Replies

Bureaucracy is the bane of **all** organizations, for it blunts the good impulse with procedure, butt-covering, and overconcern for ladder-climbing, and makes it easy for the dishonest to cover their tracks by networking within the system. I never said that wasn't true of my church. I do have to add, however, that my church has learned the lesson yours is still struggling to learn--coverups ALWAYS backfire. We remove and excommunicate those who abuse children--or we do, when the organization does not fail, as organizations will tend to do. A broad, worldwide scandal such as your church has suffered is not going to happen to us because we have no paid clergy.

I stand behind my theory of organization, and the negative effects of high barriers and low standards. This is a theory of Thomas Sowell's and it explains much of what goes wrong with organizations everywhere, whether they are teacher's unions, political parties, or churches. Think it's Catholic-bashing? Too bad. I never said it applies only to you or that it means all CAtholics are corrupt. It does mean that the organization tends to protect its own. Prove otherwise, if you can. Please show me a case in which your system worked properly from the get-go.

I have absolutely never said that most priests are abusers and that is a straw man you folks have constructed of my argument. What I do say is that you do not have any methods in place to eliminate those who abuse the privileges they have earned. Your system protects them and allows them to continue their abuses for decades. I'm sorry to say this but this is proven by events.

My church does not have an organized system of private schools, and so the issue of admitting this child to our private school does not exist. It would be a nice solution, and many of us long for it, but again, we tend to insularity anyway and it would probably be unhealthy for our faith, or we would have them.

We do not refuse anyone admission to our worship services. We have high standards for admission to our temples, but *anyone* may meet those standards as they are standards of conduct, not standards of education or licensing of any sort.

we tend to insularity anyway and it would probably be unhealthy for our faith, or we would have them.

So, since the LDS does not operate schools because "it would be unhealthy for our faith," you are pleased to insult and calumniate Catholics who operate schools and who refuse admittance to ACTIVELY PRACTICING lesbo-perverts' children?

Those women are using that little girl like they would use a Kleenex--or a refrigerator. The poor little kid is a possession, a means to some ends for them.

Maybe you should suggest that YOUR Lutheran school take the child--and relocate the parent(?)s to OKC. Sounds like the perfect solution, as long as the LDS would endanger their faith by operating schools.

Tom Sowell is an excellent writer, a very good thinker, and a provocative economic theoretician.

But Tom Sowell NEVER (legitimately) applied his theories to the Church--nor would he dare. He knows that's a bit past his pay grade.

The Roman Catholic Church is not an organization; it is the Body of Christ in the world. Its members, humans, are subject to the same effects of Original Sin as are you and I, and Tom Sowell...

Thus, while the Church has a human structure and a system of governance akin to other human enterprises, Her true Governor is Christ, through His Vicar, the Pope.

And since Christ IS Life, "organizational entropy" theories simply do not apply.

Nice try, though. If you get Sowell to positively affirm that he refers to the Church's structure with his theory, we'd love to see his letter to that effect.

Now get that "family" down to OKC and into your children's classroom...

If you read my post #143,you will get a better idea of how the Catholic education system functions and who is responsible for it. There you will see that Cardinal O'Conner,reacting to the larger community needs,tried to open the education system at no expense to minorities. He had the authority to make that determination. Part of a CAtholic education includes teaching the truths of the Church vis-a-vis morals and faith,parents were willing to accept that if that was part of what constituted a Catholic education.The situation in New York had different priorities and different objectives.

The Oregon case is totally different,one shoe does not fit all,you know.Since so many people believe truth is relative,including most members of the "progressive"community to which active homosexuals belong,it is only prudent and charitable to deny admission to the children of persons who hold in contempt Church teaching on faith and morals.To immerse a young child,on a daily basis,to a culture that is contrary to the culture the child's family espouses is cruel and dangerous. In fact,it is bound to create great confusion,and we all know who uses that tool quite adroitly,don't we? Four is far too young to be confronted with two kind of "lifelocking" choices.

"We do not refuse anyone admission to our worship services."

Neither do we. But Catholics have a firm understanding of repentence.

"I think we have become so (cruel) in the attempt to reduce all virtues to kindness. For Plato rightly taught that the virtue is one. You cannot be kind unless you have all the other virtues. If, being cowardly, conceited, slothful, you have never yet done a fellow creature great mischief, that is only because your neighbour's welfare has not yet happened to conflict with your safety, self-approval, or ease.

Every vice leads to cruelty. Even a good emotion, pity, if not controlled by charity and justice, leads through anger to cruelty."

C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain

It isn't that we punish the child. It is that there are demands other than kindness. What good would it do the child if, being told her mother is in a morally untenable position, she either hates her mother, or the Church. Further, the mother is in direct opposition to the Church itself. Using the child to further her political agenda is so damaging and depraved that one cannot help but wonder if she views the child as merely an extension of herself.