Sunday, June 6, 2010

The fiasco (or better said the Mafioso) at the Boston Archdiocese - Update

A few more people have weighed in on the tack Mr. Fix It is taking Catholic education in the United States.

Michael Pakaluk has weighed in on his experiences as a father of a first grader at a Boston Catholic school where the child of two gay men was enrolled.

Pakaluk describes several of his experiences with the school administration who, once the child and family were a part of the Catholic school community, began to break down the Catholic environment so that the sound of the teachings of the Church would not make the gay family feel unwelcome.

You can't have it both ways.  Either you teach the teachings of the Church or you hold back on them so as not to offend.

This has been the struggle for the last 40 years.

It is a no-brainer that placing gay families in a Catholic School to supposedly "take care of" that one child is going to result in silencing the teachings of the Church for every other Catholic enrolled to hear them.

I wholeheartedly disagree with Michael's last paragraph for three reasons:

It should be said that all of my practical concerns involve young children, who should be innocent of sexual matters and whose familial affections are still being formed. Nothing I have said would count against admitting children raised by same-sex couples into high school, and probably not middle school.

1.  As previously mentioned, puberty and high school are exactly the time children are ripe for sexual programming.  Discussion about Catholic ethics and morality will be a battleground of clashes even for teachers who uphold the teachings of the Church.    Not only have you lost the environment where discussions can take place freely as the take it or leave it choice on the path of your own salvation, just as the adults in the situation change what they say and do to "protect" the child and family, so won't the children.

2. This is the precise time when children develop and test their inexperienced sexual feelings and emotions.   Children of gay parents who act out their emotions and sexuality as they're taught at home will naturally start inviting other children into relationships.

3. I don't believe for a minute that homosexual priests chose teenagers because they were attracted to teenagers.

Adults talk.  Teenagers can be manipulated into silence.

Paul Shanley made it look like he was all about helping the kiddies and meanwhile, he was exploiting the sexuality he was grooming.  He was a homosexual and when he came across kids in puberty to "help them", he helped groom their sexual development.    He then took first dibs.

It was about control.

Quite frankly, I still don't see an inch of work in watching over the sexual activities of the homosexual priests in the archdiocese. 

(Kathryn Lopez also touches upon the fact what is playing out here in Boston is very related to the agenda of homosexual priests who were unfaithful to the teachings of the Church in a shocking and despicable way.)

Homosexual priests who used children because they could silence them have caused a great deal of confusion.   

The word homosexual, like the word priest, is not interchangeable with pedophile.

Pedophiles are a breed of their own.

Homosexuals go out and find partners their own age to have relationships with, just like heterosexuals.

Homosexual priests are supposed to be celibate.  Because they're supposed to be celibate and they don't want to get caught, they had to find people whom they could control, right into silencing them.

 With the Cardinal ignoring the warning signs of a group of priests at Arch Street whose sexual lives were fodder for pornographic novels, who, according to the author, included books about sexually exploiting run away teens --with nobody in the hierarchy paying any attention whatsoever to the sex lives of gay priests -- with Catholic laity who still think talking about a Cardinal's contract to kill children is naughty -- and with a hierarchy that has no mechanism that will report corruption (even if it's about killing children), much less do anything about this really the time to introduce young, gay teenage boys into Catholic schools?

As Byran Hehir has already divulged, Cardinal O'Malley's tack is going to be giving children a smorgasbord of social contributions to give the appearance the good things we do purchases our salvation and whoever they're hopping into bed with is the product of two good people and is therefore also good.

This was their reasoning for sleeping with children to begin with.  The chicken has come home to roost. It's Cardinal Bernadin's failed experiment which has led a generation of Catholics into the abyss and multitudes of children to be sexually abused. They are marching towards the next generation.

Larry Kessler's waiting right at the pastoral center with his "hey queer boys" book, courtesy of an unnamed canonical lawyer.

As I keep repeating - good luck to the gays and Ireland. 


Jerry said...

Bernardin? He was one of the more recent destroyers. Cushing ordained Shanley in 1960 and Geoghan in '62. McHugh put sex-ed in the Catholic schools in the 70's.

No one should send his child to a diocesan school. In doing so, you tell the child that he receives a Catholic education. But that's a lie. It's better to send him to a gov't school where he can expect to be lied to.

Nothing will change until the men fight for their children.

Anonymous said...

Go ahesd, ask me again why Catholic families home school.