Archdiocese defends decision to deny children because of lesbian parents

[Doomsday]

Sorry, I was just branching off of the "Glass House" comments in OP :D

[Cythieus]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/10/colorado.lesbians.church/index.html?hpt=T2

I would like to know how many children are denied entrance to the school after it's discovered that their parents are divorced. Or if a mother is caught shoplifting. Or how about women who have had an abortion? I would like to know how many children are denied re-enrollment if it's discovered their father is sleeping with a woman other than his wife, and how many of them are denied for having mothers or fathers who are Episcopalian or perhaps even pagans.

Glass houses, folks. Glass houses.

Actually they can put you out of the church for things dealing with abortion, I doubt it happens though.

They see lots of other things as sins too. If they banned the children of all parents who committed those other sins I bet they'd have pretty small classes.

There are levels of sin in Catholicism. Not all are equal.

I don't see the problem.  They believe homosexuality is a sin, so why shouldn't they keep homosexuals from enrolling their children in their school?

If anything, the children are winning out because they're not getting a private school education where they're likely to be indoctrinated.

Children are indoctrinated in Public school anyway. But I agree with the first point, I don't see why people are so mad what "X" religion does in their own places. Sorry, but you can't first restrict people from prayed at pretty much any kind of public meeting and then go complain when they turn around and don't allow groups they don't like or agree with lifestyle-wise into their fold. It's not as if this is something widespread in Catholic schools or like there's any rule saying you can't be homosexual at the schools. I mean we have an entire school for gays here in this country now, would someone be mad if say a straight person wanted to attend the school and got denied?

[Kate]

why its socially tollerated that sexuality is something the state or institutions can discriminate against ...
is boringly backward.

Its like how the religion of people was treated like 150 years ago and how race was treated about 50 yrs ago

[Cythieus]

why its socially tollerated that sexuality is something the state or institutions can discriminate against ...
is boringly backward.

Its like how the religion of people was treated like 150 years ago and how race was treated about 50 yrs ago

A church is not a state institution, its not anyone else's business how they practice their religion so long as they don't harm anyone.

[Callie Del Noire]

A church is not a state institution, its not anyone else's business how they practice their religion so long as they don't harm anyone.

True.. but they had better be prepared for the consequences (Particularly if they violate certain statues or laws which they have to comply with for financial support from the state).

[Cythieus]

True.. but they had better be prepared for the consequences (Particularly if they violate certain statues or laws which they have to comply with for financial support from the state).

Most of the time they don't have to worry about it too much. If you haven't noticed, the state has a problem keeping homosexuals in a favorable light. I mean the military, a government entity went on discriminating against gays for years, as has the Boy Scouts and both have escaped relatively unscathed.

[TheLegionary]

As someone else pointed out above, there are levels of sin in Catholicism. What amazes me is how sexual sins, one of the less relevants according to teology (there is no damage to any person), are always in the spotlight...

[Oniya]

Most of the sexual sins are itemized in Leviticus, with the one exception being adultery.  When I took a Biblical Studies course (I had a free elective :-) ) the teacher pointed out that the vast majority of the laws in Leviticus - which include all the strange dietary restrictions and the bits about leprosy - were designed to help maintain a small, nomadic population before the advent of modern medicine.  In that situation, anything that interfered with sperm meeting fertile egg was a Bad Thing^TM.  The 'unclean' time for a woman corresponds to her less fertile time.  Onanism (which is actually pulling out early, not masturbation) revolved around a man deliberately avoiding impregnating a woman because the child would carry on his brother's line.  Nothing is actually said specifically about lesbianism, or 'women laying with women'.

We hardly have to worry about maintaining our population these days. :P

[Artema]

That being said, Leviticus isn't something the Christianity should look to, because on the first apostolic council apostles made a bit of a different principle: "But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written and decided that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality." Acts 21:25
It is a principle of certain legal minimalism, according to the new status of Christians as sons rather than slaves...
Yet, nowadays we often see people seeking the old good legalism.
Psychiater Erich Fromm tried to explain how people seek it from their insecurity from too much freedom.

[Cythieus]

Most of the sexual sins are itemized in Leviticus, with the one exception being adultery.  When I took a Biblical Studies course (I had a free elective :-) ) the teacher pointed out that the vast majority of the laws in Leviticus - which include all the strange dietary restrictions and the bits about leprosy - were designed to help maintain a small, nomadic population before the advent of modern medicine.  In that situation, anything that interfered with sperm meeting fertile egg was a Bad Thing^TM.  The 'unclean' time for a woman corresponds to her less fertile time.  Onanism (which is actually pulling out early, not masturbation) revolved around a man deliberately avoiding impregnating a woman because the child would carry on his brother's line.  Nothing is actually said specifically about lesbianism, or 'women laying with women'.

We hardly have to worry about maintaining our population these days. :P

I don't think that the unclean time for women was all about fertility, it seemed to be more about sanitation. If you look at Leviticus and the dietary laws much of what they tried to do was prevent disease. Living in the desert and time they lived in you couldn't have blood around for any reason and expect it to be that safe.

[TheLegionary]

To the best of my knowledge, Leviticus is not a good teological reference for sexual sins from the perspective of Catholicism. A better approach, which is the basis for Canonic Law, is the City of God by Saint Augustin.
Again, I repeat my point: a substantial percentage of the Catholic doctrine does not come directly from the Bible, but it arises from the interpretation of famous teologists. Those who interpret the Bible literally are a bit ignorant of the rest of the doctrine.
This is the reason why I am susprised to see how much emphasis is put on the sexual sins, which cause no harm to other person. Personally, it seems that the empahsis results from the Zeitgeist rather than from doctrine... at least from a Catholic perspective - I am not familiar with other Christian approches to the matter.

[Cythieus]

Oh I know, I was just saying that most things in Leviticus seem to be issues of sanitation, even when it comes to sex to some degree. The not eating pork thing is kind of a big sign of that. If anyone has ever known someone who got sick from raw pork, its not the fun kind of sick you get from beef.