‘Puter’s run into an object lesson on liberal arrogance and bigotry. One of his friends was bemoaning this story, in which a Roman Catholic parish school in Colorado expelled two children of lesbian parents. Predictably, the thread degenerated quickly. The first few comments are thus:

Our archbishop [Chaput] is a complete moron. Keep in mind he also recommended denying John Kerry communion over abortion rights. Apparantly you should respect a Pope even if he reassigns pedophile priests, but you can’t eat a wafer or send kids to school if you don’t hew Chaput’s moral line.

And:

Nothing to think about. A fraternity of cruel, power hungry men who how are trying to re-make society in their slanted image by dismissing from their self-important presence anyone that doesn’t fit in.

To which ‘Puter replied:

How about recognizing that practicing homosexuality is a mortal sin under Church teaching? That said, punishing the child for the sins of the mothers is horrible. Just curious. Accepting for the sake of argument that practicing homosexuality (not just being gay) is incompatible with the Roman Catholic faith, what’s your solution? Ignore it? It seems the mothers would be more comfortable in another faith. There’s a difference between being gay partners and a member of a parish and actively rubbing the Church’s nose in the fact that you disdain its teachings. No good answer here, really.

And:

Again, why do you want to be a member of a Church with whose catechism you fundamentally disagree (e.g., homsexuality, abortion, transubstantiation, etc.) rather than finding a Church more fitting your beliefs? The Episcopalians spring to mind. I don’t begrudge you your faith, I simply don’t understand why you begrudge the Church. The catechism is clear on the issue, and an argument based on “I disagree with the Church, therefore, I can choose to disregard its teachings and remain a member in good standing” is unavailing. The other issues (abortion, priest sex abuse, etc.) are irrelevant to the homosexuality argument. As noted before, it is painful that a child has borne the brunt of her parents’ willful acts, but not unexpected. I think many are upset because the Church is returning to a position of meaning what it says and enforcing the rules, a position that has been sorely lacking post Vatican II.

To which the reply came:

How about recognizing that Christ says nothing–absolutely nothing–about homosexuality in the Gospels, and move on to what he does say: love one another. Full stop. No qualifications. No exclusions. Thank God the true Church is the people, not the hierarchy. I share [Friend’s] sense that the actions of the people in the parish and the schools are much closer to Christ than the edicts of the Archbishop in this case.

Which engendered the following response:

Perhaps, you, [‘Puter] and your fundamentalist cohorts, should start your own branch of the Catholic Church? Vatican II still stands as an Ecumenical Council. Those who reject it should consider a schism of their own. I would also remind you that the Church still teaches that it is possible for a gay person to be a practicing Catholic. Situations like this look like the opening salvo of purity testing. How long before there are checklists for approving enrollment of children in our Catholic schools? “Do your parents use birth control?” “Were you conceived out of wedlock?” “Have your parents now or ever voted for one of the following candidates?” It is amazing that some can even see at all given the size of the logs in their eyes. Our Lord, Jesus, never sided with the Pharisees! It seems to me the fundamentalist/traditionalist wing is more in love with the power and authority of the earthly church than with the message of love and redemption in the Gospels. Should we not be guided by the simple question of WWJD? Or should we consider the views of medieval popes instead? Further, in this case, we should not turn our back on an opportunity to provide a Catholic education to these children. Better for them to be raised in the Church.

To which ‘Puter responded thusly:

[Friend], you know well that being homosexual is not the same thing as practicing homosexuality. If you’d like, I can cite the Catechism to you again. Perhaps you can cite me to the portion of the Catechism where it affirms practicing homosexuality? I affirm the validity of Vatican II. I do not affirm the validity of all actions taken by Catholics in the name of Vatican II. There is a difference. Your allegation that I am a fundamentalist is untrue, as you well know. And my position is not the position in this thread that is inapposite with Church teaching. The burden is on those seeking to depart from Church teaching to show that such deaprture is permissible. No one here has yet done so. I understand your frustration with this painful situation, but your frustration does not change the facts.

Your allegations that enforcing Church rules equate to a McCarthyite witch hunt are farfetched. This is not the situation of parents privately using birth control without making an issue of it. That plainly is between them and God, without Church interfernce. This is two people who have very publicly adopted a lifestyle incompatible with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, then attempting to force the organization to accept their sinfulness. It is the responsibility and duty of the Church to publicly state the parents’ lifestyle is incompatible with Curch teachings, so others are not led astray, or misled by the Church’s silence on so public an issue.

We are all sinners, but not all of us require others to accept and celebrate our sinfulness. It is the equivalent of joining the NRA then demanding it adopt a radical pro gun control agenda, or joining NARAL and demanding it become prolife. The rules of the Catholic Church are not hidden. Again, I am left with the unanswered question of why people who insist on taking acts incompatible with the teachings of the Church insist on being members of the Church when there are many, many other Christian denominations very similar to Roman Catholicism out there. Perhaps someone can answer my very basic question.

The problem is not that the Church has abandoned the parents, it is that the parents have abandoned the Church. To state the facts any other way is dishonest. It is understandable not to like the situation, but, as is frequently said, one is not entitled to one’s own facts.

And, again, I don’t think anyone here has exulted in the manifest pain caused this family by the expulsion of the children from Catholic School. I think we can all agree that the situation could have been handled (1) more privately and (2) better all around.

‘Puter learned a few things from this St. Patrick’s Day donnybrook. First, liberal Catholics are not Catholics in any meaningful way. They disregard any inconvenient Church teaching, and insist that the Church change to meet their immediate wants and desires, rather than subjugating their wants and desires to those of the Church. The liberal Catholic position is, at its core, a worship of self rather than a worship of God and His eternal, immutable truth. Second, ‘Puter’s friends apparently need some more catechesis. And third, ‘Puter is saddened by his friends’ willingness to toss him aside as an inconvenient anachronism.

'Puter

Always right, unless he isn’t, the infallible Ghettoputer F. X. Gormogons claims to be an in-law of the Volgi, although no one really believes this.

’Puter carefully follows economic and financial trends, legal affairs, and serves as the Gormogons’ financial and legal advisor. He successfully defended us against a lawsuit from a liquor distributor worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in unpaid deliveries of bootleg shandies.

The Geep has an IQ so high it is untestable and attempts to measure it have resulted in dangerously unstable results as well as injuries to researchers. Coincidentally, he publishes intelligence tests as a side gig.

His sarcasm is so highly developed it borders on the psychic, and he is often able to insult a person even before meeting them. ’Puter enjoys hunting small game with 000 slugs and punt guns, correcting homilies in real time at Mass, and undermining unions. ’Puter likes to wear a hockey mask and carry an axe into public campgrounds, where he bursts into people’s tents and screams. As you might expect, he has been shot several times but remains completely undeterred.

He assures us that his obsessive fawning over news stories involving women teachers sleeping with young students is not Freudian in any way, although he admits something similar once happened to him. Uniquely, ’Puter is unable to speak, read, or write Russian, but he is able to sing it fluently.

Geep joined the order in the mid-1980s. He arrived at the Castle door with dozens of steamer trunks and an inarticulate hissing creature of astonishingly low intelligence he calls “Sleestak.” Ghettoputer appears to make his wishes known to Sleestak, although no one is sure whether this is the result of complex sign language, expert body posture reading, or simply beating Sleestak with a rubber mallet.

‘Puter suggests the Czar suck it.