Boulder pastor says Jesus turned some away

From:
ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/boulder-pastor-says-jesus-turned-some-away

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.”

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…"

think also of the parable of the wedding banquet, when some of the invited guests were turned away because they were not wearing the appropriate wedding garment, ie. were not cleansed of their sins because they had not repented and asked forgiveness.

many are called but few are chosen.

How many children did Jesus turn away?

Maybe I’m just talking semantics here, but I don’t see where Jesus turned anyone away.

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.

The “following” turned away on their own. Jesus did not turn them away.

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.

An obvious offer to follow. He wasn’t turned away. The rich young man just had a choice to make.

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.

A bit more difficult to explain, I’ll admit! :slight_smile: In one sense, you could say that the man was still “following The Lord”, and not being turned away, by following His command and spreading The Word to his own people. I know many will consider this explanation a stretch, but it’s the best I can do on the spur of the moment! :wink:

Three cheers for Father William Breslin!!

Why in the world would an openly lesbian couple want to subject their kids to the teachings of the Catholic Church anyway?

Lord have mercy.

We don’t know.

But one thing I do know is that you are taking the relevant passage out of context.

Matt 19:13 Then were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.15 And when he had imposed hands upon them, he departed from thence.

Mark 10:13 And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. 14 Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased and says to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Amen I say to you, whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter into it. 16 And embracing them and laying his hands upon them, he blessed them.

Luke 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.

Bottom line: he blessed some children/infants that were brought to him for that purpose. But the real purpose was to say that if you don’t receive the kingdom of God as a small child, you shall not enter into it.

It had nothing to do with allowing admission into a Catholic school by a child under the control of a lesbian couple. I wish you folks who keep citing that same “suffer children to come to me” concept would actually read the context of the statement.

Could it be, regardless of their lifestyle, they wanted to raise the kids with the Truth? I sense a lack of Christian compassion and charity here. :frowning:

Yet they don’t follow the truth.

Fact is, homosexual marriage proponents always claim they only want gay marriage, not to force anything on any one. Yet then things like this happen. Laws are made in DC that try to force the church to conform against its teachings. This thing with the lesbian couple is just one more thing to try to force the church to accept their agenda.

And in fact, Jesus said in Matthew 19 "Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; ". Jesus tells us right there that marriage isn’t for everyone. Yet gays refuse to accept this teaching and instead try to force something on the church that cannot be.

The Bishop is right. Jesus tells us himself that He will turn people away. Some will say “Lord, Lord” but He will turn them away saying that He never knew them.

Oh my goodness when you said Breslin wrote this i almost fainted as I thought you meant Jimmy Breslin an embittered ex Irish Catholic who HATES the Church.Unfortunately it wasn’t him so I assume he lives on in his apostacy:(

The truth, though, is that for Catholics, homosexual behavior is a grave sin.

How can the school teach them one thing and have them learn another thing at home?

When my wife and I look for a co-op group for our homeschooled kids, we are sometimes rejected because certain Protestant groups don’t want them because we’re Catholic. Of course, it hurts our feelings but I would never try to force my way into their belief system.

This is off track to the original post, which I have previously addressed. However…

I don’t see anywhere where this (for lack of a better word) “couple” is trying to force “gay marriage” or anything else on anybody! :confused:

Also…

Excellent point! However, we don’t know what they are being taught at home. Would it not be for the best if they were taught the Faith in school at this point? Admittedly, if contrary positions are being taught at home, this could be a problem. But we don’t know that. I’m just thinking of what may be best for the kids, not what is the final “station” of the “parents”. :slight_smile:

How exactly can a gay couple teach the church’s standing, which opposes gay couples and homosexual activities, to their own children? As a gay couple they oppose the church’s teachings. Do you think they teach their children that being a gay couple goes against the church’s teachings and that the church is right? That makes no sense.

the school made a judgment based on their own standards and teaching mission–not that of Catholic schools in general–and on the disposition shown by one family to comply with those rules and partner with the school in raising the child in those
CAtholic values–they did not issue a summary judgement on all families with unconventional parents. They made a decision based on one family, and that family’s response to the schools rules, and the bishop responded to the situation in that school with that family. Since we are not the school administration, not the pastor and not the bishop we are in no position to judge. We have only the allegations made by the family in question who brought the situation to the attention of the media. any global statement about “the church treats childrens of lesbians badly” is misplaced and irrelevant to this individual situation. The parents knew the rules, the signed on for the rules when they enrolled they child, they made a public issue for purposes we will allow them to state to openly and publicly flout those rules, and the school responded properly, to protect all their other children and families.

A comparison with other schools, other dioceses, other families is irrelevant here. It is also irrelevant to hypothesize about what all gay parents would or did do in a like situation, only judge on what this couple did do and say, and why they did it. This couple in this situation made it clear that they would not be handing on all Catholic values and that they did not intend to work with the school in this goal. don’t drag in “hypothetical gay parents” and “hypothetical Catholic schools.” confine the discussion of this news story to the facts of this situation.

Faith and morals are not parallel. They intersect and intertwine.

If these were women without means, I might say that in the interest of charity that these kids should be allowed to attend. But these women are doctors. They can enroll their kids wherever they want.

I believe these folks and whoever is helping them are of the same ilk as the folks who are sueing Belmont Abby College because their health insurance plan doesn’t cover abortion and contraception.

Gee, thanks!! I’ve never been a “you folks” before. I once was a “you people,” as in “shanty Irish,” in the eyes of the drunken uncle of a young lady I was involved with some 45 years ago. I assume that, in this context, “you folks” means people who does not think that gays, lesbians, et.al. are horribly disordered humanoids who deserve the disdain of all “good” Catholics. If so, I proudly claim membership.

Apparently the gospels according to Boulder or, more likely, the gospels according to Denver, really are reworkings of what has served us in the past. For example, instead of

Matt 19:13 There were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.15 And when he had imposed hands upon them, he departed from thence.

we should now have

There were little children presented to him, that he should impose hands upon them and pray. And the disciples rebuked them. But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such. But the disciples said, “Lord, the mothers of these two children are whores. Certainly, the kingdom of heaven is not for such as these.” And Jesus said “ … ”

I will leave it to the readers to fill in what they feel would be the appropriate response.

Are the parents unrepentant sinners?
Are they in fact proclaiming their sin as tolerable?
Are they engaged in a political attack which will undermine the institution they purport to want their children to attend?

If so, then they should be denied.

It’s a win-win situation for the lesbians: if their children get admission, church teachings are undermined. If they don’t, they can claim to be martyrs for tolerance. A good priest goes through the wringer: bonus! Then they go to another school.

I don’t see how anyone could think that Jesus would turn these children away.

Well, actually, in context, the parents who were presenting the infants to Jesus to be blessed were followers of Him (else why would they want Him to bless their children).

I don’t want to insult your intelligence, but are you familiar with 1 Cor 5?
6 Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump? 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. 8 Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness: but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world or with the covetous or the extortioners or the servers of idols: otherwise you must needs go out of this world. 11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator or covetous or a server of idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. 12 For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within? 13 For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.
You can make comments about private sin vs public sin if you’d like. Frankly, if you have some heterosexual who is living in sin and is very public about it, I think a little more “tough love” would be called for and would be beneficial for many souls, not just for the ones toward which the “tough love” was applied.

What did Christ say about the millstone? I think these so called parents should remember this…But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Boy, I’m sure these people will ever be receptive to what the Catholic Church has to say, now that this one pastor has told them “We don’t want your children. Go away.”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.