What Would Jesus Do?

A Catholic school in Colorado is dealing with the question of whether to allow a child to attend whose parents are lesbians. Charles Johnson, lizard that he is, reported on this issue with a variant of the question "What would Jesus do?"

That is a question one hears with fair regularity these days. The questioner is invariably a member of the secular left with next to no knowledge of Christianity or what is written in the Bible. The question is meant to be condescending and incredibly derisive of both Christianity and the 'dumb gun loving, bible toting, homophobic nut' being asked to ponder their Lord. The question is always meant to suggest hypocrisy on the part of Christians.

There was the CNN reporter a few weeks ago who asked "what would Jesus do" when it came to questioning the Christian owner of a car dealership who was offering a free AK-47 with the purchase of a pickup. The reporter obviously knew little to nothing about the Bible. She did not know that one of the last acts of Jesus was to acknowledge that use of force would at times be necessary, commanding of his apostles that "one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36). She did not know the rich history of defending one's self in the Old Testament and that it is honored by Christians. She obviously had never heard of the Catholic Church's Just War Theory.

And today we have this story from Colorado:

A preschooler is caught in the middle of a fight between religion and sexuality. Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School, in Boulder, has refused to readmit a preschooler because the child has two moms. Her parents are lesbians.

. . . The priest addressed the situation in his sermon.

"He feels like it's a calling to be strict with upholding the Catholic principles," said Dave Ensign, president of the Board of Directors of Boulder Pride, a gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender organization.

"People who understand the Catholic teaching will understand why the decision was made," said Fabien Ardila, a member of the parish.

However, not everyone in the parish agreed with the decision.

"I just feel the Catholic Church is a church that should be teaching acceptance and tolerance. I just don't think this is an example of that," Juli Aderman-Hagerty told 7NEWS as she was leaving Mass. "Father Breslin said it right. We're all sinners. Why discriminate against this end of sinners?"

. . . the Archdiocese of Denver did issue this statement:

"To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment."

. . . Protesters said they'd like to see the decision reversed in this case. At the very least, they're glad their voices are being heard. . . .

The decision whether to enroll this child presents competing, legitimate arguments. That said, no one familiar with Catholicism or Christianity can argue that the Archdiocese has articulated anything other than a reasonable position in line with the moral teachings of the Church. Further, this is not a situation where the child has no other options. There are numerous private and public schools which, one can assume, are available to her. It is not apparent from the article whether the "two mommies" picked the Catholic school for their child out of the best interests of their child, or whether it was a choice made to advance acceptance of their homosexual lifestyle.

All of this is not a difficult question, though, for the secular and newly minted leftie, Charles Johnson. His take on this was:

What can you even say about an appalling story like this? Punishing the innocent doesn’t seem like something Jesus would have approved of.

I will grant that the child herself is innocent. But, as is obvious to anyone looking at this issue without an anti-religious bias, this is not about punishment of a child. The real issue is concern with the Church that they would be seen as condoning an immoral relationship. As the Church response suggests, if the parents forgo their relationship for the benefit of the child, then the child would be allowed entrance.

Certainly Jesus preached hating the sin but loving the sinner. That said, I know of nothing that suggests he would condone ongoing sin. Consider the money-changers in the Temple (Matthew 21:12). He certainly didn't accept their presence. Likewise, consider the parable of prodigal son (Luke 15:11). The father of the wayward son did not embrace him while he was gone. He did not go looking for him. But when the son returned and asked forgiveness, the father embraced him.

At any rate, Mr. Van Der Luen of American Digest made an interesting point the other day in a tongue in cheek post, Frequently Answered Questions.

What would Jesus do?

Why don't you ask Him? He will tell you. The hard part is for you to act on it. . . .

For people like Charles Johnson - they don't ask "Jesus;" rather they look upon people who do as somehow less intelligent, hypocritical yahoos. What they embrace is a deconstruction of Judeo Christian morality - the bedrock of Western Civilization - and a "feel-good" permissiveness in its stead. The left has been warring on Christianity since the socialism was birthed in the crucible of the French Revolution two centuries ago (and indeed, the left's war is far more advanced across the pond, though our left is doing their best to catch up). The attempt to have the Catholic Church in the instant case roll over and condone a lesbian relationship is certainly a part of that war, whether that was the intent of the "two mommies" or not.

The reality is that remaining true to one's morals and ethics is rarely easy and sometimes, as in the instant case, very messy indeed. That is what is at issue in Denver - and while there are many ways to characterize the situation, "appalling" is not among them.