The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionBoulder pastor says Jesus turned some away
Mar. 17, 2010
Father William Breslin
Boulder, Colorado
Father William Breslin, pastor of Sacred Heart of Jesus parish, seemed to be a tired soldier of Christ as he sat outside his parish church March 13 greeting parishioners as they left the five o’clock Saturday Mass.
For more than a week, since word broke he had forbidden two young girls, five and three, to further their education in another year in the parish school because their moms are a lesbian couple, the parish -- and Breslin -- have been under attack, the parish has polarized, and even the school might be threatened with decreased enrollments.
“Let’s pray that we find ways to come together, that we find the means for reconciliation,” he said during the prayers of the faithful only minutes earlier. Already, it was said, long time parishioners had, at least for now, decided to worship elsewhere.
Reconciliation had been the theme of the mass readings and they seemed particularly appropriate. Sacred Heart parishioners are now passionately divided seemingly, though not exclusively, on generational lines, those over fifty likely to support the mindset of their priest more than others.
In this progressive outdoor loving community on the eastern edge of the Rockies, where people pride themselves on being open and welcoming, holding the line on traditional values is not easy or popular.
The issue that has emerged here has to do with the meaning of love. Is the love that Jesus taught heavy on compassion and light on judgment? Or does Christian love require vigilance and hard choices, separating eternal truths from passing fancies and misguided desires?
As parishioners left mass Saturday a number stopped to offer supportive words to the man they call “Father Bill.” One elderly couple, standing next to him, said: “Father Bill, keep the faith. We’re praying for you. Stay strong.”
“Do pray for me,” their priest, eyes glancing up, replied.
I asked Breslin what moved him to ban the girls from entering the parish elementary school and he responded: “Let me tell you clearly. This whole matter is about having the freedom to uphold the teachings of our faith. It’s about preserving that freedom when a secular society doesn’t want us to have it. The same thing is happening in Washington, D.C., where government is dictating to the church."
When Breslin looks out at the world he sees an increasingly secular society, one that has lost its moral compass, and, as it grows more secular, it is all the more important the Catholic faithful stand firm and speak their minds, defending the faith.
Preview NCR's Family Life Issue
Watch this video from NCR Editor Dennis Coday for highlights from our annual Family Life special section.
You won't find these articles on our website. Subscribe now to receive all the content from each biweekly issue.
This is what Breslin thinks he has done, taking a stand against homosexuality.
The priest writes a blog on the parish web site. In it he has explained his seemingly unpopular decision.
Last week he allowed comments to be posted freely. When they became so overwhelmingly critical of him, he took them off the site.
On his blog, Breslin wrote, "The complaint [against me] goes more or less this way: Jesus would never have turned anyone away, no matter where they came from or who they were. Now let us set things right.
"Actually Jesus did turn people away. In Mark 5 Jesus healed the demoniac, and after the healing the man wanted to become a disciple. Jesus said, No, go back to your own people and tell them all that the Lord in His mercy has done for you. And when the rich young man wanted to follow Jesus, He told him, Go first and sell what you have and give it to the poor and then come follow me. And in John 6, Jesus taught a very hard message so that most of those following Him turned away and would no longer walk in His company. He did not soften His message so as to win them back.
"So the post-modern thought that Jesus was warm and fuzzy and making no demands on anyone is just not true and avoids the very hard teachings that eventually led to His crucifixion."
Breslin wrote the church cannot simply give in to new thinking on marriage and family, writing: "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 and we lose the meaning of the beatitude, “Blessed are you when they insult you for My sake, for the Kingdom of Heaven is yours.” Many of Jesus’ teachings were not popular. In fact, He was crucified for His teachings.”
“The issue, he went on, “is not about our not accepting ‘sinners.’ It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents. It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the church cannot agree to that.”
Many who have criticized Breslin have said he has been inconsistent in the application of Catholic teaching. "Why gays and lesbians?" they ask. "Why not those who are divorced and remarried without the blessing of the church?"
Responds Breslin: “People who are divorced do not say divorce is good. There are no pro-divorce parades. Divorce is a tragedy for everybody. So there’s no comparing other issues to the issue of gay marriage. Actually, by this decision we really want to protect the child and his or her parents from the necessary conflict that their relationship would bring to a clear-seeing and committed Catholic community.
“The policy of the Catholic school system is also to protect the teachers from being forced – in our own schools – to face huge conflicts within the classroom, so they can teach clearly, and also support the family life of the children they are teaching.”
One supportive comment moved Breslin to share it with his readers.
He wrote: “One of you readers sent me a quote from George Orwell that says it all: ‘During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. Well, welcome to the revolution! And the revolution is to think differently about love.’
If love were defined as doing or saying things that make people feel good, then such ‘love’ would have been a choice often in conflict with Christ’s actions and teachings – He readily challenged and confronted sin and those who participated in it. But if, instead, we adopt a more mature definition of love, as wanting what is truly best for another (e.g., a properly formed conscience, knowing right from wrong, correct relationship with God, and awakening into eternal salvation) and doing our part to help accomplish that, then there is no conflict between telling the truth and being loving.”
Responding to the negative comments posted on his blog, Breslin wrote: “Many of the negative comments I have received have inferred that the only acceptable path of love means never speaking the truth about anything that would upset another. ‘Live and let live’ would be the motto for this manner of loving.
“Would it not be far more loving to confront a loved one than to be silent about his or her pursuing, for instance, a destructive addiction, even though alcohol or drugs may make him or her ‘feel good’? In the case of drugs or alcohol, as with inappropriate sexual behavior, the parties involved could say that they derive some sense of ‘happiness’ from their choices. Nonetheless, the wisdom of the church tells us that wrong sources of this supposed ‘happiness’ are ultimately harmful and only seek to fill a void -- a void which, according to the church Fathers, can only be filled by a right relationship with God.”
Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput has supported Breslin. He issued a statement that has appeared in the local media, has been on the parish web site, and in the parish bulletin.
Chaput wrote that the Catholic 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. … 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. The church cannot change these teachings because, in the faith of Catholics, they are the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Support independent Catholic journalism.
|
“The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves. 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. Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will. They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.”
[Editor's Note: In the days ahead NCR will publish the views of Sacred Heart parishioners who disagree with Fr. Breslin's decision. They talk about how the decision has affected their parish, even possibly threatening the school.]
[Tom Fox is NCR editor. His e-mail address is tfox@ncronline.org.]
Wrong Pastor: IT'S ABOUT THE
Wrong Pastor:
IT'S ABOUT THE CHILDREN, BAPTIZED CHILDREN, WHAT WAS THEIR SIN?
You dismissed the children from the school, not the parents.
I think you regret your decision and are grasping for straws to alleviate your guilt.
You made a mistake, be Christlike, admit it, correct the situation and move on.
Pride is a deadly sin.
You don't seem to realize
You don't seem to realize that the Church teaches that a child is NOT to be baptized unless there is a "well-founded hope" that the parents will actually raise the child as faithful Catholics, "in" the Catholic faith.
If the Church says it cannot *baptize* a child if there is no "well-founded hope" that the parents will raise the child according to the Catholic faith, then why would the Church be compelled to *educate* a baptized child whose parents refuse to adhere to the truths of the Catholic faith???
NONE of this is about the failure of a pastor or the Church, but rather it's about the failure of "parents" to fully embrace the truth of the Catholic faith and the impact *their* failure has on these children...
But the children are ALREADY
But the children are ALREADY baptized.
What about their souls?
You obviously are blinded by laws and regulations concerining their parents but don't give a damn about the children.
This is HARMING the children, driving them away from the faith.
Jesus said that it is better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be thrown into the sea than to cause harm to these little ones.
Go get your neck measured for that millstone pharisee.
How can you tell the parents
How can you tell the parents are now going to raise the child a faithful Catholic? Who are you to judge? You cannot. Only God knows.
When they had told me at
When they had told me at St.Mary’s School in Alexandria that His Holiness could not make a mistake, I had no trouble believing it. – James Carrol, Constantine’s Sword
No one should actually be surprised with the reasoning provided by Archbishop Chaput and Fr. Breslin after all the Church affirms today that homosexuality is an “intrinsic moral evil”.
However, ‘A New Catechism- Catholic Faith for Adults’ published shortly after Vatican II in 1969 spoke of homosexuality in these terms: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them"
Compare this compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing homosexuality as “an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for them]".
The 1993 Catechism of the Catholic Church would eventually reflect many of Ratzinger’s ideas such as his repeated condemnations of homosexual orientation as “objectively disordered”. According to David Gibson author of ‘The Rule of Benedict’ the CDF criticised civil antidiscrimination protections for gays and lesbians. And, in 1998 the CDF had the U.S. bishops rewrite portions of their pastoral letter to parents of homosexuals as a “deep-seated” rather than “fundamental” dimension of personality, and deleted a passage that encouraged the use of terms such as homosexual, gay, and lesbian from the pulpit in or to give people permission to discuss homosexuality. Again in 2003 Ratzinger’s office issued a statement against civil unions for homosexuals that described adoption by gay couples as a form of “violence” against children and “gravely immoral”. The Pope has been very clear about his position on Vatican II and his desire to build a church on strict orthodoxy even to include the likes of the Society St.Pius X.
So, again no one should actually be surprised with the reasoning provided by Chaput and Breslin. Pope Benedict XVI has almost single-handedly been responsible for changing Catholic attitudes about homosexuality. For those people whose faith is deeply anchored in the Church homosexuality will remain as an evil to be hated and combated. However those who stand firm in their faith based on a merciful and unconditionally loving God will know better.
All this while the church
All this while the church allows those who aided pedophiles to celebrate Eucharist and remain in their episcopal offices.
The lesbians and their kids are expelled; but bishops cover for pedophile priests and the Vatican is yet to expel a bishop for covering, aiding and otherwise looking the other way at child-abusing priests within the ranks.
A pathetic double standard that breeds the ugliness of self hatred that the Boulder pastor demonstrates.
You don't seem to realize
You don't seem to realize that the Church teaches that a child is NOT to be baptized unless there is a "well-founded hope" that the parents will actually raise the child as faithful Catholics, "in" the Catholic faith.
The entire family is at Mass every week...how many Catholic families can say that anymore?
The parents are sending their girls to Catholic school...how many Catholic families can say that anymore?
There are "Catholic" families who show up at Sunday Mass seldom to never...tuition for Catholic schools has priced so many out of being able to send their children to Catholic schools...many "Catholic" parents either don't send their children to religious ed classes or, if they do, think that the classes are enough and don't even mention faith or religion to their children...are those parents "Catholic" enough??
Jesus ate with prostitutes, tax collectors, sinners of all kinds...are we expected to do any less?? Are we to limit Eucharist only to the very "perfect" as judged by doctrines & rules or are we to share our table with everyone?? Jesus didn't "send people away"...
"Are we to limit Eucharist
"Are we to limit Eucharist only to the very "perfect" as judged by doctrines & rules or are we to share our table with everyone?? Jesus didn't "send people away"..."
Horsefeathers!
Eucharist is closed to all who are not Catholics in a state of grace. If you are a Catholic with a mortal sin on your soul, you are not to present yourself for Communion.
Jesus often allowed people to walk away because His teachings were too hard.
Anonymous on Mar. 21,
Anonymous on Mar. 21, 2010.
You stated:
'"Are we to limit Eucharist only to the very "perfect" as judged by doctrines & rules or are we to share our table with everyone?? Jesus didn't "send people away"..."
Horsefeathers!
Eucharist is closed to all who are not Catholics in a state of grace. If you are a Catholic with a mortal sin on your soul, you are not to present yourself for Communion.
Jesus often allowed people to walk away because His teachings were too hard.'
-----------------------------------------
Jesus DID NOT MAKE THE LAWS SURROUNDING THE RECEPTION OF HOLY COMMUNION---popes, cardinals, bishops, etc. did.
If you study Church History (I teach it), you will find out that at different times in the history of the Church, very few people received Communion. The reason? Priests preaching to their congregations and visiting preachers taught the people that they were so unworthy, so sinful, that they should not go to Communion often. BUT JESUS DID NOT TEACH THIS.
In its past, the Church used to make peasants sit in the back of the churches and the nobility sit up front (because they were worthier). The folks in the back of Church couldn't even see the Body and Blood of Christ raised in elevation after consecration---nobody cared. BUT JESUS DID NOT TEACH THIS.
And in the early days of the Church, the Sacrament of Penance, as we know it did not exist. It took a few centuries to develop. The Eucharist was the first sacrament of healing---"It is not the healthy who need the Physican, but those who are sick."
When (and not IF) we learn that homosexuality is part of the DNA of some persons, the Church will have to face the fact that God created all people---straight and gay. And we cannot be self-righteously stating that they are in mortal sin and condemning them to hell. Because JESUS DID NOT TEACH THIS.
1 Cor 11:27 Therefore,
1 Cor 11:27 Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks the chalice of the Lord UNWORTHILY, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.
Is it not good enough for you that Paul wrote this?
As for teaching church history, I would expect that you would agree that just as we cannot truly judge the intentions of our ancestors' actions we should not judge why the Church limited the reception of Holy Communion.
May I also point out that even though Jesus before his Resurrection did not lay down a law on a tablet regarding the frequency of Communion (he neither said receive daily or yearly or once in your life) once the Holy Spirit came at Pentecost power was given to the Apostles and their successors to create such laws.
PRIDE i GUESS YOU DONT KNOW
PRIDE i GUESS YOU DONT KNOW YOUR RELIGION
I give Fr. Breslin a lot of
I give Fr. Breslin a lot of credit for doing this interview. But I think his comparison to divorce is a false one. "There are no divorce parades" because it is LEGAL to get a divorce. The right to divorce a spouse who is destructive to the family already exists--as it should.
I think Fr. Breslin is following his conscience, which he is obligated to do. However, what's missing from this interview is why the children's attendance at the school is a problem NOW but wasn't when the children were first admitted to the school. What was the catalyst for the school's reversal?
Some questions remain unasked...and unanswered.
Friends: I am searching for
Friends: I am searching for a principle that supports Father Breslin's decision. Is this something that came from the congregation? His words did not sound like that was the case. It seemed unilateral in conception and action.
Here is a principle:
Here is a principle:
Conversion comes through compassion.
Read the Rule for Monks written 1500 years ago by Our Holy Father Saint Benedict.
Each adherent takes a vow of conversion, and the Rule provides for the community compassion which makes this possible.
Conversion comes through patient compassion.
Not by banishment, which achieves nothing, and less than nothing.
Unanswered questions ... are
Unanswered questions
... are often what ensues when a story is just breaking. You think this guy sits in his office all day saying to himself, gee, wonder if this'll get on CNN? No, life goes on when the cameras aren't rolling. One question worth asking is whether he was the pastor when the children were admitted, and if he was, was he sure that the diocese would have his back if he made such a tough call.
God bless this prophetic
God bless this prophetic priest for doing the right thing.
Prophetic priest...I think
Prophetic priest...I think not. Given that the 'mothers' of these children are not abiding by Church teaching; but what about the children? What is their sin? Thus the prophetic priest takes us back hundreds of years to a time where the sin of the parent, becomes the sin of the children. Gee, good Father...did you not read that part of the scripture where Jesus reflutes that belief?
Father, the article addressed
Father, the article addressed the concern you raised. The good of the children was a factor in the decision. How would it be for the children to attend a school that taught what their 'parents' were doing was immoral? Certainly you can dispute that point. But I don't think it is unfair to assume that their dismissal from the school was meant to be punitive.
I don't think your comment
I don't think your comment resolves the issue because if what you say is true, then the children would not be allowed to attend religious instruction. Yet, Fr. Breslin is allowing this. The childern will be taught in religious instruction excatly what they would have been taught if they were allowed to attend the school. So, I am still left searching for what the distinction is.
Peace and prayers,
John David
The sin of the two women
The sin of the two women parents has been raised, but two women living together parenting children in a loving relationship is no proof they are engaged in any homosexual behaviour. I seem to recall from their earlier interview with NCR that they had not been asked if they were celibate or not. If they are celibate, where is the sin according to the Church?
David
Australia
Thank you David! That is
Thank you David! That is exactly the thinking of wonderul priests that I work for. We do not know what goes on in their private lives and therefore we are in no position to pass judgement (I believe a power much smarter than mere humans has been chraged with that task!)
There's a fair to middling
There's a fair to middling chance that within his school population, there are co-habitating couples ... the children of these couples will face the same issues that Fr. is concerned about. How will these children feel when they find out their parents are not welcome in the church? I'm not really sure often a 3-year old and 5-year old will come up against the churches teaching on homosexuality anyway.
deacon mark
God bless this prophetic
God bless this prophetic priest for doing the right thing.
________________________________________________
I say God Bless this pathetic priest. He needs the grace to change his malformed conscience that allowed him to set such a sinfully bad example. Judgmental ways that informed this priest to make innocent children pay for lifestyle choices their parents made is dead wrong!
Freedom of religion should never allow, protect, be understood as, or function as a free pass for freedom of bigotry. No. The legislature needs to protect all its citizens from s free pass to misuse and abuse freedom of religion.
"So the post-modern thought
"So the post-modern thought that Jesus was warm and fuzzy and making no demands on anyone is just not true and avoids the very hard teachings that eventually led to His crucifixion."
Anonymous, it just goes to show you how much Father Bill knows about Jesus. It was not a secular society that led him to his death but the priests of the temple because he would not go along with their teachings. Father Bill should follow his example.
Moreover, Fr. Bill's reliance
Moreover, Fr. Bill's reliance on this citation is badly placed. John 6 is about Jesus "unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you." The better citation would have been Jesus meeting the woman at the well (John 4). She had 5 husbands and was living in sin. Jesus manages to bring her to believe in his hope for salvation without being quite so judgmental.
So the families where mom and
So the families where mom and dad "live in sin" and are not married ... are those children being asked to find other educational opportunities? I'll bet not!
Thank you for presenting Fr.
Thank you for presenting Fr. Breslin's views as they are, without interpretation or critique. NCR is at its best when it reports the facts no one else can or will. I look forward to reading the views of Sacred Heart Parishioners on this issue.
My first reaction to this
My first reaction to this story is the innocence of the children. They have done nothing wrong.
But Father, as a Catholic
But Father, as a Catholic school teacher I am faced with the conflict of teaching the sacredness of marriage and the inability of a divorced Catholic to remarry to high school students whose parents are exactly in that state of defiance of the Church teaching. It is uncomfortable for me and for the students. Are we then to begin turning away children of fallen Catholics?
I've been a teacher in
I've been a teacher in catholic schools most of my life. Now imagine: if I only would teach those children whose parents would live a truly catholic life as interpreted and defined by Chaput and Breslin, I would lose at least half of my students. So, if lesbian parents of children pose a problem according to Chaput and Breslin, then, if I follow their logic(??), so would divorced parents, or non-married parents, or parents using contraceptives, or not attending Sunday Mass, or the mother having had an abortion, or the father abusing his wife, etc., etc.
Children of these and similar parents in a truly catholic school as defined and interpreted by Breslin and Chaput, would at some point be confronted by "the truth", so that they would be better off in a non-catholic school, if I follow their logic(??). Furthermore, teachers would not have to feel ill at ease when teaching "the truth", since they would simply reinforce what their students are learning and experiencing in their truly catholic homes from their truly catholic parents.
Would there be any catholic schools left?
Fed, this is nonsense. Let me
Fed, this is nonsense. Let me share my experience. My mother and father were divorced when I was 3 years old and they both remarried. They were catholics. I went through 8 years of catholic primary school. Went through catholic high school. Went through two years of college with the Benedictines, and then went to seminary for six years. I was then ordained a priest.
There is no good reason why these two children cannot go to a catholic school.
This isn't about accepting
This isn't about accepting the couple's lifestyle, it's about accepting their children. Fr. Breslin's response does not adequately address the issue of the two BAPTIZED CATHOLIC CHILDREN to whom he is denying a Catholic education. The transmission of the Catholic faith to these two children should be Fr. Breslin's central concern, all the more so if he feels their parents are in an improper relationship. He is FAILING in his responsibility as a pastor of the faithful.
I agree with you. Can we even
I agree with you. Can we even begin to imagine the work of the Holy Spirit encouraging these parents to place their daughters among this educational faith community and what good the community could do for them? Wow, perhaps even what this particular couple could do among the community of faith?
This man wants to be a bishop
This man wants to be a bishop and he would fit right in with most of the current crowd.
Fr. Breslin's arguments about
Fr. Breslin's arguments about Jesus sending people away seem rather short sighted -- 'tell your people what the Lord has done for you' -- this man did not need to be in the presence of Jesus -- he had God's healing within him and he knew the full measure of God's love. Hardly a case of exclusion.
And the rich young man -- Jesus tells him what to do, and the young man cannot do it. Jesus looks at him as he leaves with love, knowing that the young man has great possessions. Let us allegorize the young man -- the Church also has great possessions -- tremendous amounts of property and art worth fortunes. Has the church given them up in order to follow Jesus???? If the shoe fits...
I wouldn't be surprised if
I wouldn't be surprised if Boulder becomes another Lincoln, Neb., with people founding their own churches in a "We Are Church" atmosphere with ex-priests or ex-nuns in ministry positions and funding them quite well, I imagine, given the wealth in the area. It would prove an interesting contrast to the autocracy of Chaput and this local pastor.
So in reaction to one priest
So in reaction to one priest trying to protect the souls of his parishioners, a group of schismatics and heretics will come in and deliberately lead souls into sin and damnation. Great NCR-worthy solution!
No need for them to 'found'
No need for them to 'found' their own church: they can 'find' other Christian churches where gay and lesbian couples--with their children--are welcomed with open arms. Among them the Episcopal Church which is a fully Catholic church with Catholic sacraments, a married Catholic priesthood, blessings for gay and lesbian couples as well as church weddings in states that have legalized gay and lesbian marriage. Let us not forget that the legal status of being married is not conferred by the church but by the state; the church is free to decide who, among the legally married, may also receive the church's blessing on that marriage. The sacrament of Holy Matrimony is conferred mutually by the couple on one another!
I would like to know if Fr. Breslin also excludes the children of other couples who may employ immigrants at below living wages; or support the denial of medical and other needs to people they judge to be ineligible; or support other people or institutions that violate the church's social justice teachings.
Poor Fr. Breslin. Some one
Poor Fr. Breslin.
Some one should take up a collection and give him the funds to take a good Scripture course somewhere.
No wonder the church is in the mess it is, if this is the level of leadership and pastoral ministry we have sunk to.
Yes, Fr. Breslin, I will pray for you, that the compassion of Jesus will one day become a reality in your life. Glad the prodigal son didn't have a father like you.
I will also pray that the members of your parish will realize that just because you wear a Roman collar that you are always right. Because in this matter you are dead wrong.
I invite Breslin and Chaput
I invite Breslin and Chaput to take their ambitious eyes away from Rome and the catechism and read God’s words:
Mt 11:28-30
"Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light."
Mt 10:42:
“And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple--amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward."
Mt 25:45:
"Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me."
Jn 7:37-38
“ --- ‘Let anyone who thirsts come to me and drink.’
Whoever believes in me, as scripture says: 'Rivers of living water will flow from within him.'"
Jer 31:25
“For I will refresh the weary soul; every soul that languishes I will replenish.”
Perhaps also a course in
Perhaps also a course in logical reasoning would be in order for this poor befuddled man. No one is asking him to accept homosexual practice or any sex out of wedlock. Neither is an issue here, as far as the reported facts are concerned. All we know is that two women, who happen to be lesbians, each with a baptized child, live together and raise their children together. To assume anything further is just that, an assumption. It is also none of my or Father Breslin's business unless they, the women, choose to make it so.
Denny O'
The scriptural examples
The scriptural examples quoted by Fr. Breslin do not support his argument that Jesus turned people away. These people were asked to do "other" work or they, themselves, turned away from Jesus, in the increased demands of discipleship.
What I would hope for in Catholic education for my own children would be a faithful representation of Church teaching with compassion shown to the innocent children. We certainly, with qualified individuals as instructors, can handle the "difficulty" of presenting the teaching while showing compassion. Two innocent children have been turned away and may never reap the benefit of a Catholic education. Drawing the line, or standing up for what is right does not always have to involve grandstanding or punitive action. Compassion commingled with justice is how I understand our God.
Amen.
Amen.
Since when are we required as
Since when are we required as Christians to make children responsible for the sins of their parents? I think both Fr. Breslin and Bishop Chaput have seriously missed the boat on this issue.
I commend Fr. Breslin and
I commend Fr. Breslin and Bishop Chaput for telling it like it is. I've read the disingenuous statements of the lesbian couple involved. The reason these women are upset is that they cannot get away with their cleverly crafted plan to quietly transform Catholic doctrine. Indeed, Jesus was crucified because he told the truth. And that is exactly what Breslin and Chaput are doing - they speak the plain truth of the situation in all their responses. But the lesbian couple are clearly out of touch with the truth, and they are trying to push on others the lies that they embrace. God Bless and protect Fr. Breslin and Bishop Chaput!
This is the saddest reply of
This is the saddest reply of all...What right have you to call anyone disingenuous? Actually, this comment shouldn't be dignified with a response.
"Cleverly crafted plan?" If
"Cleverly crafted plan?" If by that you mean that these women are not living down to the stereotypes of gay people by being loving parents, church goers, and quietly monogamous, well, I guess you have a point. It's a lot tougher to see this family as an evil influence when in so many ways, they are just like the rest of us.
I think that's what REALLY scares you.
When are some of the leaders
When are some of the leaders in the Catholic Church going to realize that 'Church' is not about welcoming only those who 'fit in'?
In "The Frontiers of
In "The Frontiers of Catholicism" (1992) historical sociologist Gene Burns argues that after Vatican II, sexual teaching became the summit of Roman Catholic ideology, more important than doctrine, and vastly more important than social teaching. Father Breslin confirms Burns's argument. The fact that these two women are loyal and devout Roman Catholics--and that they do not participate in demonstrations, I might add--is nothing to Father Burns. That they are "homosexuals" is the only issue. And indeed, Jesus did turn some people away. The question is, who were they. Father Breslin, Archbishop Chaput, and I, for that matter, ought not to assume too quickly that those Jesus sent away are "those other people" rather than us.
Jesus never turned children
Jesus never turned children away!!!
Jesus said, "Let the little
Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Matthew 19:14
Yes, but Archbishop Chaput
Yes, but Archbishop Chaput said, "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."
Now, who are you going to believe?
Homosexuality is not a threat
Homosexuality is not a threat to human survival on the planet. Ridiculous rules and regulations that impose and promote a power-based, patriarchal authoritarian club-religion mentality are. Especially when they reach into the political arena for federal support and regulation. Jesus was everything against the imperial hierarchy mandating how we love one another...why? because their primary interest is never unconditional love. If Catholics want a club, then fine, they can set their own rules. But they cannot ask the government to enforce those for them in a country founded in freedom. Their is no scriptural precedent for disallowing homosexuality because a sacred text based in ultimate truth does not occupy itself with matters that do not influence the balance of nature (including humanity, of course). Too bad the energy directed at this issue of opposition, and so many others of the church these days, are not fruitfully directed at those issues that truly threaten to extinguish our resources and our species. Poverty, global climate change, violence, pollution and practices that deplete the essentials for survival of oxygen consuming life on the planet. These are immanent threats to survival. Jesus taught love. Pure, unconditional love. If those who oppose homosexuality understood this, they would have no basis of opposition.
And those that belong to the club and ignore these doctrinal hypocrasies, the club-regs unfounded in the ultimate truth of Jesus? At least this type of incident awakens them to their complicity in the hypocrasy. And maybe they have a truth-motivated, conscience-driven change of club membership.
LET THOSE WITHOUT SIN CAST
LET THOSE WITHOUT SIN CAST THE FIRST STONES!
How do we get this from
How do we get this from Jesus, the ONE who consistently sat with the sinners, the outcasts, the outsiders...and held them up while trying to teach "the insiders" THE WAY of the spiritual path that leads to God. As follower of THE WAY, we need to always position ourselves on the side of the ONES who are the rejected ones. To do otherwise simply is not of Jesus, but rather, of ourselves. Such self righteousness is exactly the collision that the cross leads us into.........and at this most sacred time of Lent this is most sad. Those two kids, and their parents, will now probably learn more about the Jerusulem journey than either the church, the priest, or the parishioners who support this. Once again, Jesus will be most easily found OUTSIDE OF THE WALLS of church, just as HE was found in the days when HE walked the walk. It seems like we have done little to take up HIS invitation to be HIS followers. The tethered colt which HE first rode, has been tied up again....the ones who leave the church are the ones who ride it. The ones who remain are the ones who are pounding the nails. Nothing seems to change, does it????
Fr Breslin is no doubt
Fr Breslin is no doubt sincere in his beliefs and reasoning. Yet, I disagree with this action as he is in effect abandoning
these children to the very lifestyle Fr Breslin refuses to uphold. The real losers are the 2 children who are now beyond the teachings of our faith. They have no choice in all this. Fr Breslin should be their advocate but he can't be now that he has dismissed them.
So this priest is happy to
So this priest is happy to punish the children for what he believes to be the sin of the parents? Are the parents married? I don't believe Colorado allows homosexuals to marry. Our church doesn't allow them to marry either. So what is the sin of the parents? Two women that live together. Hmm? Has father ever lived in the rectory with another priest? Is that a sin? Oh I suppose the sin comes in when the two ladies sleep together and do something other than sleep. Has father been peering into the bedroom window to make sure they are not sleeping in that bedroom? I know couples of the same sex who do not have sex. What is wrong with them sharing their lives? What is wrong with them raising children? What is wrong with those children attending a Catholic school? I fail to see the moral breakdown of our society in this. That is not to say I don't fail to see the moral break down of our society.
There's much much good to be
There's much much good to be found in Fr. Breslin's strained logic. He is rejecting children whose parents are in a lifestyle he condemns. The children must pay for the "sins of their fathers (or mothers)." What a slap in the face to Jesus who said, "Suffer the little children to come unto me." The same Jesus who threatened pedophiles with a millstone and a deep sea - although a few found shelter in Fri. Breslin's church, which shielded and empowered them and, in some cases, let them continue to say Mass and administer sacraments. Shame on you, Fr. Breslin. You do your church, your community, and those children much harm.
He certainly never turned the
He certainly never turned the little children away, nor should we turn them away in His name while claiming to do His work!
It seems to me that you will
It seems to me that you will NEVER be able to avoid "wounding the feelings of their students or allienating students from their parents". There are so many other situations that do this in a much more covert manner. I had a seminarian tell my Confirmation class that an unbaptized baby will go to hell, even after the most recent information on limbo and unbaptized babies was published by the pope. That seminarian definitely wounded that child and caused her to have some questionable feelings about her situation.
The church is accepting of homosexual relationships, the children will grow up learing and dealing with this. The parents obviously don't want the teachers to "sugar coat" the church's teachings, that's why they are sending their children there. Does the pastor KNOW for sure that they are NOT living a celibate life style, and therefore are in full accordance with Church teaaching. Probably not!
It is true that Jesus had
It is true that Jesus had some hard words about those unwilling to follow his teaching - but his teaching had nothing at all to do with sexual orientation. On the contrary, he was openly accepting of sexual minorities. He quite explicitly stated that "eunuchs" (which some scholars believe was the closest term in Biblical times to the modern word "homosexual") were welcome in the kingdom of heaven. More interesting, in every Mass we hear words that are a direct reminder of Jesus' willingness to treat male same sex couple on the same terms as any other: "Lord I am not worthy to receive you", before Communion, is a direct adaptation of the words of the Roman centurion, asking for the Lord to heal his (male) lover. How do we know that they were lovers? It's plain from the context and the Greek words used. See http://queeringthechurch.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/mar-15th-the-gay-centu...
I think we shall need to get
I think we shall need to get rid of Priests, Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, and now even the Pope - all these guys have been involved in the sexual abuse scandal, and the last I heard, "the Church" said this was wrong (or did it?). Oh well, who cares - more and more the people don't. These guys, including the pastor of Sacred Heart and the Lay Teachers (no religious are teaching there), have tin ears. God help us all!
Fr. Breslin's examples of
Fr. Breslin's examples of Jesus turning people away do not really support his decision, particularly John 6. The ones who leave do so because it is a "hard saying," yes. But they leave of their own volition. Jesus does not turn them away. These women have not asked to leave; they've simply asked for the church to teach their children, to support them in raising their kids in a Catholic way. God bless them for accepting the "hard saying" that comes with their decision.
And Mark 5? First of all, the people tell Jesus to leave them (5:17). Second, in response to the man's request, Jesus tells him to "Go home to your family and announce to them all that the Lord in his pity has done for you" (v. 19). He's being sent out to share the good news, which Jesus does not readily tell people to do in this gospel. The man acts as disciple by proclaiming Jesus' works. He is not told to go away and be quiet about what has happened. An alternative to Breslin's reading would be that the man is disciple simply because he had faith to be healed. He no longer needs to follow Jesus as the other disciples do; he gets it.
And Matthew 19? After the man leaves, the disciples ask Jesus, "Who then can be saved?" His response: "For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible" (vv. 25-26). The salvation of this family is not up to us; our role is compassion and love, not moral rigidity.
I would hope that the next time Fr. Breslin or Archbishop Chaput decide to turn someone away from their schools or altars they would revisit John 13 where even Judas' feet were washed, Matthew 15 where the Canaanite woman challenges Jesus' stubbornness, and John 8 where no one throws a stone.
I think what we're seeing
I think what we're seeing with pastors such as this is the confluence of two trends in the U.S. Catholic church that are proving noxious for the church.
The first is the dumbing down of the priesthood and episcopacy in the JPII generation. To a certain extent, these men simply don't know better, because they haven't been taught better.
The second is the end result of several decades of flirtation with the American religious right, on the part of the U.S. bishops. Worldviews and ideas antithetical to everything that it means to be Catholic are flowing back into the church now, from our allies on the religious right.
The end result is a dumbed-down Catholic church in the U.S., with dismal pastoral leadership, promoting notions from the evangelical right that are fundamentally at odds with a Catholic worldview.
This story is about the
This story is about the homophobic church. For so many years they accepted gay priests. It was don't ask don't tell but everyone knew. There were many fine gay priests and still are. With the sexual scandal that led people to identify the leadership crisis that has been present in the church with the LItmus Episcopal appointments by John Paul II and Ratzinger, we got the gay scapegoated. The leadership pretends that they are defending society against sinful gays and sinfully turn away the little ones that the scandal hurt as well. These men are sinful in there concepts of right and wrong. They just don't get that in society there are always things that happen that are both right and wrong at the same time. This leadership see themselves as somehow absolutely correct in doctrine, yet they are so wrong and sinful in their treatment of little children. May God help these SINFUL MEN.
Peace and understanding,
R. Dennis Porch, MD
Jesus was killed for
Jesus was killed for challenging the conservative political and conservative religious authorities of his time.
Talk about a twisted
Talk about a twisted perspective: "In Washington, the government is dictating to the Church." Like everything else, this priest has it backwards. It's the bishops who are dictating to the government with their invented abortion funding objections to health care reform.
This is one of hundreds of examples of clerics who refuse to believe that sexual preference is not a matter of choice; it's how God made us. But God didn't make Chaput and Breslin misogynistic or homophobic; they decided that on their own.
I also wonder how Breslin (with Chaput's backing) comes to the conclusion that the children are not welcome in the parish school, but they can attend CCD?
Oh phooey! The examples
Oh phooey! The examples this priest gave don’t remotely compare or apply to what Breslin and Chaput did to this family and their two children in the name of so-called doctrinal purity. Comparing this family to an alcoholic or drug addict, was really over the top. How can this priest speak with a straight face of secular society (ergo, this family) attacking traditional moral values when our own Catholic hierarchy are drowning in scandal, sexual depravity and deceit?
.
Jesus’ harshest comments were directed toward the religious leaders of His day who were obsessed with their legalism and tradition — those men who paraded around in their elaborate religious garb and loved to be addressed as ‘honored teacher’. He specifically rebuked them for the heavy burdens of their religious requirements placed upon God’s people, and that they didn’t so much as lift a finger to ease those burdens. Jesus also rebuked them for their religious hypocrisy, nitpicking the fine points of their laws while failing to keep the spirit of the two great commandments. Their ritual purity was a sham, and Jesus called these religious leaders “whitewashed tombs full of all uncleanness”.
.
Yes indeed, Jesus was crucified for his teachings — and guess who conspired to put him to death? The religious leaders who were insulted and threatened by Jesus’ rebukes to THEM.
.
What 'strange gospel' has Breslin been reading???
The Gospel according to
The Gospel according to Archbishop Chaput.
You made my day
You made my day colkoch1!
Maybe if Fr. Breslin was married and had children he would have more compassion for the two innocent little girls!
Post new comment