Thumb's Down: Mass. Church To Help Find School For Gays' Son

[MissyP89]

[quote name='Norseman82' date='16 May 2010 - 05:21 PM' timestamp='1274048480' post='2111562']
Even more to the point: what's going to happen when the kid finally puts two and two together and realizes his "parents" are going to hell? (Unless that is the archdiocese's back-door way of sneaking in some evangelism).
[/quote]

I suppose it all depends on what the education has really done. It's not a happy situation to be in, that's for sure...

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 May 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1274047485' post='2111560']
If freedom of sin is a requirement to fulfil these roles then who will be able to fulfil them? When I was invited to become a Catholic to be a member of the RCIA team, an EME or to sweep the Church floors or to do some repairs, not once was I asked if I was free of sin for any of these roles. And I am a sinner.
[/quote]
I didn't say anything about a sponsor needing to be sinless. It is usually preferable to have them in communion with the church though.

[Winchester]

[quote name='XIX' date='16 May 2010 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1274034569' post='2111478']
The situations are not analogous. In baptism, the parents promise to raise the child in the faith, which is the main reason why it would be problematic for a disobedient couple to ask for baptism. There's no comparable promise that is inherent in sending a kid to a Catholic school.

Suppose my parents were both pro-abortion. Should I be barred from Catholic school because of that? Suppose they send me to Saint Christina the AweXomerz Preparatory High School, and then midway through my junior year, my parents join a pro-abortion group. Would that be grounds for expulsion? If so, then why? If not, then how are those situations any different from this one?
[/quote]
It's the same principle. I didn't make an analogy, I merely stated it was the same principle. The school doesn't owe anyone membership. The Church doesn't [i]owe [/i]anyone baptism.

Yes, if both of your parents are pro-abortionthe school would be within its rights to expel you. Would this happen? Probably not. The reality is that money is power. There's a practical reason as well. Did you really think I would answer any differently? Anyone who disagrees with Church doctrine but still wishes to appear to be in the Church or to have their children educated as Catholics is an idiot.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 May 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1274059609' post='2111597']
The Church doesn't [i]owe [/i]anyone baptism.
[/quote]
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this statement, but I would have thought it a duty of the Church to give baptism unconditionally to all who request it. The judgements or better still the teaching of the Church comes later if need be.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 May 2010 - 01:26 PM' timestamp='1274059609' post='2111597']
The reality is that money is power.
[/quote]
Unfortunately true. A few years ago our school had a high incidence of parents not paying their fees. Economic times or lax management I don't know? The school policy was that it was better to keep the students and therefore get the government contribution rather than nothing. Not exactly accepting of Church doctrine from both sides so I guess the majority of parents and school are idiots.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 May 2010 - 09:37 PM' timestamp='1274060227' post='2111609']
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this statement, but I would have thought it a duty of the Church to give baptism unconditionally to all who request it. The judgements or better still the teaching of the Church comes later if need be.
[/quote]
The Church bestows Baptism conditionally except in cases of duress. It's understood that one intends to be a Christian.

The only thing stanging in the way of my argument is baptism of lawyers.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 May 2010 - 07:37 PM' timestamp='1274060227' post='2111609']
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this statement, but I would have thought it a duty of the Church to give baptism unconditionally to all who request it. The judgements or better still the teaching of the Church comes later if need be.
[/quote]
You are wrong, the person must also have faith (n.b., in the case of infants the parents faith and that of the Church suffices).

So for example, if a person wanted to be baptized because he thought that the ritual of baptism was "pretty," etc., while having no intention of conforming his life to the teachings of Christ, the Church would be within her rights to refuse to baptize him, and in fact to do otherwise would be an act of sacrilege on the part of the Church.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

The Catholic Church founded schools in order to protect the faith of its members from the ideologies prevalent within the American public school system. The Church does not have to admit anyone who advocates positions contrary to the faith into its private school system.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Apotheoun

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MissyP89' date='16 May 2010 - 05:39 PM' timestamp='1274042348' post='2111515']
So I fail to see how removing this child will serve any good. It's a sensitive spot for me, but hey, it's what I think. :shrug:
This. We shouldn't be rejected because of things that are not under our control.
[/quote]

Is it fair to send the child to a school that will teach them the homosexuality is a sin and their "parents" are choosing to go to hell? Is that fair to the child?
The parents chose the sin, so how is the school is to blame for the sin of the parents?

[MissyP89]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='16 May 2010 - 09:43 PM' timestamp='1274064208' post='2111668']
Is it fair to send the child to a school that will teach them the homosexuality is a sin and their "parents" are choosing to go to hell? Is that fair to the child?
The parents chose the sin, so how is the school is to blame for the sin of the parents?
[/quote]

What's not fair is allowing the child to exist in ignorance of the truth. Yes, the parents are in sin, but what good does it accomplish to continue to let the child subsist in a bubble that the lifestyle is okay?

Denying the child the opportunity to learn the Gospel--to learn what the Church teaches and become embraced by the community and the love of Christ through the Sacraments--is an opportunity for great grace that the child is desperately in need of, [i]especially[/i] given the situation at home.

Being in the Catholic community when your faith is not supported at home can be the only source of strength one has to rely on as they work toward heaven. Giving a child a Catholic education despite family problems might be the only chance for grace they have. It's not as if letting them stay is like throwing food to dogs.

Besides, if the parents are going to remain in sin, it may work to plant the seeds of faith in the parents to be involved in their Catholic education.

[britannia]

If a child's education depended upon his/her parents not being sinners then the schools might be rather empty.

I do, however, think that the parents are putting the school in a very difficult situtation: compassion would demand that the school be very sensitive to the child when discussing homosexuality; but the school should not be forced to compromise its principles. Also, do they really want to put the child through the grief it will get in the playground?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 May 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1274061551' post='2111637']
The Catholic Church founded schools in order to protect the faith of its members from the ideologies prevalent within the American public school system. The Church does not have to admit anyone who [s]advocates[/s] accepts positions contrary to the faith into its private school system.
[/quote]
I made a minor correction. Some may say that if the parents keep to themselves and do not promote homosexuality, then they are not advocating and should be allowed to let their child enter the school.

This is not an issue of excluding individuals because they sin. They have excluded themselves because they chose to accept and live in their sin.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='17 May 2010 - 01:56 PM' timestamp='1274061419' post='2111633']
You are wrong, the person must also have faith (n.b., in the case of infants the parents faith and that of the Church suffices).

So for example, if a person wanted to be baptized because he thought that the ritual of baptism was "pretty," etc., while having no intention of conforming his life to the teachings of Christ, the Church would be within her rights to refuse to baptize him, and in fact to do otherwise would be an act of sacrilege on the part of the Church.
[/quote]

Yeah sorry, I was looking at it wrongly. If a person comes to the priest and says I'm not into religion but for tradition and party I want to wet the babies head. Then the priest is obliged to decline on the grounds that that is not what baptism is about. I was looking at it from the practical side. How is a Priest supposed to know what a persons intent really is? If he errs and grants baptism to someone who is not taking it seriously he has made a small blunder, but if he declines baptism and the person was serious, then he has made a much greater blunder. So that is why I stated that he must generally grant baptism. If a person approaches a priest and requests baptism and is not Catholic then the priest tells them they must go through the RCIA process. This gives both sides time to evaluate, although it is still very hard. When I came through the RCIA process there were two ladies as well. If the priest was to put money on who would drop out he would no doubt had put his money on me. I was the one who wrestled with it and caused him the most pain. But as it turned out it was only teething troubles and it was the ladies who dropped out after having been all the way through First communion.
The Anglican Church I attended years ago had a priest who refused to do a funeral for a boy who died in a road accident because the family were not Church goers. I don't know what effect it had on the family but it certainly impacted on me, I never went near him or his church again. He may have fulfilled a regulation but he didn't accomplish anything for Jesus.

[MissyP89]

[quote]I don't know what effect it had on the family but it certainly impacted on me, I never went near him or his church again. He may have fulfilled a regulation but he didn't accomplish anything for Jesus.[/quote]

This is telling. I understand that our obligation is to protect others from scandal, but if indeed the Gospel of Christ compels us to open our doors and hearts to all that seek the Church, to reject them is spitting in the face of that same Gospel. And that, I believe, is a cause for much greater scandal both among the faithful and to those on the outside.

Edited May 17, 2010 by MissyP89

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 May 2010 - 09:59 PM' timestamp='1274061551' post='2111637']
The Catholic Church founded schools in order to protect the faith of its members from the ideologies prevalent within the American public school system. The Church does not have to admit anyone who advocates positions contrary to the faith into its private school system.
[/quote]
dingdingding, we have a winner.

I taught 1st grade at a private Christian school. One of our bible units was on the Ten Commandments. We lightly covered adultery when we covered "Thou shalt not..." (Man and woman fall in love and get married... they don't date others or kiss others as they kiss each other, dads don't have more than one wife, moms only have one husband etc... I mean, it was first grade...) I would not want to have to be the first grade teacher who has to lead such a discussion with the child of openly gay parents present. Honestly, I wouldn't want my first grader there, either. It would either be confusing for all the children, or horribly painful for one child in particular.