Our commentary on KRCG 13 and Columbia Daily Tribune coverage of the “process.”

The Columbia Daily Tribune, here, and KRCG 13 new in Jefferson city, here,  ran a special report on the new transgender process in Diocesan Catholic Schools.  We’d like to review some of the highlights of the KRCG report because Bishop Gaydos and Sister Youngs either don’t understand logic or are trying very hard to conceal their intent and what will actually happen as a result of their use of authority to instruct pastors.    We’ll quote the article and then add commentary in bold:

“Representatives with the diocese said they needed to give guidance to principals and pastors on what to do in situations when children had gender concerns or came from non-traditional backgrounds.”  This implies that the Chancery is guiding principals and pastors to a conclusion on what to do, not just passively letting them make the decision.  

“We’re not teaching that to be gay and lesbian or to be transgender or bisexual is right,”  So we can conclude that they think being gay and lesbian, transgender, or bisexual isn’t right. 

“They’re all created by God and they all have dignity because they’re God’s children. And if their parents want them to have a Catholic school education, then we want to be partners with those parents in bringing those children into the faith,”  Since being gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender isn’t right then bringing the children into the faith must involve these children believing their own identity isn’t right which means the transgender child must reject being transgender before being admitted to the school.  

“Sister Brandt said the document was only guidance and ultimately it was up to pastors and principals to decide whether they enrolled non-traditional students.”  Though they admit that that being transgender isn’t right they have decided to let pastors admit those children as they are if they wish.  

“In a letter from Bishop John Gaydos to pastors on the topic, he said, in part, “I support the development and presentation of this program that promotes our Catholic moral teachings and supports the role of pastor to act in the best interests of the people of this parish.”  Which is it Bishop Gaydos? Your staff are saying that being gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender isn’t right which means your support of Catholic moral teaching precludes you from accepting such behavior in a school.  Yet you support the pastor if he thinks admitting these children is in the best interest of his parish? This is textbook duplicity.  

Jackie Marcink, the president of Mid-Missouri Pridefest, gets pretty close to the mark and should be praised for her clear consistent thought:

“I feel like it’s a bit of a front,” she said. “These families and children still have to abide by their covenant of trust which explicitly says social and moral values. I’m pretty sure we all know what that means. I can’t really say that this is fair. If they don’t want LGBT families, it seems like quite a process to put people through to ensure they are agreeing to what the Catholic Church wants them to do.”  With the exception that at some schools they will be admitted if the pastor chooses.

“She said instead of putting the document out there, and setting families up for failure, the diocese should draw a line.”  We agree that the Bishop should draw the line, that it is impossible for such a family to abide by the covenant of trust, and that it is mean to put them through this muddled process. 

Sister Brandt said the diocese has an opportunity to help children, not hurt them.  Does the 17 page document clearly tell them anything about their lifestyle one way or the other?  If the Church teaches that these choices hurt them then shouldn’t the process clearly say so? 

“Our Church is very clear in its teachings, and we’re not going to say that being of those persuasions is the right way to be,” she said.  So the Bishop has drawn a line?  Yes, out of one side of his mouth.  But out of the other side Bishop Gaydos “Supports the role of the pastor to act in the best interests of the people of this parish.”  Which means he draws no line because he says that being those persuasions is harmful to a person but chooses to allow his pastors to not help them.  

The only logical conclusion one can draw from this contradictory nonsense is that Bishop Gaydos and his staff are using LGBT families and transgender children as cannon fodder to advance their own process, which is the process of revolution in our Diocese. 

If you have a moment allow us a further comment on Sister’s claim that they’ve received not more than 25 letters and 40 phone calls.  Her need to state figures implies an need for damage control.  Let’s assume, despite what we’ve seen from her, that she’s telling the truth.  In the digital age saying you only received 25 letters is like saying you only received 5 telegrams or 2 messages by Morse code.  If 25 people actually put pen to paper and mailed a letter then undoubtedly an order of magnitude more used email.  As for the 40 phone calls we implore you to call the Chancery just once and see if anyone answers.  People have left upwards of 10 voicemails in order to get one conversation, some have finally chosen to drop in unannounced.  Sister, do we need to start publishing phone calls and conversations in audio and video to get your attention?   You are just making things harder for yourself and everyone else by taking local parents for country bumpkin fools.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s