Replies

Once again.

It was "Feed my sheep...Feed my lambs." Not, "Accept the lamb only if it has the right pedigree."

It was "...And forbid them not." It wasn't, "Question her parents and make sure that they are perfectly worthy for their child to come to Me."

When you put a bureaucracy in charge, you get fine print, caveats, and policies instead of proper Christlike love and charity. And you sure make it easy for people who want confrontation to get what they want. Misery for everybody. If they'd quietly let the child in, and coped, where would the misery be?

What did Christ tell us about the extra mile? It wasn't a good Christian making a demand in that parable, you know. But it's the good Christian who goes the extra mile. Ever walk a mile carrying a heavy load? It isn't "go the extra mile if it's light and easy and you feel like it anyway."

Some people listen to that about as well as they listen to the also-inconvenient reference to millstones.

Your church has a chance to make things better for a little kid, and you say it'll hurt her too much to let her be exposed to the Christian teachings her mother is seeking for her...because it might cause a conflict. So she'll grow up knowing that Jesus Christ's church rejected her before she was 5. Wow. That is sure a great missionary tactic your church has there.

You think having lesbian parents isn't going to hurt her no matter what? Why not embrace and include her?

Oh yeah, I remember why.

So she'll grow up knowing that Jesus Christ's church rejected her before she was 5.

Oh, BALONEY! Jesus Christ's Church hasn't rejected anyone in this situation. There is more to being a Catholic than formal elementary education. I myself went to public schools.

From the article, none of us know the specifics of why the child is being denied admission. In any event, the school has that right. Truth be told, there are waiting lists for most Catholic schools, and many students that do attend come from non-Catholic families.

Regarding the child, I don't even know if she has been baptized. I can tell you that the Church does not normally baptize children of parents who do not promise to raise them in the Faith. Several reasons for this. The Church is more than the hierarchy - Her members are ALL the baptized. ALL adult Catholics have the responsibility to guide children correctly in the Faith. Since baptism is akin to "birth", not raising a baptized child in the Faith is akin to throwing a newborn out on the street right after birth. It is spiritual abuse. Just as there are laws and punishment in secular society against physical abuse of children, so on the spiritual side.

These two lesbian "love-mates", who are the guardians of the child are living in a continuous state of mortal sin. They have separated themselves from Christ and His Church. The Church desires that they come back into full communion by "confessing their sins, doing penance, and amending their lives for the better". Their obstinate refusal to do this shows that they are not capable of raising their child in the Faith. So is the Church failing the child? At the domestic level, YES. That is, her parents - as primary guardians of her soul in her childhood, and this to the extent that at least one of them claims to want to start practicing her Faith again. Among other things, receiving Christ in one's life means rejecting sin. There are many quotes in Scripture that indicate this.

Put the question like this. Should the Church have the right to take the child away from her parents? Short of this the best the Church can do for the child is hold up the teachings of Christ and hope the parents will convert. Remember, the parents are the PRIMARY teachings of their child. It is THEY, through their lifestyle that are denying a proper Catholic upbringing for their child. At which point, we can only hope that the child will come to the fullness of Truth after mature reflection at a later time as she grows. At this point the parents are an obstacle to this.

Well, if you really think it's a church obligation, then there must be a Mormon stake up there. Write to them and, using the same arguments you use here, see if they are persuaded to allow these actively perverted parents to be 'members' of the Stake and their abused daughter to be educated by their school. You blithely suggest that "they should cope" while being totally unaware of the misery to which you will consign this little girl AND all the other parents whose children attend the school. And you claim to be a parent? Not in the real world, you're not.

Let's be frank. Your concept of Christian charity is a bit cockeyed, although you quote fragments very well. The question here is not whether one should be charitable: that is a settled issue. The question here is whether the school administration can arrogate to themselves, and then dispense, the charity of others, and the answer they have given is "no." It is not within their power to do so.

The principal abusers in this situation are the lesbian mother and perverted bedfellow. Were the MOTHER to repent and turn away from her flagrant and obvious sin, the school's decision would reverse, damn near instantly.

But please--write the Stake in Oregon. Show all of us how this little kid's life will improve with Mormon-sponsored schooling.

After you've gained her admittance to the Mormon school, THEN you can come back and lecture the Catholics.