The April 6 bulletin of San Francisco’s Most Holy Redeemer parish included the following announcement: “Thursday, April 10th, in Ellard Hall 7:30pm – Michelle Theall Speaking Event – Author of ‘Teaching the Cat to Sit’ – See Flyer for more information.” While the name Michelle Theall may not be familiar, she is one of two “mothers” whose adopted son was not allowed to continue at Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Boulder, Colorado, because of the “mothers” open homosexuality.
Although the names of the women were not made public in 2010, when the events took place, Ms. Theall has now written a book about the experience. On February 27, 2014, the Huffington Post, in its Gay Voices section, described Teaching the Cat to Sit: “Theall’s new book, which hit stores on Feb. 25, pairs her struggles as a gay adolescent in the Texas Bible Belt with her later experience as a mother in a same-sex relationship. Theall says she was inspired to pen the memoir in 2010, after she learned her adopted son would be expelled from his Catholic school in Colorado because his parents were lesbians.”
The refusal to allow the child to continue at Sacred Heart was noteworthy in that it provided both Sacred Heart’s pastor and Denver’s then- Archbishop Charles Chaput an opportunity to articulate the purpose of Catholic education. The pastor, Father Bill Breslin, wrote:
“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don’t want to put any child in that tough position-nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don’t believe in? It doesn’t make sense. ..The core issue for us Catholics on this question is our freedom and our obligation to teach about marriage and family life as our Faith teaches. If parents see the cultural interpretation of what tolerance has become as more important than the teachings of Jesus, then we become unfaithful to the Lord…Many of Jesus’ teachings were not popular. In fact, He was crucified for His teachings.
“Glossing over differences on essential matters, and pretending that crucial issues are irrelevant, is not tolerance. It is relativism, meaning that nothing is important anymore and everyone can have their own interpretation of what is goodness and truth. …The Catholic Church invests in parish schools so as to assist children in becoming disciples of Christ and to stand as a light shining in the darkness that has rejected Christianity and the truth of being human, including the meaning of human sexuality.”
Archbishop Chaput backed his priest. He wrote, in part: “Catholic schools began in this country in the early 19th century. Catholics started them as an alternative to the public schools of the day, which taught a curriculum often hostile to Catholic belief. In many ways times have changed, but the mission of Catholic schools has not. The main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values…
“The Church never looks for reasons to turn anyone away from a Catholic education. But the Church can’t change her moral beliefs without undermining her mission and failing to serve the many families who believe in that mission. If Catholics take their faith seriously, they naturally follow the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals; otherwise they take themselves outside the believing community.
“The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are “bad,” or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite. But what the Church does teach is that sexual intimacy by anyone outside marriage is wrong; that marriage is a sacramental covenant; and that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. These beliefs are central to a Catholic understanding of human nature, family and happiness, and the organization of society.
“ …Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith” with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.
“Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents. That isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community….”
On February 22, 2014 Clay Evans reviewed Teaching the Cat to Sit for the Boulder Daily Camera. He excerpted this statement (p. 227) from Theall’s mother: “I think you just need to seek out branches of the Catholic Church that are more accepting of this lifestyle…”
Jesus often spoke in parables, leaving it to us to reflect on their meaning. However at other times he was unmistakably cleat. Consider :
“And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.” –
I’m sorry that the pastor and the Archbishop misunderstood our Lord so badly, however when they get to Heaven, I’m sure Jesus will explain to them directly how, in this instance, they really screwed up.
C & H, Matthew 13: 10-11 disputes your claim with regards to parables, “His disciples came and asked him, “Why do you use parables when you talk to the people?” He replied, “You are permitted to understand the secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven, but others are not.”
“One day Jesus said to his disciples, “There will always be temptations to sin, but what sorrow awaits the person who does the tempting!
It would be better to be thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around your neck than to cause one of these little ones to fall into sin.” Luke 17: 1-2
What would we do without your wisdom, C&H? You are indeed an oracle of the ages.
Thanks Dan. I do my best between all the weddings, wakes and bat mitzvas.
How is it a screw up, C&H, to want to maintain consistency in that which is taught at home and at school? To set up a child as a tool to force the changes we adults want is cruel. If the parents are practicing Catholics, they would know this and put love of God and love of the child with which they have been gifted above their own desires.
As for ‘suffering the little children to come to Him’, the parents should take that to heart and cease living as spouses so as not to confuse their child and facilitate the little one’s ability to assimilate the Faith and live it.
The parents have chosen NOT to do this.
Maybe the school doesn’t want to face the fact that the child’s parents are doing just fine, thank you very much. Seeing a great kid with loving parents must make the job of teaching hate so much more difficult for the administrators.
How are they teaching hate?
You went to Catholic school. Did they teach hate?
Did you join the Catholic Church because it teaches hate?
Your words are very hurtful.
Ann Malley, let me be more direct since apparently I was too obtuse in my post at 11:09 AM.
Parents – in general – do what the do for their kids for their benefit, not to make them into some pawn, setting them up, sacrificing them so that their rook can attack the king. Especially, the face of the facts are that these parents sent their kids to a catholic school. Like every single set of parents who sent their kids to that school, they did so because they thought it was what was best for them. To suddenly accuse them – without a single shred of evidence and with plenty of evidence against the accusation – of doing it to set their kid up like a sacrificial pawn is wrong.
Thanks for the bolding, YFC, but I understood your message. You were very clear and you are exceedingly clear in that you hold values opposite those of the Catholic Church.
That said, it isn’t BEST for a child to set up inherent contradiction between home and school. There is no sudden accusation, and there is no lack of evidence, there is common sense which many on this thread seem to lack with regard to what it takes to raise a human child.
So thank goodness the school thought to take the best interest of the child to heart even though the parents did not – even if it was a misguided attempt on their part. This is a teaching moment for them, that is those considering themselves to be the parents, YFC.
But the subsequent media seeking on behalf of the parents seems to indicate that theirs isn’t only a concern for their child, but rather a drive to push their agenda on the Catholic Church. You can refuse to connect dots all you’d like, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there my friend.
I also find it odd, YFC, that you take issue with my accusing these parents of not acting in the best interest of the child while you do little more than vilify the school and their administrators by casting them as teachers of ‘hate’ when YOU do not know them.
To be clear, this is what you said, “…Maybe the school doesn’t want to face the fact that the child’s parents are doing just fine, thank you very much. Seeing a great kid with loving parents must make the job of teaching hate so much more difficult for the administrators.”
How rash and unfair of you to ascribe hate and uncharitable motives to others. How do you justify yourself?
The school didn’t ask these parents to enroll the child, YFC. The parents did that even while knowing the position of the Catholic Church. That screams set-up. And while that’s hypocritical enough, involving one’s own child and the mix is just plain mean and bad, irresponsible parenting.
Like sending a child to get a cup of steaming hot coffee and then blaming the coffee or the restaurant for the coffee being hot. Or blaming the restaurant if the the servers send the child back without the coffee because the they can see the child is too young to hold such a hot item. Oh, yes, shame on everyone, but the supposedly ‘loving’ parents. GAG.
It was not a set-up. Stop falsely accusing people you don’t even know.
Why any Catholic would approve of any person being denied a Catholic education is beyond me.
Traditional Catholics are glad to teach the faith.
It is like a baby being refused baptism because the parents do not live the faith. Traditional Catholics believe that the baby will go to hell if it dies unbaptized. All we can hope is that God knows the parents tried to have the baby baptized and will accept that.
Your analogy is very faulty.
Ann, Notice how Anonymous boldly claims “IT WAS NOT A SET UP”, yet he gives us no proof that it was not, either! I guess he thinks it is ok for him to make false claims. Of course he couldn’t finalize his rant without first getting in his dig calling your analogy faulty. How pathetic. :(
Anonymous, one needs to LIVE the Faith, not just be baptized in order to save one’s soul. So setting up a child to be baptized (as if it is only a magic bullet) while being taught one thing at school and another at home is wholly unfair. Why? Because the entire matter of living the faith will be dumped as immaterial because neither the school nor the parents thought enough about the actual faith to live it fully.
That’s the false setup, Anonymous. That’s the trap.
Oh, you say, but the child is baptized. Great. So now that child will have a greater culpability for not corresponding to the graces received at baptism and living the Faith. Being a baptized Catholic holds one to a higher standard, Anonymous, because we are supposed to KNOW better and act accordingly, not opt to join the ranks and then do as we please.
Judging from what is written here, these folks seem to have never been taught the Faith, Tracy, or duty. What they have learned of the Faith is equated with believing that discipline equals mean, bad, and cruel. It’s another sign of the times and a massive push of cognitive behavioral therapy. That is, if something is making you ‘feel’ guilty, reassess what the core principle is and twist it around.
What makes bad, bad? Who says it is bad?
God give us solid, consistent Catholic leadership that is not afraid of being Catholic. What a blessing that would be!
Ann Malley, please get a copy of the CCC, the Baltimore Catechism or any other Catechism and stop winging it. By your philosophy, people would be better off not baptized and not evangelized.
Ann, I see that your Anonymous accuser strikes again! I don’t expect him to stop harassing you until you either go away or he is confident that your rational and effective words are neutralized into irrelevance by the majority of readers here on CCD.
Once again he has labeled you with an extreme position he himself pulled out of a hat! He engages in Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals rule 13 “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Anonymous, please get someone to assist you in understanding human nature when trying to apply the precepts of the CCC and your Baltimore catechism. Nobody but you is promoting the bipolar notion of all or nothing. That is catastrophizing, Anonymous,and helps no one.
Success is achieved through consistency in word and deed. Hence the old saying, actions speak louder than words. You may read the CCC and the Baltimore Catechism all you’d like, but until you put them into action, you will teach and know very little.
Tracy, CCD has been nothing but educational for me as the dialogue here evidences more and more that the Social Justice crowd is anything but Catholic. Not to slam anyone either. Not even Anonymous.
But the notion of Justice of any kind without taking into account the injustice of disregarding God Himself and the precepts of nature and creation is astounding. It’s as if nobody wants to see Christ on the Cross suffering grievously as the direct result of our doing what we will – regardless of the label we put on it to make ‘ourselves’ feel better.
Instead of ‘we’re all sinners’ being the motivating factor behind Catholics banning together to sanctify and humble themselves before an all loving God, there is this confused delusion of embracing sin because we all do it. Masterstroke of Satan. Especially since those who perpetuate the notion of continuing the offensive against God actually consider themselves to be faithful to Him.
Have a great Holy Week!
It is incredible to me that anyone would think that a parent would pay good money and make the extra effort to send their child to a particular school, in this case a catholic school, as a “set up”, and not for the good of the child. On it’s face, sending one’s child to a catholic school should be seen as a GOOD thing, as an attempt to do what is BEST for the child. The mind that invents such an accusation of “set up” is a sad one, one that is distant from the compassionate mind of Christ.
That’s because it isn’t about the money, YFC. It’s about living the life which costs a lot more in the exchange of daily living. The mind that concocts such a cheap idea of the cost of what is good is not Catholic at its core, and has no notion of true compassion.
Dear Ann – Both you and I are minorities within the Church. I because I’m a lesbian who has not taken an informal vow of celibacy, though practically that’s how it’s worked out over the past several years, and you, because as I understand it, reject Vatican II and attend a mass not recognized by the hierarchy
In the Denver case the focus should have been on the children not the parents. Doesn’t a baptized Catholic child have the right to a Catholic education if at all possible? As for the confusion issue, my friend Julie sends her children to a Jewish school which teaches favorably about Israel. She is very, very, sympathetic to the situation of the Palestinians. She tells her kids that this is a single issue where she is “out of step” with the community and the kids understand that. I believe that if Helen had survived, we would have had children. They would have been baptized and gone to our parish Catholic school. As with Julie, we would have explained at the appropriate age that the Church disagrees with the moms about this.
How would they have ceased living as spouses? Separate, breaking up the only family the child has ever known? Again, I think the interests of the children come first.
I also have to wonder how far some of the conservative bishops are willing to take this kind of thinking. Are the moms here any different from a mother who is divorced and remarried, yet receives communion weekly or, to put a point on it, a child with parents who attend mass at an SSPX church or “independent” chapel?
Well, C&H, I disagree with you with regard to what is in the best interest of the child with regard to the practice of the Faith. The consistency of Faith should come first. The inconsistencies you’ve outlined are precisely why my family sought the consistency of a Traditional chapel as the one-off mentality that sets parents at odds with Church teaching – especially in matters of morals – makes for real problems in the developing child.
If this doesn’t matter and that doesn’t matter, what matters? And if what matters is doing what you believe is correct, then why cleave to the ‘right’ of a Catholic education when you obviously don’t want one. Or at least not a complete one. That’s setting a child up for failure. Not in the modern arena of pick and choose, but in being a practicing/believing Catholic, absolutely.
Children reared by divorced and remarried Catholics who go ahead and receive Holy Communion are setting a continual example of rejecting basic teaching regarding marriage and the truth behind the Blessed Sacrament. Families that say, the Church disagrees with mommies in our situation, set their children up to break away from the Faith and/or seek their own way with regard to Faith and morals. Why? Because the Church is against ‘mommy’. Talk about laying a guilt trip on a child. (And that is the parents doing for they were the thinking adults involved in the scenario before a child was ever involved.)
As for your putting a point on it, C&H, thank you. Independent Catholic parishes and the SSPX have their own schools precisely because the consistency of Catholic education in diocesan schools is notoriously sketchy. What is taught/allowed depends on whether there is a Conservative and/or Liberal Bishops. (That is why my husband and I home schooled for the most part. But we wanted a CATHOLIC education for our kids.)
So if these lesbians feel so strongly about their brand of Catholic, let them school their child themselves. They obviously disagree with the Catholic Church and the school system. That’s why this scenario screams media set-up to me. Now it’s book tours and attempting to change hearts/minds via human sympathy, not the actual Faith.
C & H, what gives you the strange idea that you are a minority in today’s Catholic Church?
I would argue that it is likely a sad reality that the majority of Catholics in the pews today, are living in persistent UN-REPENTANT mortal sin. Think of how many Catholics knowingly voted for pro-abortion politicians or use/and or promote contraception and have not yet repented of these atrocities against God. (This is just the short list)
Tracy .. I have a cousin who obsesses about how every other Catholic is a bad Catholic. The family joke got to be “Pretty soon it’ll just be her and the Pope and then they’ll start to wonder about each other.” Well a lot of traditional, conservative or whatever you want to call them have now jumped to the point of wondering about the Pope. Serously, do you really believe you are less of a sinner than the rest of us?
C & H, if you were really a concerned Catholic, your question of me would not be “do you really believe you are less of a sinner than the rest of us” , but rather, “Are you walking the straight and narrow path” and “Are you living in un-repented mortal sin”?
The New Testament is rife with warnings about the difficulty of entering Heaven. I wouldn’t be so dismissive about these warnings if I were you. I think Jesus would agree with me that the majority of Catholics, by their own admission, fall into the category Jesus warns of when He says in Matthew 7: 13; “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and MANY enter through it.
It’s not about wondering whether or not anyone is less of a sinner than anyone else, C&H. We all are. But our job here is to strive toward sanctity.
So while your poor cousin may be considered the family joke, the really sad joke is that way too many think so little of sin that they do not bother making use of the confessional. One needs to be aware of sinfulness in order to seek mercy. That is why it is imperative that truths be taught in word and action. Not to be mean, but to lead the sick to that which will cure them.
Tracy, I agree with you when you say “The New Testament is rife with warnings about the difficulty of entering Heaven.”
I think the point of the New Testament authors, if you read the REST of the NT, was that if you think you can find salvation by obeying the law, you will find it difficult to enter heaven. It is possible, but very difficult. But clinging to the logos, to Jesus who is Word and Law, we are escorted into the Kingdom.
We can try to enter the gates by our own actions, by our own adherence to an external law, but unless we cling to the one who IS the law, we are likely to come up short. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law – for us and for our sins.
Clinging to the Logos requires actively striving to renounce that which is inherently sinful, YFC, not absolving oneself of the necessity of striving against sin because Our Lord is merciful.
We are to go and sin no more, YFC, and that includes avoiding the near occasion of sin. And you cannot teach or preach that while advocating for the legalization and/or acceptance of inherently disordered actions.
So while we will always come up short with regard to our striving, increased success can be had by cleaving to the Logos, that is Christ, that is His Grace, which will supply if we let Him. Those seeking to institutionalize that which is mortally sinful negate that grace.
C&H go back and read the Bible again.
When parents openly commit the mortal sin of homosexual relationships (acts) and scandal, all other children and their parents will be scandalized. This will cause grave confusion with children.
The actively homosexual parents are those who cause the grave scandal even to their own children.
This is what Jesus really said: CCC: ” 2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized.
It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”
Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.
We will all agree that all parents have power over their children, both by example as well as words.
We will all agree that school administrators and teachers have power over children while children are at school.
Setting the example that the homosexual lifestyle (which includes sexual acts) is not a Mortal Sin – – –
CCC: ” 2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged.
“Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!”
Mt 18:6; 1 Cor 8:10-13; Mt 7:15; Lk 17:1.
Dear C&H, please read the article, or where you referring to another article.
“I think you just need to seek out branches of the Catholic Church that are more accepting of this lifestyle…” Most Holy Redeemer certainly meets that description.”
The Gospel of John Chapter 15
A continuation of Christ’s discourse to his disciples.
 I am the true vine; and my Father is the husbandman.  Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.  Now you are clean by reason of the word, which I have spoken to you.  Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me.  I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.
 If any one abide not in me, he shall be cast forth as a branch, and shall wither, and they shall gather him up, and cast him into the fire, and he burneth.  If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, you shall ask whatever you will, and it shall be done unto you.  In this is my Father glorified; that you bring forth very much fruit, and become my disciples.  As the Father hath loved me, I also have loved you. Abide in my love.  If you keep my commandments, you shall abide in my love; as I also have kept my Father’ s commandments, and do abide in his love.
Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible
For those of us unclear about what Catherine is posting about, allow me to provide a definition or two:
“A husbandman in England in the medieval and early modern period was a free tenant farmer or small landowner. The social status of a husbandman was below that of a yeoman. ”
Abideth all ye well, my fellow catholics. And please do get a decent translation of the Sacred Scriptures!
YFC- Because of your support of the Mortal Sins of homosexual acts, in many of your posts, your credibility is not reliable regarding anything Catholic or in the Bible.
I will be glad to look up any version of the Bible that you wish. RSV-CE
1 Cor 6:9-10
” Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. ”
How about the protestant King James Version: 1 Cor 6:9-10.
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. ”
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?
Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
God bless you, YFC, but there is no need to talk down to the masses to explain Catherine’s post.
ARB. Chaput as a faithful son of the Church is totally correct. Unfortunately there are many suffering from the egotism of kindness who will blast this decision as has recently been seen in NC.
I think it is a horrible distortion of Catholic social teaching to expel a child because of the alleged sins of his parents. Imagine, for even one moment, if your child was expelled because of things you do or did do. What is the child to do, divorce his parents?? What are the parents to do, divorce each other?? Give the child up for adoption? What a ridiculous pile of nonsense this controversy reveals.
The parents should behave as parents in the best interest of the child. And if the parents perceive that Catholic School and teaching is the best for their child they should support that teaching by following it themselves.
Too may people underestimate a child’s ability to scent hypocrisy, YFC. And speaking of horrible distortions of Catholic social teaching – try two women (or men for that matter) posing as a married couple. Call Chubby Checker and let’s all twist until we’re blue. But that won’t make it Catholic or moral.
So you would ban the admission of any child from a Catholic school unless the parents are practicing Catholics?
Ann, your positions get more extreme with each post. That would affirmatively limit the ability of the church to evangelize.
Nobody said anything about not allowing non-Catholic children to attend Catholic schools. No need to catastrophize.
But having supposedly ‘Catholic’ parents living in manifest, public mortal sin while asserting that their child has a right to a Catholic education is greatly misguided if not mentally unkind. If these parents feel so strongly about the Faith, enough to fight for their child’s right to receive a Catholic education, they should begin that education at home.
Living the Faith is the best evangelization tool, not teaching one thing and then doing another. Or rather doing that which goes completely against the Faith.
If that’s extreme, I cannot imagine what you would call a person who’d be willing to die for the Faith. I mean, really, Anonymous.
Ann, thank you for your thoughtful and rational post. No surprise that Anonymous felt the need to label you as holding the extreme position! You are obviously very effective. :)
No surprise that it was Anonymous who threw in the extreme position, in an attempt to pin it on to you! Clearly he has no shame.
Don’t know if I’m effective, Tracy, but hopefully consistent.
God bless :)
YFC, clearly your concerns are for the advancement of the queer agenda and not for this or any other child for that matter. Compassion has no place when it stands in the way of achieving wicked goals :(
Tracy, perhaps it might help your Lenten program if you tried for just one day to not make up accusations against people. You really do have a moral obligation to avoid calumny.
YFC has just demonstrated Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, Rule 4. “Make the enemy (that would be me!) live up to its own book of rules.”
Fancy that, YFC is concerned about my soul! :)
Do you have a moral obligation against sodomy and abortion?
Pope Francis is saying “Walk with people.” I have a feeling a different decision would be made now. It is better to include people and help them understand what is wrong that to reject them and give them nowhere to go to learn the Truth.
Your last sentence seems odd.
Walking with people doesn’t preclude honesty, Anonymous. And this couple isn’t being honest in their pursuit of that which is Catholic for their child. That said, often the word NO is the best and most efficacious lesson a person can receive. It makes a body stop and think about the ‘seriousness’ of a situation they have casually dismissed as not being a big deal.
YFC, Show us in “Catholic Social Teaching” where all Catholic schools may not refuse any child into their program.
Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput is to be host to the pope’s October 2015 trip to the U.S. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has invited the pope to address the full Congress and Pres. Obama invited him to the White House. The pope’s visit is a “thank you” for Chaput’s exemplary service to the plutocracy as leader of the U.S. bishops’ assault against Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008. As head of the Denver archdiocese until 2011, Chaput gained the support of local moguls, turned out faithfully Republican priests from his two seminaries, obstructed justice for victims of clerical sex abuse and founded a nationwide campus ministry and influential media empire.
Tracy where did I ever say that? Are you making things up AGAIN?
YFC, your belittling, “Are you making things up AGAIN?”, snide remark, is a perfect example of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” Rule #5 “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
Now, if you notice I only put quotes around “Catholic Social Teaching”. This being said, if one re-reads your April 10, 2014, 5:11 pm post again, he should be able to conclude that my request is quite reasonable based on that post. So, once again, I would like it if you would show us in “Catholic Social Teaching”, where all Catholic schools may not refuse a child into their program?
Again, Tracy, I am telling you I never said what you are claiming I said. It happens over and over again that I am called to answer for things I never say. You said “YFC, Show us in “Catholic Social Teaching” where all Catholic schools may not refuse any child into their program.”
I never ever said that a Catholic school may not refuse any child into their program. That is neither the literal meaning from what I said, nor can it be reasonably drawn from what I said.
A charitable response from you might have been, “Oh I’m sorry YFC, I misunderstood your post”. Instead, I am now being accused of yet something ELSE that is not true, being a follower of Alinsky. Honestly, I had never heard of him except from the criticisms from the right, and the only time I have ever read what he wrote is in YOUR OWN QUOTES OF HIM.
So even while denying that you make things up, you make up yet another thing: that I am following Alinsky’s “rules”. Please try to live in the real world, not the one you make up in your own head.
Tracy didn’t say that you said precisely that, YFC, as you well know, but rather asked you a very simple question predicated on your bizarre assertion:
“…I think it is a horrible distortion of Catholic social teaching to expel a child because of the alleged sins of his parents.” (That would indicate, YFC, that you believe the Church to be in error for refusing this child entrance into the school.)
In light of the above, you obviously have interesting views on Catholic Social Teaching. So instead of hammering Tracy, why not just answer the question. Surely this is your opportunity to shine, YFC. As for mirroring the tactics of Saul Alinsky, many people follow patterns that they are unaware of but are highly predictable.
You may not ‘know’ of him, but you would likely do him proud as you appear to be his natural son if not a top pupil.
YFC, OK, maybe I should be more clear. Show us where in Catholic Social Teaching that a Catholic School may not refuse a child on the basis of the sins of his parents?
Now as far as Saul Alinsky’s 13 “Rule’s for Radicals” goes, Alinsky’s rules are really no different than the game rules used by all Leftist’s Radicals. It is really irrelevant whether or not YOU have ever heard of Alinsky before or not, the fact remains that the tactics you implement in your numerous post here on CCD are one in the same with Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.
Now for the record, I have never read a single post from you ever claiming to be a “leftist radical”. That being said in the medical world there is a saying that goes like this; “if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck. :(
And more to the point, Tracy, I would imagine that said ‘ducks’ never claimed to be ducks or held a press conference or read up on ‘how to be a duck’ either or ever ‘came out’ as ducks. Yet, hmmm, these feathered, billed, pan footed waddlers are ducks. Oh-my-gosh! Amazing! Ducks are ducks! Only in the 21st century!
Thanks again for another excellent post!
Ann, thank you for your two latest post! We should probably prepare ourselves for the outrage our comments about ducks might garner from our politically-correct-Leftists-thought-gestapo here on CCD. :)
Maybe PETA is going to get involved because I’ve been viciously species-holed innocent, unsuspecting waterfowl. That is, ducks should be able to choose.
The feigned outrage is rather entertaining, though.
God bless :)
Ann, dittos with regards to the amusement factor! :)
YFC, as of this writing, I would still love to know where in Catholic Social Teaching have you drummed up the notion that per your April 10, 2014 at 5:11 pm post “it is a horrible distortion of Catholic social teaching to expel a child because of the alleged sins of his parents”?
Tracy, start with a complete reading of Gaudium et spes. Here’s the link for your enjoyment:
Oh, the joys of Vatican II documents that can be interpreted one way or the other. Thanks for the link, YFC, and demonstrating the complete ridiculousness of touting the concrete teachings therein.
Wow, just, wow! YFC stating that he knows better than the Bishop and administrators involved in the case of the two lesbians. Just…. Wow :)
YFC, I have never claimed to be an expert on “Catholic Social Teaching”. You are the one who made the original claim that, “it is a HORRIBLE DISTORTION of Catholic social teaching to expel a child because of the alleged sins of his parents”, so the burden of truth remains on you, not me.
Saul Alinsky’s 13 Rules fo Radicals:
#2.“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” (in your case YFC, “your people” refers to “Queer Activists”)
#3. “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” (in this case “the enemy” refers to me)
Your Fellow Catholic, to be a Catholic you must believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Your response reveals that you don’t believe what the Catholic Church teaches, so you are not a Catholic. There is plenty of confusion to go around, without non Catholics pretending to be Catholics, and worse yet commenting as if they were.
When will they close Most Holy Redeemer Parish?????
If they can close St. Brigit’s and Sacred Heart and others in the City, they certainly need to close Holy Redeemer!!!!!
They won’t close it down. It’s one of the most profitable parishes in the region.
Oh yes we keep forgetting…its all about the money. Lord have mercy!
Douay-Rheims Bible Matthew 6:24
No man can serve two masters. For either he will hate the one, and love the other: or he will sustain the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon(money).
All parents who send their children to Catholic Schools must expect that all children are taught the Catholic Faith without exception.
This includes: CCC 2357, 2358, 2359 & 2396.
Bible: Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:9-10; 1 Tim1:10.
Homosexual ACTS are Mortal Sins. Those who do not repent will go to Hell for eternity. PRACTICING homosexuals who believe this, and want their children to know this are indeed weird. Why would they continue PRACTICING mortal sins?
These same weird people who commit the additional mortal sin of SCANDAL, by setting the bad example for their children – that homosexual acts are an accepted lifestyle.
It appears they merely want to infiltrate our Schools by using children ?
More proof of rampant confusion in the modern Catholic Church!