Parents miss Mass, kids get ax

[Nohome]

YinYangMom:

You are greatly missed.
Please come home.
We need you back.

Depending on who you asked, I was either an Cafeteria Catholic, a progressive, a liberal or apostate. There was no room for me in the RCC. I agree that a smaller, more faithful Catholic church would be best. I’m just doing my part to make that a reality.

Nohome

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Nohome:

Depending on who you asked, I was either an Cafeteria Catholic, a progressive, a liberal or apostate. There was no room for me in the RCC. I agree that a smaller, more faithful Catholic church would be best. I’m just doing my part to make that a reality.

Nohome

I think the smaller, more faithful Church is a crock. That is, again, an abortive mentality.

Keep all the good little boys and girls who march in neat lines.

Get rid of all those who give us trouble. If we aren’t getting through to them it’s their fault.

Let’s define them as non-Catholics so we can say that we did not really kick them out but they just kicked themselves out.

Pare them down. The quality of the group is more important than the salvation of the individuals. We just want a perfect race.

Just remember that while you claim to be following all the Church’s teachings, you fail to follow them yourself in that you reject whichever portions of His teachings do not fit your model. For example, do the parables of the lost sheep, the good Samaritan, the disciples who ate without washing, the woman who washed Christ’s feet, the publican and the tax collectors, and countless others not constantly remind us that is isn’t about the person who has the most theological knowledge, and in fact those who claimed to were usually the ones who came up short, and for the same reasons as 2000 years ago.

How dare any Catholic look at another Catholic and say, “your heart is not right and you should not be here.” Again, Christ taught about this quite explicitly – one part of His body telling another part they don’t belong. You are objectively violating that very principle with your assertions. Christ also made a specific point to explain to those who didn’t like Him hanging around all the derelicts that he came for the sinners, not the righteous. You don’t see what a hideous lie it is that has infested your psyche, the pride that you are worthy of Christ’s Church and that I am not, and how it breaks countless teachings of Christ himself, to claim that you are a “faithful” Catholic because you have this “full assent” and that if I don’t I should just go away. Abortive mentality. Contraceptive, at the very least.

Alan

 

[InnocentIII]

AlanFromWichita:

I think the smaller, more faithful Church is a crock. That is, again, an abortive mentality.

Just remember that while you claim to be following all the Church’s teachings, you fail to follow them yourself in that you reject whichever portions of His teachings do not fit your model. For example, do the parables of the lost sheep, the good Samaritan, the disciples who ate without washing, the woman who washed Christ’s feet, the publican and the tax collectors, and countless others not constantly remind us that is isn’t about the person who has the most theological knowledge, and in fact those who claimed to were usually the ones who came up short, and for the same reasons as 2000 years ago.

Frankly Alan I am getting tired of reading your self-justifications. All it boils down to is … “I am a sinner and don’t agree with the Church but Christ, who established that Church, can override all that and save me regardless.” Tolerance of error is not compassion it is indifference. And don’t accuse others of quoting scripture selectively when you do the same. Christ told the woman taken in adultery “Go and sin no more”, he told the rich young man to give all his money to the poor and follow him, He did not however run after him and embrace him when the young man refused to do so, He lost many disciples over His claim that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood but refused to alter His words or modify them to make them more acceptable. And yes He did say He would leave the 99 and search for the one that was lost but I fail to see how that means the Church must include those who reject its teachings. The “lost” must be evangelised in the Truth not validated in error.

AlanfromWichita:

How dare any Catholic look at another Catholic and say, “your heart is not right and you should not be here.” Again, Christ taught about this quite explicitly – one part of His body telling another part they don’t belong. You are objectively violating that very principle with your assertions. Christ also made a specific point to explain to those who didn’t like Him hanging around all the derelicts that he came for the sinners, not the righteous. You don’t see what a hideous lie it is that has infested your psyche, the pride that you are worthy of Christ’s Church and that I am not, and how it breaks countless teachings of Christ himself, to claim that you are a “faithful” Catholic because you have this “full assent” and that if I don’t I should just go away. Abortive mentality. Contraceptive, at the very least.

I don’t the Church does. To be a member of the Church requires assent to her teachings which are those of Christ. If you want a personal relationship with Christ that vaildates your personal beliefs by all means form your own church but don’t demand of Christ’s Church that it must conform to your ideas or validate your errors. The Church is not like a country where you are born and must remain with no choice (bar emigration) but is the body of Christ. If you don’t accept it leave, if you stay accept it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

Frankly Alan I am getting tired of reading your self-justifications.

Sorry about that. I never saw any self-justification so let me know next time you see it and we’ll both know what you’re sick of.

All it boils down to is … “I am a sinner and don’t agree with the Church but Christ, who established that Church, can override all that and save me regardless.”

No, it boils down to this,“I claim to be a sinner, but THOSE people are worse sinners and we are all better off getting rid of them because they make us loook bad.”

Tolerance of error is not compassion it is indifference.

So compassion = intolerance, right?

Where do you get the screwy idea that kicking someone out of church is compassionate? What concocted definition of compassion is that? Oh yes, we are compassionately kicking them out so they will take us seriously and come back.

And don’t accuse others of quoting scripture selectively when you do the same. Christ told the woman taken in adultery “Go and sin no more”, he told the rich young man to give all his money to the poor and follow him, He did not however run after him and embrace him when the young man refused to do so,

He lost many disciples over His claim that we had to eat His flesh and drink His blood but refused to alter His words or modify them to make them more acceptable. And yes He did say He would leave the 99 and search for the one that was lost but I fail to see how that means the Church must include those who reject its teachings. The “lost” must be evangelised in the Truth not validated in error.

Oh. There’s the lost, and there’s the hopelessy lost, right? If a kid’s parents only get the child to Mass once a month, then those parents and child are hopelessly lost and they can just go to hell as far as we’re concerned because they’re nothing the Church can do for them, and besides we don’t like members who challenge our authority. Give me a break.

Oh yes, and do you really think these children are acting with full consent and knowledge? I don’t think so. I think you’re throwing the babies out with the bathwater.

Sometimes I think you are playing a characature, then I realize you are probably sincere about all this. That’s why it’s so scary. You just can’t see how what you’re espousing is no different than the spiritual equivalent of abortion of a faulty gestating child of God.

I don’t the Church does. To be a member of the Church requires assent to her teachings which are those of Christ.

If you actually did assent to her teachings then you would understand and agree that to be a member of the Church requires nothing other than my baptism. My church membership is not determined by your opinion of the condition of my heart, thank God.

If you want a personal relationship with Christ that vaildates your personal beliefs by all means form your own church but don’t demand of Christ’s Church that it must conform to your ideas or validate your errors. The Church is not like a country where you are born and must remain with no choice (bar emigration) but is the body of Christ. If you don’t accept it leave, if you stay accept it.

What in the world are you talking about?

You are so hell-bent on showing me the exit door it is astounding. And what was this argument about? That I didn’t think a priest’s strategy in kicking 300 children out of his school was probably going to have the most positive effect? Then here you are, “shape up or ship out.” You have an abortive mentality, you equate “speak truth” with “excommunicate the lazy bums,” to the orphans you say, “too bad your parents aren’t teaching you right; just remember it’s their fault not ours so you’re out but maybe you can find your way back. Good luck!” You are just so dismissive of these marginal Catholics and their children it is horrifying; to be self-righteous about it is beyond amazing…

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Regarding this idea about severing “non-functioning” members from the Body of Christ to protect the Church community, the idea that the society is more important than the individuals is not uncommon among some powerful world leaders:

These people also think that a smaller but more obedient society is better than a larger one. In addition to being totally unsupported by scripture or tradition, this is really a form of tyranny. It is not about being “true” it is about getting rid of the problem by getting rid of the faulty sheep.

“The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood.” [Adolph Hitler, quoted in Hitler, A Study in Tyranny

, by Alan Bullock (Harper Collins, NY)]

“It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole … that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. … This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture … we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man.” [Adolph Hitler, 1933]

There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual; between the State which demands and the individual who attempts to evade such demands. Because the individual, left to himself, unless he be a saint or hero, always refuses to pay taxes, obey laws, or go to war. [Benito Mussolini]

Fascist ethics begin … with the acknowledgment that it is not the individual who confers a meaning upon society, but it is, instead, the existence of a human society which determines the human character of the individual. According to Fascism, a true, a great spiritual life cannot take place unless the State has risen to a position of pre-eminence in the world of man. The curtailment of liberty thus becomes justified at once, and this need of rising the State to its rightful position. [Mario Palmieri, “The Philosophy of Fascism” 1936]

“Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.” [Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party]

“All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all.” [Vladimir Lenin, as quoted in Not by Politics Alone]

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …” [President Bill Clinton, ‘USA Today’ March 11, 1993: Page 2A]

“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” [Ayn Rand]

That’s funny. I’ve heard that last one used by pro-lifers. Oh yeah, that one was not talking about cutting a member out of our Church community for the good of the masses, but said just the opposite.

We go save crack babies, but we reject those we have in our hand because they don’t have a good enough support system to suit our societal needs.

Alan

 

[InnocentIII]

AlanFromWichita:

Sorry about that. I never saw any self-justification so let me know next time you see it and we’ll both know what you’re sick of.

Try this

AlanfromWichita:

On the other hand, those Catholics who admit to having problems with Church teachings and are willing to discuss it, I think are valuable tools for orthodox Catholics to explore their mindsets and come up with strategy to use on the masses. This is one reason I think I am valuable. I also have thought once that my role in God’s kingdom was to be the thorn in Paul’s side.

This is just a justification of your refusal to assent to the Church’s teachings. You need me to explore your mindset. Actually I don’t.

AlanfromWichita:

No, it boils down to this,“I claim to be a sinner, but THOSE people are worse sinners and we are all better off getting rid of them because they make us loook bad.”

So compassion = intolerance, right?

Apparently you have difficulty reading. I said "Tolerance of error is not compassion. Your misreading just shows you are not interested in debating only in point scoring.

AlanfromWichita:

Oh. There’s the lost, and there’s the hopelessy lost, right? If a kid’s parents only get the child to Mass once a month, then those parents and child are hopelessly lost and they can just go to hell as far as we’re concerned because they’re nothing the Church can do for them, and besides we don’t like members who challenge our authority. Give me a break.

No I won’t. There is much that the Church can and will do for them. They have not been cast into outer dakness where there is nothing but wailing and gnashing of teeth. They are welcome in the Church at any time but only if they are serious about their faith. And I am tired of the children will be lost argument. Our lives are not inexorably determined by our growing up experiences. We have the capacity to transcend our upbringing. What is really at issue here is the failure of the parents to take their faith seriously. They have refused to heed the discipline of the Church and now want to use the children to avoid having to face up to their own dereliction of duty.

AlanfromWichita:

Sometimes I think you are playing a characature, then I realize you are probably sincere about all this. That’s why it’s so scary.

Ditto

AlanfromWichita:

If you actually did assent to her teachings then you would understand and agree that to be a member of the Church requires nothing other than my baptism. My church membership is not determined by your opinion of the condition of my heart, thank God.

Baptism is only the means by which we enter the Church. There are in fact many ways by which we can separate ourselves from the Church after baptism

"CCC 2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

and

Lumen gentium 14They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not "in his heart."(12*) All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.(13*)

AlanfromWichita:

You are so hell-bent on showing me the exit door it is astounding. And what was this argument about? That I didn’t think a priest’s strategy in kicking 300 children out of his school was probably going to have the most positive effect? Then here you are, “shape up or ship out.”

Actually I’m not hell-bent on showing you the door, I was just querying your belief that you are a member of the Church regardless of your beliefs. And I was responding to comments you made in regard to Church membership in general and Cafeteria Catholics specifically.

 

[InnocentIII]

AlanfromWichita:

You have an abortive mentality

Don’t you think this has become an overworked expression by now. Trying to push emotional buttons by equating abortion to the Church laying down conditions of membership is a cheap and tacky debating trick, that becomes less successful every time it is used.

AlanfromWichita:

You are just so dismissive of these marginal Catholics and their children it is horrifying; to be self-righteous about it is beyond amazing.

I am not dismissive of marginal catholics. I think it is high time we set about evangelising them and teaching them the fullness of the Catholic faith. On the other hand I have no intention of validating them in their errors by glossing over their faults. If that makes me self-righteous then so be it.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

Try this

Originally Posted by AlanfromWichita

               *On the other hand, those Catholics who admit to having problems with Church teachings and are willing to discuss it, I think are valuable tools for orthodox Catholics to explore their mindsets and come up with strategy to use on the masses. This is one reason I think I am valuable. I also have thought once that my role in God's kingdom was to be the thorn in Paul's side.*

This is just a justification of your refusal to assent to the Church’s teachings. You need me to explore your mindset. Actually I don’t.

Oh, THAT! OK, now I see what you mean.

Well, it was intended to be a gift, but unfortunately my tone has turned a bit sour so it may have gotten messed up. I’m sorry about that.

What I’m offering you is an alternative way, should you choose to consider it, to view a CC as something other than a problem for you. This is intended to help you not judge me, fear me, be frustrated with me, be angry toward me, or anything else that is going to tempt you away from the peace of Christ because of me. In essence.

Once I was trying to motivate some stubborn power-people in the parish to start following the teachings and policies of the Church. They were so dense, as I tried to explain things that I was actually sent to paid training by the pastor to go learn and come back and teach, that I just wanted to scream. My basic question to them: we have a written policy that we claim we are following. I have gone to training on this policy and am familiar with it. We either need to change what we do, or change the policy to match what we do. Whiff! It went right over their heads. I became very frustrated, and that combined with about two other issues I was dealing with at the time saw me running screaming out of the Cathedral and hours later locked up, against my will, in a psycho ward. That’s how passionately I took my role as the person who was assigned to teach the Church’s rules to others. (There were other factors, but church issues were nearly half the problem)

So guess what I got for all my pain? No tangible progress. My shrink insisted that I quit all leadership positions in the parish, and the one guy, the head of the finance committee, who was finally starting to get it because he was actually the only one who knew how to listen, moved to another parish. The only thing that has allowed healing to begin, is the pastor did ask one person to leave – coincidentally the one person I could never reconcile myself with.

The gift I intend to give is everything my “ordeals” with life during these last four years means to me. Bankruptcy, home burned down, ah, you know I’m not whining, just establishing my credibility to be making comments about riding out storms when you are super emotional.

Now I am at complete peace, and I am trying to help you help the Church find true unity, if not in mental assent then at least in spirit and in respect for one another. The peace was not brought about by drug treatment, although drug treatment has helped me calm down and get some sleep. The peace was brought about by the action of the Holy Spirit, I believe.

Apparently you have difficulty reading. I said "Tolerance of error is not compassion. Your misreading just shows you are not interested in debating only in point scoring.

OK, so being intolerant **of error **is compassionate, right?

Sorry again. I was defensive. My sensors detected that you were classifying me as “tolerant of error” and then defining that as “not compassionate.” It’s the ol’ transitive property, if A=B, and B=C, then A=C by which I figure you just said, “Alan, you are not compassionate” which was personal. I wish I’d quit figuring out these connections sometimes.

Hope some of this helps show you why I am such a stickler for minutia. It is my sincere hope that at least one person who reads this thread will be touched by some of the verbal exchanges we are having here, and it will help them find peace and greater hope for unity.

Thank you for being so persistent on this issue. It has helped me a great deal by shining some light where I didn’t think any needed to be shown.

I suspect you have nearly as much passion for finding the Truth as I do, although we profess to be at different points in putting together the puzzles for ourselves in terms of that one thing, you know, the mental assent thing.

Break time. I’ll come back and check later to see if I need to answer the rest of this…

Later,

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

Don’t you think this has become an overworked expression by now. Trying to push emotional buttons by equating abortion to the Church laying down conditions of membership is a cheap and tacky debating trick, that becomes less successful every time it is used.

Thank you for finally focusing attention on this rather obvious insinuation I’ve made several times. Now that you’ve acknowledged it, it has served its purpose.

You see, I look at a parish as a family. While bio-parents and legal guardians do have responsibilities for their children, I think that Church shares the authority with the parents for the children’s souls. This means I think the Church can play “godparent” role and help with the child’s Catholicity when the bio-parents aren’t. Therefore, anything that pushes children away from connections with the Church, I think are problematic.

Therefore, severing the only remaining tie between that child and the spiritual Body of Christ, to me, is denying that child a chance to receive nourishment, and therefore, cuts them off from spiritual food that might help pull them toward the Church.

I am not dismissive of marginal catholics. I think it is high time we set about evangelising them and teaching them the fullness of the Catholic faith. On the other hand I have no intention of validating them in their errors by glossing over their faults. If that makes me self-righteous then so be it.

If by “glossing over their faults” you mean “not severing their only connection to Catholic teaching” then I am all for glossing over their faults.

If by “glossing over their faults” you mean failing to inform the parents of their responsibilities or warn them of the dangers of their behavior, then we agree. It is right for the Church to do that. Just don’t do that by going in past the parents and punishing their kids as a means to emotionally threaten the parents, which is what I see in all this. Can we scare them enough to come in closer, or will they stay away? Throw them out and if we see them again we’ll praise the Holy Spirit.

Seems like there was a nun in New York I read about in adoration, who took in troubled kids. Sr. McGready or something like that maybe. We need her to come in here and care for these spiritually neglected kids. If the parents don’t want them, send them to us and we’ll give them love, shelter, and a sense of belonging. What an opportunity for the Church to minister to these kids. Three hundred, whew. That’s a big parish. Maybe this priest just needs more volunteers to help reach out. I don’t know, most diocesan priests are so overworked they’re lucky to keep their own prayer life intact.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

InnocentIII:

No I won’t. There is much that the Church can and will do for them. They have not been cast into outer dakness where there is nothing but wailing and gnashing of teeth. They are welcome in the Church at any time but only if they are serious about their faith.

Right – only if they are serious enough about their faith to successfully take on the task of fixing their parents to the extent that the parents wake up and take responsibility and get their kids to church, then next year maybe we’ll give them some proper Cathechisis.

At least, from the child’s point of view, that’s what has to be done.

If the parent is stubborn, there is nothing the child can do except wait until he or she has been emancipated, and by then you’ve missed your chance to give this child catechises at the proper ages.

And I am tired of the children will be lost argument.

I can understand why, because it speaks against your side and you can’t refute it. If you think you can kick 300 children out of school, when their parents are marginal at best and at worst belligerent and stubborn and maybe even looking for an excuse to get the kid out of school, and tell me honestly you think you are increasing the risk that they will be lost, then please explain. How many lost children are too many? Even if we say, well if 75% come back, that’s 75 kids out there that we have severed ties with. What if 10 of them could have been saved? Of course we never know these things but I don’t buy we can tell 300 kids to get lost and expect them all back, with their parents all in order next year. If you expect 100 back, then you have written off 200.

Now, as I wrote to puzzleannie, I totally understand if it’s a matter of finite resources, they think those kids are less fertile ground, or whatever. Then make the case for the priest on that basis. Just don’t try to tell me that the priest is doing these kids a favor by cutting them off. Also please don’t claim (as some have asserted but I don’t know if you did or not) that it’s OK to trim the marginal ones because that makes the rest of us stronger, or I will will have to imagine myself picketing your home, with kids in wheelchairs and stuff.

Our lives are not inexorably determined by our growing up experiences.
We have the capacity to transcend our upbringing. What is really at issue here is the failure of the parents to take their faith seriously. They have refused to heed the discipline of the Church and now want to use the children to avoid having to face up to their own dereliction of duty.

I agree the real issue, root core afa this is concerned is the parents’ failure. (We could trace it back to Adam, of course, but that’s not useful here!) Yes, they have refused to heed the discipline of the Church.

How, though, are they “using” their children by continuing to send them to school? I totally don’t get what you mean. I can’t even guess. You could say those parents are “using the Church” to educate them without fulfilling their end of the obligation, but that’s not what you said.

If anybody is “using the children” it seems it’s the priest using them as leverage against the parents.

Ditto

Ah, well, with faith we know the will of God is done. The more we go the more I see we are talking word games and strategies rather than love v hatred for kids, so maybe we’ll turn this thread into a love fest after all. :whacky:

Baptism is only the means by which we enter the Church. There are in fact many ways by which we can separate ourselves from the Church after baptism

Did I miss something? The quotes you gave, as far as I could tell, didn’t say anything about ceasing to be Catholic. They gave lots of ugly names, like heresy, apostasy and stuff, but not non-Catholic.

Alan

 

[YinYangMom]

Nohome:

There was no room for me in the RCC. .

Nohome

There is always room for you in the RCC…
there is no room for non-Catholic beliefs in the RCC…
but that can be resolved with grace, prayer, and an open heart.

 

[YinYangMom]

AlanFromWichita:

Where do you get the screwy idea that kicking someone out of church is compassionate?

Alan

Hold up.
No one said anything about kicking anyone out of the Church.

Catholics ex-communicate themselves by their actions, if they refuse to mend the error of their ways through confession and conversion.

Even in ex-communication, the person remains Catholic…just not one eligible to receive the Eucharist.

The RCC patiently waits for them to return to full-participation by offering them confession, by welcoming them to Mass, etc.

Adam and Eve were banished from Eden because of their own doing, yet G-d continued to love them and uphold His covenant with them. But since they chose to disobey His rules - because they didn’t see the need for it, or disagreed with it, whatever - they were no longer worthy of residing in Eden in the presence of G-d. The same holds true today. We can reside outside the Church, still in covenant with G-d but not worthy of participating fully with Him. A Catholic who does not assent to the tenets is still a Catholic loved by G-d but not worthy of receiving Christ through the Eucharist.

And as far as this thread is concerned, again, the priest did not kick the child out of the Church…just the religious ed class.

As far as the smaller church is concerned, we aren’t seeking to ‘make it’ smaller by kicking people out - that’s not even possible. We’re saying it might not be such a bad thing if those who ex-communicate themselves with no desire to change their ways would just decide already to walk away completely - at least until such time as the Spirit moves them to come home through conversion and confession.

 

[misericordie]

YinYangMom:

Hold up.
No one said anything about kicking anyone out of the Church.

Catholics ex-communicate themselves by their actions, if they refuse to mend the error of their ways through confession and conversion.

Even in ex-communication, the person remains Catholic…just not one eligible to receive the Eucharist.

The RCC patiently waits for them to return to full-participation by offering them confession, by welcoming them to Mass, etc.

Adam and Eve were banished from Eden because of their own doing, yet G-d continued to love them and uphold His covenant with them. But since they chose to disobey His rules - because they didn’t see the need for it, or disagreed with it, whatever - they were no longer worthy of residing in Eden in the presence of G-d. The same holds true today. We can reside outside the Church, still in covenant with G-d but not worthy of participating fully with Him. A Catholic who does not assent to the tenets is still a Catholic loved by G-d but not worthy of receiving Christ through the Eucharist.

And as far as this thread is concerned, again, the priest did not kick the child out of the Church…just the religious ed class.

As far as the smaller church is concerned, we aren’t seeking to ‘make it’ smaller by kicking people out - that’s not even possible. We’re saying it might not be such a bad thing if those who ex-communicate themselves with no desire to change their ways would just decide already to walk away completely - at least until such time as the Spirit moves them to come home through conversion and confession.

And how can people who were not going to Mass in the first place be kicked out of church??

 

[AlanFromWichita]

misericordie:

And how can people who were not going to Mass in the first place be kicked out of church??

YinYangMom is right. It’s not about being kicked out of Church, but out of Catholic education.

Again, we have to deal with the fact that the perpetrators and the victims are not necessarily the same person. If we agree the parents are at fault, then it isn’t an issue of kicking them out as much as maintaining a connection to these kids.

And yes, “It’s allll about the chillllddren” I can just imagine Joycelyn Elders saying. It really is all about the children. Not excusing bad behavior, but giving them the best chance given the circumstances to stay connected to the Church.

Alan

 

[TPJCatholic]

Yinyangmom,

I believe that the world is on the edge of a very painful chastisement. We have been spitting in God’s face for so long that it is becoming obvious that we must either turn towards Him, or face very hard time as a result of our corporate sins.

The United States specifically is standing at the edge of many important decisions and the recent Supreme Court vacancy can lead to us either taking a step back from that edge, or it could result in us plummeting over the edge into a very painful abyss. We need to all pray that first option happens.

I remain convinced that the “remnant” of true Christians (also known as Roman Catholics) must step-up their prayer time, they must stay engaged in the world, they must give birth to bunches of kids and teach those kids everything they can about the faith, they must offer-up sacrifices and they must spread the Gospel to each indidivual that will allow us to talk. Only then will we have a chance, imo.

Prophecies often state that there will be an era of peace before the antichrist and endtimes comes…yet they also speak of a minor or major chastisement just before that era of peace. IMHO, we stand at the beginning edge of that chastisement. Our prayers and efforts can lessen that pain.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

TPJCatholic:

Yinyangmom,

I believe that the world is on the edge of a very painful chastisement. We have been spitting in God’s face for so long that it is becoming obvious that we must either turn towards Him, or face very hard time as a result of our corporate sins.

I just do not buy into this idea of a chastisement.

For one thing, many believers and innocent would be hurt and I just do not see God punishing them for what others have done.

Also I just do not see how one can reconcile the idea of a chastisement with Genesis 8:20-22.

Genesis 8

20 Then Noah built an altar to the LORD, and took of every clean animal and of every clean bird, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. 21 And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor, the LORD said in his heart, “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. 22 While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”

And please do not point to private messages in an attempt to support this.

 

[Lurch104]

misericordie:

And how can people who were not going to Mass in the first place be kicked out of church??

Why don’t people understand that the children, per the CCC, Canon law, and common sense are not responsible for the actions of their parents. I find it ironic that with a screen name of mercy you are all for punishing innocent children.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Lurch104:

Why don’t people understand that the children, per the CCC, Canon law, and common sense are not responsible for the actions of their parents. I find it ironic that with a screen name of mercy you are all for punishing innocent children.

Please enlighten us, how exactly where these children punished?

After all, they are part of CCD and they were not attending Mass so they could not partake of the First Eucharist anyways.

 

[mommyaprilj]

First, if you think the Sacraments are a RIGHT, get a clue.

The sacraments are a privlege. I didn’t just beebop into mass one day mosey my way up to the front of the church and say hey Father So and So here I am how about giving me some of that Holy Communion I’ve been hearing about.

I had to EARN it. I worked and studied and prayed for over a year, going through RCIA. If these parents aren’t willing to sit down in Mass with their kids for one hour a week, then they are neglecting them spiritually and the Church should not be a party to that. In our parish, if you don’t go to Mass you can get the boot from CCD with no valid excuse, miss 3 CCD classes with no excuse you can get the boot. Mass attendance is 1/2 the CCD process and 50% missing is failing in even the public school system.

If these children have to grow up and realize what they don’t have and come to the Church and earn these Sacraments the way converts do, maybe they’ll appreciate them more.

 

[pnewton]

Lurch104:

the children, per the CCC, Canon law, and common sense are not responsible for the actions of their parents.

While they are not responsible for the actions of their parents, they are affected by those actions. A child of non-Catholic parents can not be baptized, even at the wishes of a relative because of lack of a reasonable expectation he would be raised Catholic.

While the Church has a responsibility to make the Sacraments as available as possible, the form this takes is up to the judgement of the priest. I am slow to criticize this type of action, even though I would not like it in my parish, because the priest is doing what he sees best, and he knows more than we.