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.  

Local Diocesan priest threatened for publishing the revolutionary Transgender Process.

Fr. Frank of the Jefferson City Diocese spoke to Lifesitenews.com about the new Diocesan Transgender agenda and Process and how Fr. Joe Corel left him a threatening voicemail for publishing documentation concerning it.  We would like to publish Fr. Corel’s response to this charge should he give one.  If you are a local cleric or a member of the Chancery staff defending this process and reading this blog please note that there is a reason that the parents don’t trust your interpretation.  In fact there are many reasons that you’ve given them over the last 20 years.  You have neglected to consider the needs of your faithful.  You have absolute authority in almost every way over our local Church but not over the rights of parents to educate their children.  You have a major chink in your absolute authority which is that you are completely funded by the people you serve.  If everyone concerned about this issue would simply withhold their funds from all parishes and the Diocese for 6 months it would become clear that you must listen to the parents of the children you think you have authority over.  Save your tithe with the promise to donate it when the Chancery finally listens.  It’s hard enough to afford a family without paying for the Church authorities to undermine the schools.  To quote the article, it’s up to the lay people to help the Church be herself again:

Question: “Is there any message you want to give to the people who may be reading this?”

Answer:  “I mentioned before, it’s good that the lay people are getting involved because it is going to take the lay people. The priests, while they have some influence, they are still under ‘authority’ and, to a certain extent, we have to be covering them (the priests). “It will take the lay people to make changes, and that has been how it is throughout the history of the Church. When abuses in the long history of the Church have arisen, it has taken ordinary people to change things for the better –- because THEY are the Church.”

 

 

Question:  “…it sounds as if you would encourage more letters, more visits to the Diocese, more phone calls?”

Answer:  “Yes, I certainly would encourage that. If you sit back and do nothing, it gives the message ‘we have given up; we don’t have the control; we’re giving up because it’s just too hard.  What’s that quote from Edmund Burke? ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil – is for good men to do nothing.’ This has gone far beyond our Diocese. This issue is being spread and people now know about it – even in places like Texas.”

Bishop Paprocki of the Springfield IL Diocese makes a clear statement, while even feminists take a stand.

Even a feminist activist has taken a stand against parts of the transgender agenda.

Bishop Gaydos himself has the authority, like Bishop Paprocki did, to make a clear statement one way or the other on the issues addressed in the 17 page document that his staff released.  Instead he clearly endorsed a vague process along with the Chancery’s dissembling responses to the parents:   Letter From Diocese Redact_2

Certainly our Bishop must have an opinion one way or the other about whether transgender children may be admitted to his schools, he just needs the courage to come out and speak.

One really needs a dictionary and a thesaurus to find words adequate to describe the behavior of our Chancery and the voluminous but vacuous material they produce.

dis·sem·ble

(dĭ-sĕm′bəl)

v. dis·sem·bled, dis·sem·bling, dis·sem·bles
v.intr.

To disguise or conceal one’s real nature, motives, or feelings behind a false appearance.
v.tr.

To disguise or conceal behind a false appearance. See Synonyms at disguise.

 

 

 

 

Who refuses to dialogue? Chancery staff and the Bishop. Watch this 5 Minute video of their own duplicitous words.

Duplicitous:  deceptive in words or action.  The idea of doubleness is at the core of duplicity. Duplicity comes from a Latin word meaning “double” or “twofold,” and its original meaning in English has to do with a kind of deception in which you intentionally hide your true feelings or intentions behind false words or actions. If you are being duplicitous there are two yous: the one you’re showing and the one you’re hiding. And—key to the idea of duplicity—you’re hiding that you in order to make people believe something that’s not true.   https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duplicitous

This five minute video is a compilation of John DeLaporte using the word dialogue at various times while explaining, along with Fr. Joe Corel and Sr. Youngs, at the priest’s meeting how they won’t dialogue with parents who don’t have a right to know about their agenda.  Read Bishop Gaydos’ letter, there is no dialogue and they plan to have no dialogue.  They are also fond of telling people in private letters and emails that it’s unlikely that any of these transgender students would be admitted to a Diocesan school, yet in the video in cuts from the priest’s meeting they seem to assume that it will happen.  All of their statements and actions make sense if you assume that they have an agenda, that they want to admit these students, and that they are only frustrated because they want the parents to think otherwise and the parents are refusing to do so.  It really looks as though they are surprised that the locals could figure this out, all of the large and complicated words.   From the Bishop on down these people can’t stop using the phrases “Blue collar” and “Mostly rural Diocese.”  Note that the University of Missouri-Columbia (the largest University in the state) and the State Capital are both in the Diocese, within 30 miles of the Cathedral.  Chancery staff trip over themselves with self congratulation while trying to convince the world that their mostly rural parishioners won’t understand what they are trying to do.  Pay no attention to the country bumpkins with pitchforks and torches, they don’t have a need to know anyway.  Let them eat cake.

Since 2002 the people have been given many reasons not to blindly trust their kids to the promises of Chancery leaders and clerics.  So far we have refrained from citing court cases and other sordid documents but we are adamant that especially since 2002 these leaders owe the parents actual dialogue and a clear policy based on Church teaching.  Or just clear language and good English in general.  This is a bad time for anyone to take Church leadership at face value when they use duplicitous, evasive, and circumlocutious language.

Attorney Millie Aulbur and The Rights of Parents

Attorney Millie Aulbur, Director of Citizenship Education at The Missouri Bar.  When researching the citations and sources for the Diocesan Transgender Policy you’d only be surprised if you found someone defending Church teaching, or even mentioning it at all.  There are a lot of contributors to that document who are qualified in various things other than what they should be to help formulate Catholic School policy.  Read the two articles below about Millie Aulbur, who is the wife of Deacon Mark Aulbur of Immaculate Conception Parish in Jefferson City.  She is qualified to at least organize the instruction of others on the rights of same sex couples.  This isn’t a commentary or a complaint about that, rather the question parents should ask her and the other contributors to the “process” document is how well they understand the rights of parents.  Or, how much experience they have pastoring a parish school, raising children, teaching children, or for that matter instructing parents on the teachings of the Catholic Church.  If you scroll down below these articles there is a letter from a parent drawing out the logical questions the new “process” leaves unanswered.  Keep in mind that a process naturally leads to a goal.  It says in the document that whenever possible the goal is enrollment.  Then it says that pastors make the final decision on enrollment.  They never define the terms where enrollment isn’t possible which means Bishop Gaydos is cleverly not forbidding the enrollment of transgender students  If this is not the case, if we are incorrect, then he should make a clear public statement to the contrary.  Aulbur, Transcript

 

Aulbur

Aulbur, 14th AmendmentTranscript, Volume 38, Issue No. 2 (Fall 2014)

Aulbur, 14th Amendment

From a parent:     “The policy for the admittance and accommodations of transgendered students in Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Jefferson City gives little to no guidance to priests and principals, though it claims to do so.  To come to this conclusion one does not have to look very hard.  For instance, on page four of the document it mentions that parents of other students are on a need to know basis.  What does this mean?  Need to know about what?  Further on page 10 it states that accommodations are to be made for the transgendered student as you would make for any other student with a learning, mental, or physical disability.  What does this mean?  Does anyone know what these accommodations are?  The policy surely does not give an ounce of guidance on these issues.  So what are we the parishioners supposed to do in order to determine what this policy really means?  We could ask the diocese, but requests to them go unanswered, and when they publish responses in news articles their answers are not consistent.  In one place they state that they are just doing what other dioceses across the country are doing, and in another, they say they are at the forefront of diocese in addressing these issues.  How can both of those statements be truthful? Simple answer, they cannot.  So that leaves us, the lay readers of the document to attempt to discern what they truly say.

            In order to determine what the policy means by a need to know basis or all accommodations, we need to look at the documents that the policy cites says about these issues.  Now, I could bore every reader and review 17 of the citations, but that is surplusage, we only need to look at one document, the letter to colleagues that is cited.  In this document it states that if a transgendered student is going on an overnight school trip that they are to stay in the hotel room with the sex of the students that they are presenting as, and the parents of the other students are not to be notified.  What?  How can this be?  The need to know basis says my daughter may be in a hotel room overnight with someone that is biologically a male and I am not to be notified.  This document leads to the conclusion that my daughter will be in a hotel room with someone that is biologically a male and that person who is biologically a male will be changing clothes in a room where my daughter is and my daughter will have to change clothes with them in the room.  My daughter will be present when the person who is biologically a male gets out of the shower, and the person who is biologically a male will be present when my daughter gets out of the shower.  AND I, THE PARENT ARE NOT TO BE TOLD ABOUT THIS.

            It is concerning enough that the parents are on a need to know basis about the accommodations that are being made for the transgendered student and I am not told that my child is in such a rooming situation, but the letter goes on from here.  The letter further states that this need to know basis regarding the transgendered person does not stop with the students, but is also to be applied to the teachers.   What does this mean to me the reader of the document?  This means that your daughters coach, we will call her Ms. Smith, may really not be a female, but may be a transgendered male presenting as a female and the parents of the students are not to be told of this.  To some this may not seem like such a big deal at first blush.  However, if one is to sincerely think about this and what it means they may come to a different conclusion.  Think about it, my daughter is playing a high school sport, Ms. Smith is her coach.  Well, where does one find the coach of a high school student?  They are on the court or the field, they are present at practice, you see them at banquets and fundraisers, they are on the bus to away games, they are in the hotels with my child, of course they are in a different hotel room than my child is in, and they are in the locker room with my child, the place where my child undresses and showers.  Do we really want Ms. Smith who still has all of the reproductive parts as a male, i.e. a penis, in the  locker room with our daughters when they disrobe and shower?  AND, THE PARENTS OF THE ATHLETES ARE NOT TO BE TOLD OF THIS FACT.

            As it can be seen the need to know basis really means that the parents of the other students need to know nothing, and will never be informed when there is a transgendered student in any situation with our children.  Further, the accommodations policy which is never defined in the policy can be clearly defined when one reads the cited papers that the diocese has chosen to rely on.  The accommodations that are to be offered are every single accommodation that can be thought of.  Be it restrooms, hotel rooms, locker rooms, or showers.  One may say that the author of this response to the policy of the Jefferson City Diocese is overreaching and reading things into the policy that are not there.  But what other conclusion can one come to when there is an undefined need to know policy, and an undefined accommodations policy that is supported with a document that says parents are not to be told when they child is sharing a room with a transgendered student of a different biological sex or lead by a teacher or coach who is transgendered and of a different biological sex than the student?

            One final parting thought to all of those that think I have come to an absurd conclusion.  I am merely stating what the policy cites as a supporting document in order to define undefined terms.  You can either chose to believe what the citations themselves say about these policies, or you can chose to believe the policy developed by the diocese, which has not been offered to the parents who have children in the schools, and intentionally leaves out parts of definitions of words that do not fit the necessary implementation of this policy on all Catholic Schools in the Jefferson City Diocese.  Why would the authors of this policy leave out in the definitions section when discussing gender dysphoria the particular line of the source they are quoting, “The Catholic school has a responsibility for the spiritual development of its students.  Gender transitioning is contrary to Catholic teaching, and therefore the Catholic school cannot support any transitioning actions.”  Why was this intentionally left out?  I will let you the reader determine if the authors of this policy and the defenders of it are being honest with you or not.”

image2image1

Bishop Gaydos’ letter fully supporting the transgender acceptance policy.

Bp Ltr Pastors-Assocs accompaniment process

Read the letter above, it makes clear what the Bishop thinks. Like the original policy document it’s for internal use only.  Parents, you’re not on a need to know basis.

This blog has made no comment on the LGBT community or what adults choose to do.  We remind you that everyone is accepted into and accommodated by the public school system which we all already pay for.  However we do believe that people have the freedom of association, as in association in private schools, and that children have a right to a period of innocence especially before puberty.  We also believe that everyone has freedom of speech and that the Church and parents have the right to express an opinion on what is good or bad for children.  That being said we believe it is complete hypocrisy for a man to be funded by a free association of people in a Church while undermining the teachings of that Church and the very purpose of the schools it runs.  It is even worse to do so while claiming to not be doing so and hiding the subversion from families.  If this is how the Church is to be run there is no point in paying for a Catholic school, young families have a hard enough time as it is since 2008.  The Cathedraticum is a tax the Diocese imposes on every parish to pay the Chancery staff and the Bishop.  Along with the annual Catholic Stewardship appeal this is how Church leaders are funded.  If you give to a parish they tax your donation.  Unfortunately if you are unhappy with this situation you have to quit funding your parish for a time.  We remind you that you are already paying for public schools that you may enroll your children in at any time.   Jefferson City is beginning a brand new High School to be finished in 2019.

Bishop Gaydos is a master of words but also a master of underestimating the intelligence of Catholic families.  He isn’t mandating that schools accept transgender students but he is, as he says, allowing his priests to do so.  Since he has absolute authority over the priests in his Diocese, “allowing” has the same effect as mandating.  No one priest must do so but some will.  He also claims that blogs, emails, and newsletters (Are there any newsletters left in 2017?) are running a misinformation campaign.  It’s not MIS information, it’s HIS information.  Read the documents, read this letter, read their interview in the paper.  We’re just pointing out the logical conclusion of their words, that’s what the words actually mean and what they will actually do, not what he wants you to think they mean.    For example, “We probably are in the lead,” Sister Elizabeth Youngs, the diocese’s superintendent of Catholic schools, told the News Tribune of how she views the diocese as a forerunner among other U.S. dioceses when it comes to crafting guidance on inclusion of students from families headed by lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, unmarried or divorced parents.  “We’re following the same guidance that every diocese in the United States has followed,” Young said.

How can they be in the LEAD yet also be FOLLOWING what every other Diocese has done?  They pillory themselves.  That’s what happens when you are trying really hard to hide something and then when caught you can’t tell the truth about trying to hide it.  He’s going to have to start doing the interviews himself so the sentences don’t get tied up in knots.  Or just tell the truth.

Dear Chancery Staff,

Let’s dialogue.  If it’s a good idea to admit transgender students to Catholic schools then tell the faithful donors why and lead them in that direction.  Show them where the USCCB backs you up.  Let the parents decide.