Rainbow Sash Movement is happy with our bishop. Calls on the Diocese of Orange

[AlanFromWichita]

m134e5:

I wonder how many people here would have a fit if a priest had a heart attack while celebrating Mass- because “it’s not in the rubrics”. (that’s not sarcasm- I wouldn’t be surprised at all if some people here responded that way, by the pharisaical attitudes I have seen).

I wish it were sarcasm. Several months ago there was a heated discussion about if a priest collapsed during Mass and dropped some Eucharists, under some contrived scenario where you had to choose between attending the priest and picking up the hosts, which would they do first.

Of course, many dismissed the scenario as ludicrous, avoiding the question by saying that some people can pick up the hosts while other are attending the priest. That’s fine, but that wasn’t the question. If a priest goes down and a Eucharist goes down, which is more urgent? Many sided with the Eucharist, because taking care of Jesus always come first. :yup:

Many who thought that way, believed that the priest would be in God’s hands, so it was not necessarily cause for panic. I figured the same logic applies to the Eucharist, and that Jesus probably would endure less chance of damage than the priest from waiting. It was a fascinating discussion. I’m not trying to resurrect it here, but unless it’s in the archives we could resurrect the thread – or create a new one about a similar scenario.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

LCMS_No_More:

Why in the world would we want to evangelize someone who is predestined for eternal hellfire?

Speaking for myself, I don’t accept they are “predestined” no matter what their actions.

One might have thought Saul was predestined.

Therefore, I see these as the longshots. Maybe we’re wasting time, but the payoff is tremendous. Those who are forgiven the most, love the most. How much of a challenge to evangelize someone who comes in the door and says “evangelize me” compared to someone who really puts up a fight, or who doesn’t know enough to go one way or other?

Realistically, we do have limited resources and I understand that sometimes we simply don’t have facilities and have to make choices based on something, but what? Of course, if we were completely dedicated to not making choices, we would find a way even if we have to hold some classes in the church, teach in split shift, or who knows? That’s a lot to ask of busy people running a decent size parish, so I don’t really expect that much dedication, but at least I want to help get rid of the idea that we should give up on the apparently hopeless. The word “apparently” sounds a bit too much like “appearances.”

Peace,
Alan

 

[contemplative]

AlanFromWichita:

That’s a lot to ask of busy people running a decent size parish, so I don’t really expect that much dedication, but at least I want to help get rid of the idea that we should give up on the apparently hopeless. The word “apparently” sounds a bit too much like “appearances.”

The Presumptuous Bat

The light allows the eye to distinguish, for example, gold from silver, copper from iron and tin. Moreover, it allows us to note the difference between colours and shapes, between the plants and between the animals. But only for those who have sound eyesight. The blind gain no advantage from the rays of the sun: they do not even see the brightness of the light!

There are people who do not want to open their eyes to the light of truth but are quite happy to live in darkness. They are like the blind. They are like the birds that fly by night and take their name from it, night-jars, or like bats.

It would be stupid to be angry with these animals. Nature has assigned them that destiny. But human beings who purposely choose the mirky gloom, what reason can they give to justify themselves?

What prevents them removing the mist from their eyes is arrogance. They fancy they know the truth better than others because they have studied a lot. But they are like fish in the sea: they live in salt water, but, nevertheless, once they have been caught they still need to be salted.

Theodoret

The Cure of Pagan Diseases

Most homosexuals today have the means to understand why the Catholic Church doesn’t condone active homosexuality. Many prefer not to see the light of truth. They prefer to live in the mirky darkness like bats of night.
Admitting active homosexual parents and their children into a Catholic school would be no better than releasing bats into a classroom full of innocent children in the light of day.

No one is giving up on active homosexual parents. When they stop fancying that they know the truth they will be caught and salted too. First they must stop fancying they know the truth. This must happen before entering Catholic schools.

 

[fix]

It is my hope that Catholic schools soon require parents sending their children to Catholic schools to sign a letter of affirmation stating that they uphold the teachings of the Church.

Yes, and parents engaging in public scandal would not be allowed to send their kids to a Catholic school and lead others away by their example. A simple concept.

 

[miguel]

AlanFromWichita:

…Frankly, that’s because I didn’t actually read it until just now…I have now read it, and I don’t see anything wrong with what the gays are saying…

Well I don’t know what you read, but this deliberate agitation by gays, caused a rift at the school between the pastor, parents, principal, teachers (threatening to quit, etc.) This is the purpose of agitation. And it’s the last thing we need. Opening the door to it, plays right into their hands. What kind of school are we going to have if all the teachers quit?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Allowing parents to disrupt school is certainly a problem. They also cannot change the teachings, nor can they expect special benefits. They school must hold a polite but rather deaf ear to those who want to change teachings. If it interferes with other children’s experiences, then yes action must be taken. As long as the children are themselves not disruptive, do not ask them to leave unless the individual situation is just that bad.

 

[contemplative]

AlanFromWichita:

Allowing parents to disrupt school is certainly a problem. They also cannot change the teachings, nor can they expect special benefits. They school must hold a polite but rather deaf ear to those who want to change teachings. If it interferes with other children’s experiences, then yes action must be taken. As long as the children are themselves not disruptive, do not ask them to leave unless the individual situation is just that bad.

Hopefully no one will be asking anyone to leave because only authentic parents and children will be enrolled to begin with. This can be made certain with signatures from parents on a letter of affirmation upholding the teachings of the Church.

 

[CatQuilt]

AlanFromWichita:

Explorations? I was just asking for a ride home, and I got it.

My point is that my experience with gays is that you actually don’t have to “watch yourself” around them because they aren’t that pushy on a one-to-one basis. Therefore, the crack I made was clearly not intended to be taken literally.

Do you have examples in your realm of experience where gays have forced themselves on others or taken advantage of children, priests notwithstanding?

Alan

I have a friend who is homosexual who, while he was preparing to come out, had sex with a young teenage boy. There were many complications, needless to say, because of that ‘relationship’. Also, google “Jesse Dirkhising”…

 

[AlanFromWichita]

CatQuilt:

Also, google “Jesse Dirkhising”…

oh, yuck.

:crying:

 

[GloriaPatri4]

CatQuilt:

I have a friend who is homosexual who, while he was preparing to come out, had sex with a young teenage boy. There were many complications, needless to say, because of that ‘relationship’. Also, google “Jesse Dirkhising”…

From website

Something bothers me about this story. It ought to bother us. It was big news in Northwest Arkansas, but the story of Jesse Dirkhising hasn’t made a ripple in the national news. I wonder why? I wonder if it’s because the victim is not a part of some politically protected sub-group, a special class deserving of extra government privileges? I wonder if it is because the suspects are, indeed, members of such a group. Remember how the nation stood riveted to the details of a hideous murder that took place in Wyoming when a homosexual was tortured to death? Never mind that the crime had little or nothing to do with the victim’s sexual proclivities. Uh-uh. That didn’t matter.

What a HEINOUS crime
http://covenantnews.com/dirkhising.htm

I never heard or read a word about this before today. I did the google search this morning and I can’t stop thinking about it no matter how hard I try. What happened to this 13 year old boy is just

SICK, SICK, SICK.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Related threads

Please Read this Vatican document and make sure your parish priests read it too

Article: GAY PRIESTS AND GAY MARRIAGE

 

[Binney]

contemplative:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/IMG_4275.jpg

Arise, and take the child and his mother, and fly into Egypt: and be there until I shall tell thee. For it will come to pass that Herod will seek the child to destroy him. Matthew 2:13

Every night I light this table. It remains lit till dawn when I awake.

 

[Detroit_Sue]

I voted yes. It could not mean anything good, that’s for sure!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I still haven’t voted. I really don’t like “other,” because my answer is intrinsically “no” but for different reason than given for the only “no” choice and I’m afraid voting “other” could Send the Wrong Message.

I do “care” so I can’t vote that way, and I do not have a problem with gays being happy with being able to send their children to Catholic schools. Still I couldn’t vote “no” because of the attached baggage that equates “not banishing their kids” from school with “advancing the gay agenda.”

Technically I guess I should vote “other” as the least of the evils, but I don’t feel that generic about this problem.

One thing I did notice in rereading it, though, is that the precise wording of the RS congratulations in the first post is poorly worded. Maybe we should block them until they get their rhetoric straightened out so it doesn’t imply something it shouldn’t about the Catholic Church. That is, we have:

We are saddened that fundamentalist Catholics would use innocent children to push their anti Gay agenda. The School officials of St. John Baptist are rightfully championing the rights of Gay Parents to send their children to Catholic Schools. Some Catholic Bishops have found the back bone to speak out against this radical fundamentalist nonsense in the Catholic Church, and Bishop Brown joins those voices of reason within the Catholic Church.

The issue here is that I do not acknowledge the “rightfully championing the rights for Gay Parents to send their Children to Catholic Schools.”

That statement no longer gets my support, as I notice it has to do with the parents’ right. The parents have no rights in this matter, I wouldn’t think, even though I would not deny the childrens’ admission I would not use this terminology.

Instead, if they had written “rightfully championing the rights for innocent children to attend school even though they may have sexually disordered parents” then I would be more able to stick up for them.

As it is, even though they have the right take on using children as pawns (as if they don’t but that’s another issue) against the gay parents, they certainly should not push the issue as giving the parents’ rights to be perverted and still have their way, implying the Church is somehow rewarding them for their perversion. They aren’t; they’d simply be ministering the the children who are most likely to need help, regardless of the fact that their parents wear the mask of shame.

Therefore I now see the fault with the RS missives. Letting the children in, fine. To say that by doing so endorses gay lifestyle, is to say that not blowing up an abortion clinic endorses abortions.

Alan

 

[contemplative]

AlanFromWichita:

Letting the children in, fine. To say that by doing so endorses gay lifestyle, is to say that not blowing up an abortion clinic endorses abortions.

Alan

This comparison is not accurate. You appear to be scraping around this thread to further support your deep feelings. Read the black and white here. No one is talking about murder. Find yourself a better comparison. Anything less I suppose will be not dramatic enough for you. We aren’t going for drama here. Folks want the nuts and bolts of things and they have already been laid out. Read again and see what else you can ‘pick’ on.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

contemplative:

This comparison is not accurate. You appear to be scraping around this thread to further support your deep feelings. Read the black and white here. No one is talking about murder. Find yourself a better comparison. Anything less I suppose will be not dramatic enough for you. We aren’t going for drama here. Folks want the nuts and bolts of things and they have already been laid out. Read again and see what else you can ‘pick’ on.

I wasn’t talking about murder either. I’m talking about paying back evil for evil. If you choose to allow abortions to go on by your decision not to destroy the clinic, then most would say you are not guilty of promoting abortion for having failed to blow up the clinic because it would be wrong to do so.

If you choose to allow the innocent children of perverted parents to attend school, you are neither promoting their parents’ perversion by not taking it out on their kids.

Funny thing that the concept is exactly the same, but you are calling it insignificant because I’m apparently carrying the logic “too far.” What happened to all the absolutism I’m supposed to be using here? Are you saying that paying evil for evil is OK if it’s about isolating kids from their future Catholic brothers, but that it is not if it involves a more serious crime? Sounds like relativism of the worst kind. If I extend your argument to its absolute extreme and it doesn’t work anymore, then it must have been relativistic in the first place.

That is clear, because it is also subjective and divisive. Also the kids who have no “real” parents – effectively orphans – are the ones God specifically told us to take special care of.

Really. Their parents aren’t good enough so we don’t want the kids. How is my comparison not valid, except that God specifically said to take care or widows and orphans, but He did not say to avoid blowing up abortion clinics.

Alan

 

[contemplative]

AlanFromWichita:

That is clear, because it is also subjective and divisive. Also the kids who have no “real” parents – effectively orphans – are the ones God specifically told us to take special care of.
Alan

*Your comparison is stretched to the point of being unrecognizable for application here. What I mean is that it goes beyond even my imagination for application in this issue. *

I will say this though…

Unlike public schools, Catholic schools are not dumping grounds for children. Catholic schools are much more than public schools. Catholic schools are about families. Parents and their children go hand in hand in Catholic schools and this is where homosexuals don’t fit. Catholic schools are about family…….not homosexuality.

And……don’t talk orphans and widows to me. Don’t equate children of homosexuals as some sort of hybridization of orphans and widows. The next thing you will be telling me is that homosexual couples are innocent and blah…blah …blah….The line must be drawn somewhere. I say protect the Catholic families who choose to send their children to Catholic schools. Where is the justice and reward for commitment and conviction to upright marriages and families in the Church? Where is there sanctity and respect for the Sacrament of Marriage and family life if every Tom & Dick and every Sue & Betsy starts sending their children to Catholic schools?

http://photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/th_churchfamily.jpg

Furthermore…there are places of love and care for orphans and widows in our Church and Catholic schools. Homosexual families do not fit. Again….parents and children go hand in hand in Catholic schools.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

*Your comparison is stretched to the point of being unrecognizable for application here. What I mean is that it goes beyond even my imagination for application in this issue. *

Maybe it goes beyond your imagination because you don’t understand the difference between relativism and absolutism. I guess I took your own logic too far to continue to apply, so you got distracted by the “severity” of the sins involved and not the principle. That is what happens when you try to apply “absolute” principles in one case but not the other, because your worldly understanding does not see that spiritually they are the same thing. I don’t remember whether you claim to be an absolutist, but if you do then you should learn that it is the truth of the principle, not the emotional human reactions, that determine severity.

Christ made this quite clear when He equated “thou shalt not kill” with harboring anger in one’s own heart. Hatred is an absolute principle, as Christ was teaching, and has the same spiritual ramifications to the one doing the hating whether they actually murder, or “only” spiritually condemn and shun. That’s absolutism right there (or relativism if you are more interested in the letter of the law than the spirit). You say I cannot compare mistreating children to try to either get back at their parents or because you don’t want those messed up children in your school, under the defense that my argument is too absolute. The problem I find with worldly thinkers is they tend to equate the spiritual aspects of behavior with the worldly effects of them. In the world, you can hate someone all you want as long as you don’t hurt them. In spirit, Christ has a higher Truth for us to follow than truth which has physical, observable, ramifications.

I will say this though…

Unlike public schools, Catholic schools are not dumping grounds for children. Catholic schools are much more than public schools. Catholic schools are about families. Parents and their children go hand in hand in Catholic schools and this is where homosexuals don’t fit. Catholic schools are about family…….not homosexuality.

Oh, I get it. Those Catholics we don’t want to deal with, we put them into the “dumping ground” of the public schools.

Then we brag about how the Catholic schools outperform the public schools, and that their families are much more stable.

This way we can maintain our image and continue to brag that we can educate children better for much less money. We just get rid of all the children who don’t fit the right profile.

That’s a brilliant strategy on how to keep the high ground above public schools, and even try to make our case for school vouchers due to our ostensible expertise in turning out better kids for less money. Just select the kids in advance. I’ve just never really seen it put that way before, but I see how we can continue to take the social and moral high ground with this…

And……don’t talk orphans and widows to me. Don’t equate children of homosexuals as some sort of hybridization of orphans and widows.

I’m sorry but if you don’t recognize the importance of taking care of widows and orphans than I’m afraid you have more to learn than I can hope to help you with in this thread. If you don’t want to hear from me about widows and orphans, then maybe you will be more interested in hearing Scripture:

22 Be doers of the word and not hearers only, deluding yourselves. 23 For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his own face in a mirror. 24 He sees himself, then goes off and promptly forgets what he looked like. 25 But the one who peers into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres, and is not a hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, such a one shall be blessed in what he does. 26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, his religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
Now, if we are on the same page that widows and orphans are important, I’ll try again:

A child does not have a proper family with a mother and father. How does that make the child not different from an orphan? What obstinate sin did the child commit to get themselves into the situation of being a child of gay parents, and how is that sin absolutely more punishable than the sin of having one’s parents die or become divorced.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

Oh, brother. I lost the rest of the post.

I’ll try to recreate it.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The next thing you will be telling me is that homosexual couples are innocent and blah…blah …blah….The line must be drawn somewhere.

Are you suggesting the Christ dies for certain sinners but not others? I don’t recall Him saying, “let the children come to me, unless their parents are homosexuals.”

I say protect the Catholic families who choose to send their children to Catholic schools. Where is the justice and reward for commitment and conviction to upright marriages and families in the Church? Where is there sanctity and respect for the Sacrament of Marriage and family life if every Tom & Dick and every Sue & Betsy starts sending their children to Catholic schools?

I see the problem. You are working to achieve worldly rewards and uphold your worldly reputation by not associating with those who have problems that our own children do not.

The sanctity of Marriage is in its truth, and in the faith of true believers.

If everybody started sending their children to Catholic schools, then maybe they would be saved by hearing a straight answer for the first time about the issues that are significant enough to make or break their whole spirits throughout life. We also may be able to help prevent those children from “turning” homosexual, unless you are one of those who thinks they are born and are helpless to their urges.

http://photobucket.com/albums/y188/ginnyroc/th_churchfamily.jpg

That’s very nice, and I am pleased to say that my parents’ family and my own can look like this too. If this is the model of the only people Christ intends to save (and therefore are our sheep and it’s Peter’s job to feed them – that is if he loves Christ) then yes, I suppose we need to exclude anyone who doesn’t have this sort of support.

Furthermore…there are places of love and care for orphans and widows in our Church and Catholic schools. Homosexual families do not fit. Again….parents and children go hand in hand in Catholic schools.

In our Catholic school, most of the parents drop their children off at the front door.

Your thinking is entirely relativistic, from what it looks like here. Children in troubled families through no fault of their own in one case, can find a place of love and care. Children in troubled families through no fault of their own in another case, are not allowed in.

The end result of this thinking, as we place more restrictions on the observed piety of Catholics as admission criteria for their children, is that eventually each family line is bound to sin in a way that causes us to find their children hoplessly lost and not worth dealing with. Each generation, we’ll lose maybe 25% and after a few decades we won’t have to be burdened with operating Catholic schools at all.

Another suggestion for parents who don’t want their children mixing with undesirable children, is to home school them. We tried that for one year, but the school begged us to return because our children are such a good influence on those troubled ones the teachers have a difficult time with, because they wanted our kids to help them beat other schools in religion bowl competitions, help keep the school’s standardized tests scores high, and because Julie and I felt that the kids were better off being around others even if they don’t think like us. Gosh, the teachers don’t think like us even, and we still decided to put them back in, knowing they respect us enough to listen to our side of anything questionable.

Alan