Posted on 06/27/2005 1:42:52 PM PDT by Coleus
| Parents miss Mass, kids get ax |
|
|
|
The Rev. Michael Cichon, pastor of St. Joseph/St. Thomas in Pleasant Plains, used each family's bar-coded donation envelope to track attendance. He's tossed about 300 kids from classes and told them not to reapply until next April. Without the classes, children cannot receive the sacraments, meaning some youngsters who thought they'd be making their First Communion next year will have to wait. The suspensions, legal under church doctrine, were a shock to many parents with kids enrolled in the 1,400-child program, which caters to kids who don't attend Catholic schools. "It's hurtful," said Joseph LoPizzo, 38, whose 6-year-old son was booted. "I've been a parishioner at that church for 23 years - longer than he's been the reverend." LoPizzo said he paid the $150 for his son's Thursday afternoon classes last year, but his father-in-law's illness hampered the family's church attendance. "I've just never heard of a church kicking you out," complained Lisa Nicol, 36, who got a letter saying her 7-year-old twin daughters had been barred from classes. "They should be more welcoming and sensitive." The pastor said he suspended kids from the 2005-2006 after-school program because Mass is an "essential" component of the Catholic faith. The affected families were attending church less than once a month, he said. Cichon insisted that the move has nothing to do with the lack of a donation. "There are many families who put absolutely nothing inside the envelopes they submit," he said. |
this isn't an English sentence.
The fact is, Paul said that he had lived in good conscience with God up until that day because he had lived in good conscience with God in the days before he had been summoned before Ananias.
Clearly Paul did not believe himself to be changing on the day he went before Ananias - he was still a preacher of the Word both before and after he met with Ananias.
Likewise, St. Matthew teaches that mary had not had intercourse with with her husband in the days before Christ's conception. He does not say that she changed her behavior subsequently - that's simply a conclusion you drew and it's as valid as drawing the false conclusion that Paul was in bad conscience with God after preaching the Gospel.
I never said it was possible.
Now tell me how you know they weren't going to mass? The man sitting next to me goes everyday, but not at his Church. His Pastor would not know that. If he wanted to know, he could ask.
BTW, I have only been to Mass once this year. Am I in mortal sin? (I'm not RC, does that matter?)
The Biblical words translated into English as "until" do not necessarily have to mean that the conditions described before the "until" must change afterward. In most cases they do, but not in all. Many of us have given you examples. Did you not see them?
The point is that you can not read "until" and automatically think it means things must change. Paul didn't cease living in good conscience and Michal didn't have a baby the day she died.
You may wish the Bible were written in English, but it isn't. You must allow that our interpretation is possible and your citation of Matt 1:25 is not definitive.
And, as I've now posted thrice, your reading means they had relations right after birth.
SD
I'm sure if asked, Hitler would have said "1+1=2". Does that mean 1+1 does not equal 2?
Dismissing a claim simply because you don't agree with the source in toto is a logical fallacy. It's entirely possible that a source, even if it's erroneous in some areas (which of course I don't believe that about Catholicism) but even if it is erroneous in some areas, that doesn't mean it's erroneous in all.
If you are just divocred and are not otherwise violating the Commandments on a habitual basis, there is nothing preventing you from going to Confession and entering into Communion. Divorce is not a sin.
SD
Christ was a human being. He was also God, of course, but a human being.
Unless, of course, you deny the Incarnation.
Admit, ZD - the Crucifixion was a human sacrifice.
Not so fast, SD.
If one abandons one's spouse it is a sin.
If one is divorced by one's spouse against one's will, it isn't a sin.
How would you address the problem of apathetic parents expecting the Church to educate their children and adminster Sacraments with no committment to follow through with Mass attendence?
He SPECIFICALLY told others to allow the children to come to him and not interfere.
Do you think the pastor did this in order to drive children away?
SD
Good question... it isn't! To begin with, because to blaspheme, according to Webster's Dictionary, means "to speak irreverently or profanely of or to God" Some people in this thread resort too easily to insulting others when they cannot intelligently discuss an issue.
I'm not just preaching to the choir :-) I just don't know how to address my answer to 2 posters at the same time. I surely would like to know how!
I was thinking of an abusive situation. Of course, one who abuses the marriage and ends it is not absolved.
SD
Use a semicolon to seperate the names and type them in the "to:" box.
SD
And they stopped sojurning the day this book was written?
SD
No, you didn't. You just accused me of blaspheming,period, and since blaspheming means "speaking" it never crossed my mind that you were thinking of my baptism. The only words I said at the time, which would be the only possible way to blaspheme, were something in the line that I had made Jesus Christ my Savior and Lord of my life. If anybody considers that statement blasphemous, that person has very serious eternal trouble and I will pray for him or her.
In other words, you deny that Christ has any power to save you from your sins unless you give Him permission.
He doesn't need your permission and to assert that He does is blasphemous.
You are wrong again.
Check post 449.
"Sit here until I make of your enemies a footstool and then you must stand up"
What an odd way of interpreting that. A footstool comes in handy for someone sitting.
SD
First of all, as I pointed out, certainly he has no way of knowing if that is true of all the parents. Having said that,,,I'll answer with some questions to illustrate a point,,,Do you think the Pastor's approach is the only one? Can you think of any other approaches? Do you think all priests with this problem agree with his actions?
In the past, Priests have talked to parents directly, it is only one suggestion that they do so again. Or send them a personal letter. Or even a form letter would be better IMO. Or address it in Mass. Or in the bulletin. Or perhaps a warning that something like this could be a possible solution. Just a few suggestions. I bet you could think of more.
Do you think the pastor did this in order to drive children away?
I think that the "law of unintended concequences" applies. The result is predictable and actually part of his plan to "punish/persuade" the parents to be better Catholics.
Not sure if I would totally agree with the exact wording of that statement, but the gist of it is right on, and it definitely makes the point that this particular catholic school's actions are way out of concert with the teachings of Jesus ... in that I also agree ...
Jesus will not give salvation to those who do not know Him or the Father,
Amen ...
and Catholics will not discover Him apart from the Mass. He has give us His word on this.
And that word is where? (I am NOT questioning anything but the 'Mass' being the only way Catholics can come to know him, which I agree is needed for salvation and is 180 degrees from what this school is doing to these students by holding up their 'growth' in Christ because of the parents actions.)
Are you Catholic?
His method of finding out was flawed and arrogant
Who's passing judgment again?
Next, neither you, nor the Pastor, knows if all these people are hypocrites
If they're not attending mass, and the expectation of Catholic children is to attend mass, then they are hypocrites for not doing what the - by definition of being Catholic - are to expect of their children.
Now tell me about how Jesus taught to turn the children away because of the parents' unfaithfulness.
The children are not coming in contact with Christ. They're coming in contact with a religious ed. teacher. On the day of their First Holy Communion, they would be coming in contact with Christ, but if they are not going to be raised as Catholics, the sacrament is reduced to an excuse for a family cookout.
God entrusts children to their parents. The Church expects parents to join them in educating their children in the faith. If they refuse to fulfill their obligations as Catholics, there's not much point in going forward until either the parents agree to fulfill their obligations, or the children reach an age of reason whereby they can decide for themselves to live an independent Catholic life. In either case, the judgment of God falls not on the children, but on the party that is not fulfilling its end of the deal - the parents. It would be sacrilege to assume that God will have abandoned these children because they are not enrolled in First (and maybe Only) Holy Communion. The priest has the primary obligation of correcting the parents and bringing to attention the gravity of their spiritual neglect.
The recipe is simple. If a parent wishes their children to be enrolled to receive First Holy Communion, there needs to be evidence that they will be raised in the faith. By receiving Communion, each child is attesting that they are in Communion with the faith. This involves going to church every Sunday. If they are not going to be at Church on Sundays - whether it's their fault or not - they won't be living the faith. If they are not living the faith, they are not in communion with the Church, and therefore, it would be sacrilege to receive the sacrament under false pretense.
But just as Soothing Dave may be assuming incorrectly that the parents have not been attending Mass elsewhere, you may be assuming incorrectly that the pastor didn't already send letters, have conversations, etc. with parents before taking this step.
This article lacks a number of possibly enlightening details.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.