THE CAFETERIA IS CLOSED at St. John the Baptist School, Cost Mesa CA

[fix]

Penny Plain:

And we will reach those children with the message of Christ … how?

How would we reach them if the men did not enroll them in the school?

You’d exclude children of other faiths?

That would depend on the faith and the situation. Satanists? Yep, I would exclude.

You’d exclude children whose parents are divorced and remarried?

If no decree of nullity, then yes I would exclude.

You’d exclude children whose parents are unmarried and living together?

Of Course.

You’d exclude children whose parents are imprisoned or addicted to drugs?

That would depend on the circumstance. We all make mistakes. If the case was an unrepentent manifest sinner, then I would exclude.

Shame on you.

Shame on you for exposing our children to all manner of perversion under the banner of false compassion.

The purpose of Catholic schools (like the Catholic Church) is to bring sinners to Christ. The schools take children as they find them, not only the children of self-styled saints but the children of sinners and, by doing so, bring the message of Christ to those who need it most.

The purpose of Catholic schools is to educate of children in the faith. It is not expose them intentionally to grave scandal and be a crucible for sodomistic agendas.

It is not a perfect process. I went to a Catholic grade school with the child of a notorious and unrepentant killer. I cannot think of another person who needed to hear the message of Christ more than that kid, but you’d exclude him because his father was evil?

You are over simplifying. Did the child have a mother or parent who was not a murder who was raising the to accept the church or at least the natural law?

If you are worried that your children are going to be irretrievably corrupted by an entry in the school director or the knowledge that Johnny has two daddies, you need to have a little more faith in your children, you school, your church, your own parenting skills, and your God.

You would intentionally expose your child to a deviant views and claim it is the parents job to protect him/her?

What is the harm in them learning early and having the issues addressed in an age-appropriate manner?

Nothing as long it is on my terms, not the “gay” agenda people.

I mean, you’ve answered other questions about families, right? Why doesn’t Sally have a daddy? (He’s dead. He’s sick. They’re divorced. He ran away before she was born.) Why does Billy live with his mommy during the week and his daddy at weekends? Why is Dave’s mommy in the hospital? Why does Jimmy’s mommy cry all the time and sometimes have bruises on her face?

These are not all equivalent. Having childen exposed to other children who are being raised in a deviant manner is far different from explaning why someone is divorced or in the hospital. It is not just the explanation that is the issue it is chronic exposure to deviant things that we deplore.

By comparison, this one’s a piece of cake.

You attempt to minimize the damage by claiming it is a one sentence explanation and a pat on the head. The “gays” know it is easy when folks hold the opinions you hold.

 

[HumbleSinner]

Below is the letter that was signed and sent to Sister Vianney by 17 parents and parishioners at St. John the Baptist School. This letter was what got national attention.

thelaity.org/
December 3, 2004

CERTIFIED MAIL

SISTER VIANNEY
ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST SCHOOL
1021 Baker Street
Costa Mesa, CA 2626

Re: Domestic Partners/Parents
at St. John the Baptist School

Dear Sister Vianney:

Before we proceed further, I, along with several other parents and/or parishioners at St. John the Baptist School, feel compelled to address in writing our concerns and distress over your decision this year to admit children into our Catholic grammar school whose adoptive caregivers are purportedly cohabitating in a domestic partnership, and who hold themselves out as active homosexuals. We are particularly concerned that your decision is contrary to the teachings of the Church, and is counterproductive to the spiritual well-being and growth of the children involved, as well as their two caregivers.

I would ask for your patience in reading this letter, so as to better understand why we feel compelled to take immediate action regarding this matter.

Preliminarily, we as Catholics believe deeply in the infallibility and wisdom of the deposit of faith, which guides us in truth. When we take to heart the profound words of Jesus – “He who hears you (the church) hears me” – we Catholics must listen, and are morally obligated to obey the teaching magisterium on all matters of faith and morals, as children heed the wise counsel of a loving parent. Moreover, in doing so, far from acting arbitrarily or uncharitably, we tangibly and effectively give witness to our love of Christ, who long ago admonished us as to the essence of genuine humility and love for Him: “If you love Me, you will keep my commandments”.

In March of 2003 our beloved holy father John Paul II signed, and ordered the publication of the watershed magisterial teaching “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons”. This ex cathedra teaching directly and unambiguously addresses the issue of the moral obligation of all Catholics – clergy, religious, and laity alike – regarding the acceptance of domestic partnerships and, in particular, domestic partners’ adoption of children. (A copy of the document is attached)

While Section 4 of the document confirms the Church’s teaching that “men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity”; and “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. . . .”, Section 5 states: “In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. . .” (Italics added for emphasis)

The words of the Church on this issue are not complex with nuances. They are plain and simple: while we must show love and compassion for persons with homosexual tendencies, we must oppose domestic partnerships, and refrain in every way from cooperating with or supporting such a lifestyle.

Does the Church teach that opposition to such unions includes resistance to the adoption of children by homosexual parents or its application in educating these children, especially in a Catholic school? Clearly, the answer is yes. Section 7 states:

“As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case. “ (Italics added for emphasis).

This last September, you accepted for admission into the Catholic elementary school at St. John the Baptist parish children who have been adopted by two men clearly living in a domestic partnership, who belong to a support group for gay parents of adoptive children (See attached website[1] showing them at a gay support group picnic). Under the St. John the Baptist School family directory, these men are now listed as the “father” and “father” of the children (See attached a copy of the document). Furthermore, and most troubling is the fact that these men are not shy about their agenda in promoting the practice of active homosexuals adopting children. In fact, one of them was featured in a New York Times newspaper article (“Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home,” January 12, 2004).

continued on next post

 

[YinYangMom]

Penny Plain:

Where in Catholic teaching does it say that?

I didn’t say it was Catholic teaching which says a Catholic education is for those in communion with the church or seeking to learn more, but if you read any Catholic school’s mission statement and goals it clearly states the intent to share the teaching and tradition of the Catholic faith along with secular topics.

Non-catholic parents sending their children to Catholic school understand and accept that their children will be taught the Catholic view of life. If they don’t like their children being taught those things then they should/would pull their kids out and send them somewhere else. They do not have the right to get the school to change the curriculum because it is a private institution guided by the Catholic church - **not the will of the people. **

 

[HumbleSinner]

Letter to Sister Vianney continued from last post

Both you and our pastor Father Martin Benzoni have been approached by myself and several other parents who have expressed their concerns about this problem, only to be told that your decision is “final” on the matter. In fact, during a casual conversation I had with Father Benzoni back in June of this year, I was quite dismayed when he informed me, “It’s a done deal.”

From a practical standpoint, your decision will only result in one of the following three unworkable scenarios, each of which either compromises the childrens’ psyche, or Church teaching:

1. Your teacher(s) condone the homosexual union by accepting these parents as just another type of family, which I am informed, is now occurring in the form of having one of the caregivers now functioning in the capacity of a teacher’s aid in the classroom with the children, all in total contradiction to Church teaching; or
2. The children are taught Catholic moral precepts on marriage/cohabitation which will contradict and clash with their adoptive caregivers’ lifestyle and beliefs, subjecting the impressionable children to the psychologically damaging status of pawns in a cultural and moral tug-of-war; or
3. The instructor(s) and school administrators simply refrain from teaching truth on the issue (a form of the “don’t ask – don’t tell” approach), thus precluding the adoptive child, his/her caregivers, and all other students in that class, and the school, from learning the truths of our faith on the issue, all in disobedience of our Church’s call for respectful, yet “clear and emphatic opposition”.

Sister, the undeniable fact here is your decision simply cannot be reconciled with the duties imposed by the Church upon you, and all of us Catholics, without you trivializing, misconstruing, or ignoring the above-referenced teaching. Moreover, your disobedience of Church doctrine under the guise of superficial compassion is compounded by the fact that your failure to courageously defend the faith on this issue is leading hundreds of school children and their parents who are otherwise unaware of their duty as Catholics in the wrong moral direction. Your recent statement to one of us parents, “They can’t help it, they were born that way”, presumes an unproven, politically charged psycho-physiological theory to be conclusive scientific fact, it also reduces these men to sexual animals incapable of exercising free will, and summarily rejects Christ’s call to personal holiness and chastity, all in one unwitting sentence. Taking your comment to its illogical conclusion, John Paul II and our Church have no business calling the other 94% of heterosexual young unmarried men and women in the world to chastity because, after all, they can’t help it, they were born that way, too!

Doesn’t authentic Christian compassion demand that we thirst for the salvation of souls by sharing truth with them? Shouldn’t we be hating the sin, but loving the sinner? When we accept homosexual people “the way they are”, we are, in the final analysis, affirming them in their sin - for one of only three reasons: a. either we simply lack the fortitude to be “salt” and “light” because of its impact on our “comfort zone”; b. we demand to follow only those Church teachings which meet with our own self-centered, private interpretation; or c. we embrace that sin ourselves.

continued on next post

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Penny Plain:

Nonsense.

I am not an American, and I did not go to primary school in America. When I was in grade school, my country was going through a period of great internal violence. The parent I am thinking of was known to kill people for the government. I saw him once, and you could feel the evil radiating off him. (I think he is dead now, which is just as well).

What he was, was known. That had nothing to do with the fact that his son needed instruction in the Catholic faith and somebody to show him how to live with compassion and justice instead of violence and hate. The education was about the child, not about the father.

What these men are doing pales in comparison. They are not having anal sex in front of the children. They are volunteering in the classroom.

Actually, in some ways it’s even worse. They are presenting themselves as just another wholesome family trying to raise “their” children in peace. “Just another lifestyle choice”, “as long as a child has love in his life”, “a family is what you make it”. All these are slogans long used by the culture determined to break down the family and legitimize sin.

Actually, if you go back to the facts of this case, you’ll see that these two men were told to no longer present themselves as a couple at the school. It is this firm, reasonable approach to handling the existing situation that has caused the hissy fit among some of the parents.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

Thekla,

I’m not opposed to gay couples adopting…

You should be if no other reason the Church says it is not to be done and it is a form of moral violence toward the poor children

 

[YinYangMom]

Thekla:

That’s what I thought. The original post says that they cannot present themselves as a couple and I asked what that meant. No one responded.

I suspect that means at the very least that at PTA meetings, social activities at the school, sacramental events this couple cannot appear together and introduce themselves as “I’m Joe, this is my husband, John” and to include them not being allowed to hold hands, kiss, have arms around each other, etc. Even this couple wouldn’t bring the sex to any public event, but the intimacy is implied in the displays of public affection.

 

[Thekla]

StJeanneDArc:

Well, that’s the problem, isn’t it. They shouldn’t have accepted the children in the first place. You’re implicitly admitting that accepting the children is accepting the family as legitimate.

Any school that’s going to treat the children and parents with open hostility should do them the favor of denying them acceptance. I never said a word about legitimacy because, quite frankly, I don’t know that you and I would agree on what that means.

However, the Church needs to make up its mind as to whether it wants to spread Catholicism and try to reach more people, imperfect as they will be, or whether it wants to consolidate and be more exclusive.

Thanks for taking a swipe at my cousin; you make my case.

 

[HumbleSinner]

Continued from last post Letter to Sister Vianney

A Catholic elementary school should be the starting point wherein our children learn that we are called to be in this world, but not of this world. For two thousand years now, our Church alone has proclaimed and defended infallible truths pertaining to reproductive/sexual morality. These truths have been, and will continue to be at odds with the “world view.” No doubt, at one level or another, these precepts require personal sacrifice and significant self-denial for most of us, and heroic self-denial for some. Nonetheless, we all have been summoned by our divine Master to “deny [ourselves] and take up [our] cross every day” if we truly love Him and wish to keep his commandments. This calling is as binding on the heterosexual single person struggling with chastity or the married person struggling with fidelity, as it is on our Catholic brothers and sisters struggling with same-sex attraction. Furthermore, these unchanging truths do not lose meaning or validity simply because some contemporary politicians, celebrities, activists, or even troubled members of the clergy with an inordinate hostility toward them, choose to question or reject God’s call to personal holiness. Stated another way, we have been called to reform our lives and affirm Christ’s gospel - - we have not been called to reform Christ’s gospel and affirm our lives.

There is a simple solution here. Unlike many other fine Catholic and/or Christian private schools, St. John the Baptist surprisingly has no “Parental Moral Covenant” which the parents must agree to, and sign before their children are admitted to the school. There is no reason why such could not be the case here. That covenant should provide that the parents and teachers will abide by, and cooperate fully in living and promoting all the teachings of the Catholic faith, including a promise by the parents and teachers that they will not reside in a domestic partnership with another (heterosexually or homosexually) outside of a sacramental marriage of man and woman while their child is in school. This guide would necessarily disqualify children who were adopted by “domestic partners” from admission to the school if the above mentioned Vatican teaching is to be taken seriously.

The Covenant should remind all prospective parents, regardless of their sexual orientation, that we are all sinners in need of Christ’s mercy, and that if they cannot abide by the covenant, it would create an irreconcilable conflict for the vulnerable children, who’s interests should always be “paramount”. This is not a radical or mean-spirited approach to Catholic education. It is a straightforward assurance to any prospective parent that their child will be taught the fullness of Roman Catholic doctrine, not the selected doctrinal views which meet with the personal, subjective approval of a particular principal at a given Catholic school. To do otherwise is either unfair to people such as the caregivers in question here who may not be aware of Church teaching, or it is misleading to faithful prospective Catholic parents who incorrectly assume your school follows the teachings of the Church; and it is an open invitation for just this type of dilemma.

It is my understanding that, legally speaking, such a covenant would enjoy all of the protections under the Free Exercise of Religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.

On behalf of the growing number of parents and parishioners at St. John the Baptist who can no longer sit idly and watch the compromising of our Catholic faith, demand is hereby made that you immediately implement a “Parental Moral Covenant” which precludes any parent, heterosexual or homosexual, from cohabitating with another in a domestic partnership outside the bounds of a Catholic, or Christian man-woman marriage while their child is a student at the school, and/or applying for admission to school the adopted children of a so-called “domestic partnership.”

We would humbly request a written response from you within ten (10) days of your receipt of this letter in order for us to determine what our next course of action will be.

Sincerely,
Signed by 17 parents of students
at St. John the Baptist School

cc: Rev. Martin Benzoni, O. Praem
Abbot Eugene Hayes, O. Praem
Rev. Gerald M. Horan, OSM
Bishop Tod D. Brown

 

[YinYangMom]

Thekla:

I said the school should not have accepted the children if they were unable to accept the parents. The parents have committed no crime, so, to the person who likened having them volunteer in the classroom to having a killer volunteer in the classroom, your analogy does not work.

If the parents are so morally unaccepteble to the school, then the kids should not be there. And then they should go after all the other parents whose morality is questioned. We’ll see who is left standing.

On that, we agree.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

For some guys, it always comes back to the blood and feces, doesn’t it?

I assume you’d be okay with this situation if they just had oral sex, then?

No, neither such perverted act is moral. Please do not paint us as moral relativists. The issue here is one of two homosexual men with an agenda and they are using the children in their care to further it.

“Gay” adoption is a scandal that should be made illegal.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

You should be if no other reason the Church says it is not to be done and it is a form of moral violence toward the poor children

True. I should clarify. I don’t oppose to it mainly because it’s out of my hands. I don’t approve of it either. Adoption is a legal process and I’m not even certain who is the ruling body over any guidelines…If the ruling body is secular in nature it has to represent all humans, not just religious ones. If the ruling body is a privately held institution there’s no way for me to influence it’s policies. If it’s legislative, then the best I can do is not vote for elected officials who support adoption by same-sex couples.

 

[TPJCatholic]

Yin,

You are supposed to take a stand eithe way…you cannot say you are not for or against gay adoption, it is either morally right or morally wrong for gays to adopt.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Thekla:

What do you mean by “parading?” Showing up? They can’t control who their parents are, so why are they the ones to be punished? I understand that the issue is the parents, but you can’t punish them without punishing the children.

I had a pair of twins in my classes this year who are truly amazing children. Their father is a transvestite and the parents live together (Don’t ask). I can’t imagine our school doing anything to make those kids feel unwanted or unloved or any more different than they already must feel.

You know what Thekla? Read the Catechism

First !

---

Then after reading the Catechism, ask your questions. Right now you are railing against something of which you have exactly zero understanding.

 

[fix]

Thekla:

Any school that’s going to treat the children and parents with open hostility should do them the favor of denying them acceptance. I never said a word about legitimacy because, quite frankly, I don’t know that you and I would agree on what that means.

However, the Church needs to make up its mind as to whether it wants to spread Catholicism and try to reach more people, imperfect as they will be, or whether it wants to consolidate and be more exclusive.

Thanks for taking a swipe at my cousin; you make my case.

Please define what you mean by hostile? Is the truth hostile? Is not giving in to every secular whim hostile?

 

[Thekla]

Ani Ibi:

You know what Thekla? Read the Catechism

First !

Then after reading the Catechism, ask your questions. Right now you are railing against something of which you have exactly zero understanding.

Some questions are rhetorical. As for the Catechism, I’ve certainly read it. What exactly is it I’m railing against?

 

[Ptero9]

“I saw him once, and you could feel the evil radiating off him. (I think he is dead now, which is just as well).”

Exactly, you saw him once…he wasn’t invited to come to school and assist the kindergarten teacher with the lesosns as was the gay parent in this case.

I suppose too that catholic schools shouldn’t discriminate because of the finances of the parents either. It’s not the childrens’ fault that the parents can’t afford to send them there. <—sarcasm

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Thekla:

Any school that’s going to treat the children and parents with open hostility should do them the favor of denying them acceptance. I never said a word about legitimacy because, quite frankly, I don’t know that you and I would agree on what that means.

However, the Church needs to make up its mind as to whether it wants to spread Catholicism and try to reach more people, imperfect as they will be, or whether it wants to consolidate and be more exclusive.

Thanks for taking a swipe at my cousin; you make my case.

I guess you make my case as well. If you think speaking the truth is demeaning or degrading or taking a swipe, then I suppose there’s no point in continuing.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Ptero9:

Exactly, you saw him once…he wasn’t invited to come to school and assist the kindergarten teacher with the lesosns as was the gay parent in this case.

I suppose too that catholic schools shouldn’t discriminate because of the finances of the parents either. It’s not the childrens’ fault that the parents can’t afford to send them there. <—sarcasm

I wish I knew what your point was, but I’m sure you do as well.

The point is not whether he was invited to come and assist with the lessons; the point was that, by admitting his child, the school did not endorse the child’s father’s behavior.

Many Catholic schools do not, in fact, discriminate against kids because of their parents’ finances; instead, they provide financial aid to the families that most need it.

 

[Penny_Plain]

Fix, I think we are wasting our time talking to each other. We are never going to agree. I do not see my Church or my God in those who would drive away the imperfect, the flawed, the morally questionable, and the silly. I especially do not see my Church or my God in those who would drive away their children.

fix:

You would intentionally expose your child to a deviant views and claim it is the parents job to protect him/her?

I did want to address this one, though. I do intentionally expose my children to “deviant views,” and I do it for their protection. They are not going to live in a bubble all their lives. Sooner or later, they will be exposed to homosexuality, drug abuse, heresy, violence, and all that other baddies that are out there.

We do it now. I don’t mean we shoot smack in front of them, but we tell them about drug abuse. We tell them what drugs are. We tell them that people take them because they feel good. We tell them the consequences of drug abuse, and why they shouldn’t do it.

And they see, because they are not stupid. They see that our friend and neighbor sometimes slurs his words and cries, or walks funny. We tell them about alcohol, and what it does to people. We answer their questions: “Is Vladi a bad man because he drinks?” “Is Daddy an alcoholic? I saw him drink a beer.” “Can I have a beer?” “What do I do if I see another kid drinking a beer?” “Is Vladi going to be alright?” And so on. If they learn about it in an age-appropriate way when they’re young, they don’t learn about it from peers in college. And they learn to respect Vladi as a man and appreciate the goodness in him, while, at the same time, learning to recognize the harm in his drinking.

And so on.