To all the Catholics on my f-list - Non-Catholics, stay the Hell away or you WILL be offended

[fpb]

There is a priest in Boulder, Colorado, who is under vicious, systematic, directed attack because he is keeping the teachings of the Church and the orders of his Bishop. I have some experience of how it feels like to be at the wrong (or is it?) end of the kind of vile hatred that is being directed at this man. So I tell the Catholics and Christians on my f-list: follow this link and do what it says - http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/03/to-arms-denver-priest-attacked-for-being-obedient-poll-alert/ - and then go to the priest's own blog and register a personal message of support. While a good man has enough in himself to stand up for the Church even to martyrdom - and to be fair, that does not yet seem to be the case here - anyone who is subjected to hundreds of direct sexually explicit threats can do with kind words from a distant country.

Comments

[stigandnasty919.livejournal.com]

Nope, not offended.

Do I disagree with the Church's position towards homosexuality - yes.

Do I dislike the division of schools by religion - yes.

Do I think this rule is not in keeping with what I believed Christianity to be? - yes, I do.

But do I also accept that others may not ahare my view and have an absolute right not to share my views? - yes. I cannot profess to believe in freedom of speach and then deny the legitimacy of someone's else's view because they are not mine. Indeed I even have mixed feeling about banning expression of some of the 'isms' than we worry so much about today. Racial hatred, or sexual discrimination do not go away because we don't talk about them in polite company.

Indeed they may fester and develop becuase unless they are expressed, they cannot be challanged.

I also have little sympathy for anyone who goes out of their way to be offended, for then the offense they feel can only be described as self-inflicted. It a common occurance in Northern Ireland for people to travel many miles or have to set their alarm clocks to be up in time to be offended at an Orange Parade, or a St Patrick's day march or some other sectarian display.

But a line is crossed when freedom of expression and the right to protest turns into threats of violence or raw intimidation. It does not matter what I feel about the person under threat or their views it is the protestor who is in the wrong.

I hate the idea that a child can be excluded from a school because of their parents lifestyle, and if that were the only school in town, or the only good school in town, then I would regard the rule as petty and vindictive. I might even join the protests if there was evidence that children would be substantionally disadvantaged by the rule.

But if that were not the case and, as implied, the attempt to enrole the child was simply to test the policy, then I would regard that with equal distaste.

Update: I've just read the story in the Boulder newspaper. Seems the kid in question is already in the school, in the pre-school class. Have to say that makes a difference to me. I would have thought that a policy which allowed kids already in the school to stay would have been more charitable

[expectare.livejournal.com]

Okay, here is what I do not understand. All people are sinners. Homosexuality is a sin. Sins, including homosexuality, are against the teachings of the Catholic Church. So, homosexuality disqualifies you from sending your children to this schools. Granted, yes?

So why do they accept any students? All parents are human, so by definition they are living in discord with Catholic teaching.

[expectare.livejournal.com]

also, what do they do with kids of divorced parents? Especially in Boulder!

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The priest himself explained the situation at length in his blog. I have nothing to add to what he said, but since you are unwilling to make the effort to read, and instead come to me as though obedience to Church law were my own private problem, here are a few considerations.

1) If children are being brought up in a way that itself contradicts the teachings of the Church on the nature of man and of the sexes, to send them to a Catholic school is worse than useless.
2) Furthermore, you are not so stupid as not to imagine what would happen the moment the child came home after a lesson on the nature of marriage: every liberal lawyer and journalist in Colorado would be sicced on church and school.
3) That the adopted children of gay couples are not admissible to Catholic schools is not news: it is an established rule, and I blogged about it five years ago (http://fpb.livejournal.com/138154.html); this Boulder bullying is another instance of the classic "progressive" tactic of "discovering" something that had been the rule, and rousing the ire of an ignorant public.
4) Finally, as an army officer to be, I would remind you of the importance of abiding by standing orders and obeying your CO. Archbishop Chaput is this priest's CO, the Pope his C-in-C, and the Church his army, and he is doing his duty.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The assault on the Christian doctrine of sexuality is something more and more serious than the assault on the sacrament of marriage. It is on an intellectual plane, not on a plane of mere lust, that it is Satanic: it is a denial that our being born of flesh and blood has anything to do with our nature. If shagging anything in sight does not affect our nature, then sexual division is not significant to our nature, and this contradicts the Bible and the Church: Let us make Man in our resemblance - Male and Female He created them - That which God has put together let no man take asunder. And if our body has no ultimate significance for our nature, why were we promised resurrection of the flesh?

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The attempt to enroll the child was in fact a clear attempt to push the boundaries of a policy that had been in place for years. I blogged about it more than five years ago: http://fpb.livejournal.com/138154.html .

At any rate, you are reasonable enough to make an exception. I had in mind a certain f-list member who just described a long and thoughtful article in defence of making homosexual acts illegal (with which I disagreed) as a "rant". Members of the mainstream today are literally incapable of experiencing any argument against unfettered sexual self-indulgence as anything but hate.

P.S.: uh-oh...

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The link in this comment is wrong. For the correct version, scroll up to my response to stigandnasty919

[expectare.livejournal.com]

I was asking a question. You gave me an assholish lecture. You know, you should REALLY just tone down the self-righteousness.

[capnflynn.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link; I wasn't previously aware that any of this was going on. We shouldn't have to say that someone is being "brave" or "courageous" for abiding by the precepts of his faith (i.e., obeying his superiors), and yet...

[geeklady.livejournal.com]

You can't equate sin and "against the teaching of the Church". Sin is an action, Church teaching is an abstract truth. You can't just put one on each side of an equation. You can sin and still live in accordance with the teachings of the Church, this is what the Sacrament of Reconciliation is for, because we can't help sinning. But Reconciliation does require us to turn away from our sins.

Homosexuality is not the disqualifier here, but persistence in sin in defiance of the teachings of the Church.

And I believe the same metric can and should be applied to children whose parents are known to not married, or to have divorced and remarried after an otherwise sacramentally valid marriage, or who conceive their children through immoral fertility treatments, all of which disdain the teachings of the Church on the sacrament. However these things are not plainly observable in the fashion that a same sex couple parenting a child is. While they may violate the teachings of the Church, they may also be hidden from casual observation.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You asked that I should answer for the Church. When I did so, you were not happy. I remind you that the Church is not a discussion society.

[affablestranger.livejournal.com]

It blows my mind at how those who preach tolerance for the views and beliefs of others will stop at nothing to deprive others of the ability to adhere faithfully to their own long-held beliefs. The hypocrisy hits me in the face like a skillet and actually pisses me off.

And the very notion of using a child as a political tool is repugnant, though I know it seems it's done quite often in the name of "progress".

Ugh.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Until you know what being the target of a homosexualist hate campaign is like, you will not understand why it takes courage to stand up to one. Years ago, I as good as promised myself never to put myself in that kind of situation again; and one of the reasons why I am doing that is that the courage of that priest made me ashamed of myself.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

One of the things I see in action in this kind of row is a psychological mechanism by which those who are lacking in a particular gift or quality tend to worship it. It is typical, for instance, that the author of the hyper-rationalist fantasy of Sherlock Holmes should turn out to be quite pathologically superstitious, deceived even by fake pictures of fairies concocted by a couple of ten-year-old girls. Likewise, Benito Mussolini, whose political beliefs were all about willpower, ended up following after Hitler like a bedazzled schoolgirl, proving that his willpower would easily break before a stronger one. In this case, I hardly doubt that those who make a public profession of worshipping "toleration" know themselves, at some level, to be incapable of it. And that is why it is so great and beautiful a thing to them.

[expectare.livejournal.com]

Oh, for the love of God.

1. Do you think I'd really just waltz up and demand you to justify doctrine that I know better than you do?
2. Am I the type of person that "is unwilling to read"?
3. Do you think I am unfamiliar with the concept of the Church militant?
4. Do you think I need "reminding" of any part of my profession?

Part of you knows the answer to these questions. The dominant part just wants a flame war. You know where you can shove that.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

About Church teaching on this matter:
http://www.canonlaw.info/a_samesex.htm

[fpb.livejournal.com]

If you start asking "questions" about church doctrine and church discipline, I cannot assume that you intend to be faithful to them.

And I am not the one who is using vituperative language and threats of flamewars.

[expectare.livejournal.com]

However these things are not plainly observable in the fashion that a same sex couple parenting a child is.

This makes sense. Although now that they've done this, they should also go and figure out whose parents are adamantly pro-choice, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and who have sacramentally invalid marriages, and kick their kids out, too. You can't implement a policy like that and go by halves.

[expectare.livejournal.com]

Answer all my questions, yes or no.

[un-crayon-rouge.livejournal.com]

Basically, I agree with stigandnasty. The least the parents of this kid could do would be to admit they wanted to send their kid to that school just to stir up trouble and get into the papers. In any other case, wanting to send your kid coming from a lesbian family to a catholic school is just plain dumb.

When I clicked on the link (because of course, nothing like a KEEP OFF DON'T CLICK HERE warning to make me click :P) the page wouldn't show up at me at first, even though internet was working fine. My first thought was: "How do they know I'm not a catholic?" :-)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

The invention of "gay marriage" is not a sin in the same level as even the worst sins of lust. In a sense, it goes beyond them, by denying that our corporeal being, our being of flesh, has anything to do with our essential self. We can be "married" to anything that thinks, because only the non-corporeal mind is really married - anything else is mindless flesh, to be indulged or neglected as the case may be, but at any rate having nothing to do with our essential selves. This is a direct denial of the Catholic doctrine of mankind, of which the sacrament of marriage is only a part; it denies just as thoroughly, for instance, the sacrament of Anointing the Sick, since it denies the hope offered to the dying of being reborn in the flesh. Thus, while homosexual lust as such is a lust like any other (as I argued a few weeks ago), nonetheless the invention of "homosexual marriage" has made the matter of cohabitation and "gay couples" with their own adopted children something that goes well beyond even the promotion of lust for its own sake.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

We have supernatural powers. 8-)

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You are both aggressive and rude, and I cannot imagine why. And no, why should I? I have supplied you with plenty of links - to the original story, which in turn leads to the priest's own blog, to my own post on a similar situation five years ago, to a post on the same matter by a learned canonist who certainly knows more than both of us - if you want to argue, you have plenty to argue against. And this is not a suitable place for you to try and impose your authority.

[expectare.livejournal.com]

I am responding in kind.