There is an old saying: "Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate." I have often reflected on that phrase and how at times it rings true. WBZ is reporting that the town of Hardwick has cancelled its Memorial Day Parade. Local veterans (and I'm one of them) are understandably upset. But then, the veteran has often been treated as something akin to a disposable razor: when he has served his purpose, he is promptly discarded. After returning home from Vietnam, Mr. Joe Szczepanek says, "people spit on me. I got hit in the head with a sign. I got called a baby killer." Many other veterans were treated with contempt or simply ignored altogether.
My own father served in Korea and during Vietnam. As a career military veteran, he was denied a hearing aid (he had become tone deaf after serving as a Tank Commander in Korea). And when he died, I had to fight just to obtain a flag marker for his grave. You cannot begin to imagine how that made me feel. In order to understand my hurt, you would have to know the depth of my love for a great man who consecrated his entire life to the United States military - both in the U.S. Army and the U.S. Air Force.
The Church had a policy years ago which was discriminatory toward military families. I addressed this in my previous Blog post entitled Cardinal Sean's rationale which may be found here. A woman named Colleen took exception to my post in a comment left at this Blog. She wrote: "Mr. Melanson, may I ask how old you are? The reason I ask is that the Church USED to, MANY years ago have a policy that families needed to be residents of the Parish associated with the Catholic school where they chose to send their children...simply because the parishioners in those days funded the majority of the happenings in the school. This ruling has been changed for YEARS now and any/all students are welcome to attend. Please get your facts straight before you falsely leading people astray. There is already enough of that going on without your help."
To which I responded: "Colleen, I submit that it is you who are engaging in dishonesty. Either that or your English comprehension skills are sorely deficient.
Cardinal O'Malley, in his feeble attempt to justify his decision to find a Catholic school for the ward of lesbian parents who are engaged in an illicit relationship, wrote, "Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that. We have never had categories of people who were excluded." The key word in this passage is "never." The Cardinal's statement constitutes [by your own admission in the comment you left] a falsehood.
Which is why I responded, "But His Eminence is mistaken, As my parents can testify, I was denied admission into Catholic schools because my father was career military. My parents were told that five years of residency was required before I could be enrolled. But because my father would receive new orders every three or four years, I was denied admission. Many other children of military families were similarly denied admission into Catholic schools for this reason."
Military dependents were in fact denied admission. You admit this writing that, "..the Church USED to, MANY years ago have a policy that families needed to be residents of the Parish associated with the Catholic school where they chose to send their children...simply because the parishioners in those days funded the majority of the happenings in the school. This ruling has been changed for YEARS now.."
Children of military parents who were serving this great nation were excluded. This is all the more outrageous since their parents were making great sacrifices to serve this great nation.
As for the child of lesbian parents, as Archbishop Chaput so eloquently put it, '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.' If anyone needs to get their facts straight to avoid 'falsely leading people astray,' it is yourself. At any rate, I stand by my statement. The Cardinal's statement was incorrect."
Cardinal O'Malley, in his feeble attempt to justify his decision to find a Catholic school for the ward of lesbian parents who are engaged in an illicit relationship, wrote, "Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that. We have never had categories of people who were excluded." The key word in this passage is "never." The Cardinal's statement constitutes [by your own admission in the comment you left] a falsehood.
Which is why I responded, "But His Eminence is mistaken, As my parents can testify, I was denied admission into Catholic schools because my father was career military. My parents were told that five years of residency was required before I could be enrolled. But because my father would receive new orders every three or four years, I was denied admission. Many other children of military families were similarly denied admission into Catholic schools for this reason."
Military dependents were in fact denied admission. You admit this writing that, "..the Church USED to, MANY years ago have a policy that families needed to be residents of the Parish associated with the Catholic school where they chose to send their children...simply because the parishioners in those days funded the majority of the happenings in the school. This ruling has been changed for YEARS now.."
Children of military parents who were serving this great nation were excluded. This is all the more outrageous since their parents were making great sacrifices to serve this great nation.
As for the child of lesbian parents, as Archbishop Chaput so eloquently put it, '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.' If anyone needs to get their facts straight to avoid 'falsely leading people astray,' it is yourself. At any rate, I stand by my statement. The Cardinal's statement was incorrect."
I doubt my response will produce the slightest crack in Colleen's wall of conviction. Some people are anxious to accommodate those who "don't respect the beliefs of the Church" or who "live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs." What a shame that my parents [cradle Catholics who remained faithful to the Church's Magisterium and who served this nation so honorably] couldn't receive at least the same level of respect as those who view the teachings of Christ's Church with contempt and or indifference.
Nobody loves a soldier until the enemy is at the gate.
Related reading here.
3 comments:
I don't even recognize this country anymore:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37349413/
God help us all.
The Boston Archdiocese is ultra-liberal and leftist. There is too little love for Catholic teaching and too much effort to please the culture of death and the radical homosexual crowd.
Do you really think two active lesbians give one hoot about having their child receive Catholic morals and values? This is just another cheap attempt to control the Church and to advance an agenda.
And Cardinal O'Malley is playing along. Disgusting.
I'm concerned about that too Stewart. I mean there are plenty of private schools - many of which have no connection whatsoever to a Church or religious denomination. There is something else at work here. Homosexual activists want to impose their agenda.
Post a Comment