered to help enroll him in another Catholic school in the archdiocese.

cnn.com/2010/US/05/14/catholic.student.gay.parents/?hpt=T2

And lest anyone claim that this was done by rogue employees while the boss was out of town, the Archdiocese made clear that they consulted with Cardinal O’Malley (who was in Portugal with the Pope) on both the decision and the statement.

boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2010/05/14/archdiocese_to_help_banned_student/

 

[Elizabeth502]

Maybe he wasn’t promised the school of his choice, that is not clear.

Nothing’s unclear. The archdiocese stated that they would ‘attempt to help place the child.’ That means that they will inquire at other schools what those individual policies are, of those administrators. In that effort it also means that it is unlikely that they will suggest 'trying to place the child" in any school which has had a similar controversy, or any controversy regarding rejection or disenrollment based on parental noncompliance with church teaching, etc., as that would affect morale at that site. It also means that there has to be not full/overfull enrollment in that particular classroom. That’s the way the actual Catholic school system works. Officials don’t go in there and demand placement or transfer of someone; they respect the individual decisions of pastors and principals.

But it is clear that the parents were told he could be placed in another Catholic school in the diocese.

Could, according to the news releases which emanated from the office. Could means, “if other schools are warm to the idea,” “if there are no impediments for that school.” It does mean ‘we will override whatever any school decides to do.’

And despite what Cardinal O’Malley said about not having received the signed petition from the gay lobby, what directly preceded the statement by the Archdiocese was a deluge of media efforts by the gays in Massachusetts, directed at the Archdiocese, to change the decision by St. Paul’s. Boston, and Massachusetts in general, has been a hotbed of controversy over the last approximately 10 years, in which the Archbishop finds himself outflanked by very vocal gay political efforts, in a region which suffered a ton of negative press over the whole Cardinal Law situation and his transfer to Rome.

I’m not saying that the hierarchy acts purely politically; of course not. I’m saying that in highly sensitive and volatile locations such as Boston, LA, and SF, the local hiearchy there cannot just ignore local politics and pretend it’s in Rome. The gays had actually taken out a full page ad about the story in the Boston Globe, I believe, shortly before this news broke.

And Petergree, thanks for correcting the record on all of this, particularly on the confusion of one poster, previous page, between disciplines and moral theology.

 

[TMC]

Nothing’s unclear. The archdiocese stated that they would ‘attempt to help place the child.’ That means that they will inquire at other schools what those individual policies are, of those administrators. In that effort it also means that it is unlikely that they will suggest 'trying to place the child" in any school which has had a similar controversy, or any controversy regarding rejection or disenrollment based on parental noncompliance with church teaching, etc., as that would affect morale at that site. It also means that there has to be not full/overfull enrollment in that particular classroom. That’s the way the actual Catholic school system works. Officials don’t go in there and demand placement or transfer of someone; they respect the individual decisions of pastors and principals.

Could, according to the news releases which emanated from the office. Could means, “if other schools are warm to the idea,” “if there are no impediments for that school.” It does mean ‘we will override whatever any school decides to do.’

And despite what Cardinal O’Malley said about not having received the signed petition from the gay lobby, what directly preceded the statement by the Archdiocese was a deluge of media efforts by the gays in Massachusetts, directed at the Archdiocese, to change the decision by St. Paul’s. Boston, and Massachusetts in general, has been a hotbed of controversy over the last approximately 10 years, in which the Archbishop finds himself outflanked by very vocal gay political efforts, in a region which suffered a ton of negative press over the whole Cardinal Law situation and his transfer to Rome.

I’m not saying that the hierarchy acts purely politically; of course not. I’m saying that in highly sensitive and volatile locations such as Boston, LA, and SF, the local hiearchy there cannot just ignore local politics and pretend it’s in Rome. The gays had actually taken out a full page ad about the story in the Boston Globe, I believe, shortly before this news broke.

And Petergree, thanks for correcting the record on all of this, particularly on the confusion of one poster, previous page, between disciplines and moral theology.

In my opinion, anyone that can read the Cardinal’s statement and think it means anything other than that the children of gay parents are welcome in the schools in his diocese is kidding themselves. Anyone that thinks that was a political, vice pastoral, decision is doing the Cardinal and the Church a disservice.