Denver, Colo., May 18, 2018 / 05:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).- It was a quiet Thanksgiving for Kerry.
She and her husband had just retired from the military, and they were home in Colorado Springs with Kerry’s mother-in-law, whom they were taking care of at the time. But the house, with two extra, empty bedrooms upstairs, felt just a little too quiet.
Kerry had no children of her own, but it was around that time that she felt God calling her to foster parenting.
“I just saw this article in the paper for a foster agency and it really spoke to me and I said ‘Ok God this is what you want me to do? Because I’m a little bit old for this.’ But…I felt I was just really made to do this and God said, you can do this!”
It’s something that many Catholic foster parents have in common – the feeling that God called them to open their homes and hearts to foster parenting.
Kerry and her husband began fostering through a local Christian agency called Hope and Home, and after meeting the licensing requirements, embarked on a six-year foster care journey, in which they fostered a total of 10 kids, adopted two, and provided respite care for several other “kiddos,” as Kerry affectionately calls them.
“Foster care is a learning experience, and is probably the hardest yet most rewarding thing I’ve ever done,” Kerry told CNA.
For foster care awareness month, CNA spoke with four Catholic foster parents about their stories, and the faith that inspired them along the way. Only first names have been used to protect the children who have been or are still in their care.
“The greatest of our foster-heartbreaks has become my life’s work” – Kerry, Colorado Springs
Kerry’s family learned a lot, the hard way, from their first foster care placement, a two-year-old named Alex.
“It was hard, as Alex had suffered abuse and neglect and was terrified of all things to do with bedtimes,” Kerry said. “We spent the first week sitting outside the door of his bedroom, because he was terrified to have us in there and yet terrified to be alone.”
About seven months after Alex had been placed in their care, he was returned back to his biological father. Kerry strongly objected to that plan, telling their caseworker that she believed the father was not ready to take his son back.
Kerry’s objections were overruled, and Alex went home with his biological dad. Nine months later, Kerry learned that Alex had died of severe head trauma while in the care of his dad’s girlfriend. It was because of Alex that she began to research and advocate for the prevention of child abuse.
“The greatest of our foster-heartbreaks has become my life’s work,” Kerry said. “I am part of our county’s Not One More Child Coalition, the secretary for our local Safe Kids Colorado chapter, and the Chair of the Child Abuse Prevention Committee for our local chapter of the Exchange Club,” she said.
“We are also working to establish a child abuse prevention nonprofit called Kyndra’s Hope – named for another local foster girl who actually entered foster care in hospice, as she was not expected to live due to the severe physical abuse by her biological parents. Thanks to the prayers of her adopted mom, Kyndra is now a lively 10-year-old who, despite her disabilities, has beaten the odds.”
Kerry has adopted two of the 10 of her foster children, and provided respite care for numerous others.
Kerry said she felt relief and belonging in her local Catholic parish, because several other families have adopted children and blended families, “so to just go and sit and be a normal family with all the other people there was just really wonderful some days,” she said.
One of the main patron saints she leaned on as a foster parent was St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes.
“I was always praying to him for myself and for my kiddos who were really lost, just to help us all find ourselves,” she said.
“What do my pro-life duties entail?” – Scott; Lincoln, Nebraska
Scott and his wife were newlywed “classic, orthodox Catholics” living in Lincoln, Nebraska. While they had no known medical issues, they tried for six years to get pregnant, but it just wasn’t happening.
After mourning the loss possible biological children, the couple began to talk about adoption. While the idea of foster care surfaced at the time, “It scared us a little bit,” Scott told CNA.
They knew that many of the children they would encounter would come from difficult situations, and as first-time parents, they weren’t sure they would be able to handle that.
They adopted a son, Anthony, but they still felt the desire for more children. When they considered a second adoption, they were encouraged to look more seriously into foster care.
They took the foster parent preparation class, but still felt some hesitation, and so they “kicked the can down the road” a little longer. But something happened at their city’s annual Walk for Life that stayed with Scott.
“We go to the Walk for Life every year, and there’s a lady there every year, she had this sign and it basically said ‘Foster, adopt or shut up.’ That was what she was saying as a counter-protest to a pro-life group,” Scott recalled.
“It’s something that stuck with me because I thought you know, what do my pro-life duties entail?”
Soon after, he and his wife felt called by God to open up their home to foster children. They told the agency, thinking they would wait another year or two before getting a placement.
Ten days later, a little two-year-old named Jonathan came to stay with them. Even though he was young, the family has had to work with him on some deep-seated anger issues and speech delay problems.
“This is really pro-life,” Scott said of foster care and adoption.
“This birth mom chose life, but she can’t raise this child, and so my wife and I are going to take the ball and we’re going to do the hard work and we’re going to get through this.”
“I really feel like God called us to this, and called us to this little boy,” he added. “You can’t ignore the call – or you shouldn’t – it’s similar to a vocational call in my opinion.”
Something else that struck Scott throughout the process was how much foster parenting is promoted in Evangelical churches, including those sponsoring their family’s agency- and how infrequently he heard it mentioned in Catholic ones.
“I would say that [Evangelicals] do a fabulous job in their churches as far as promoting foster care and getting lots of families to participate,” Scott said. “And we’ve got the one true faith, so I want our families and couples to learn about this and possibly participate in it,” he added.
“I know it’s not for everybody, but there’s lots of different things other than taking a child that you can do,” he said, such as mentoring a child or offering support to other foster parents.
“We’ve always had a special spot in our heart for kids in foster care” – Jami; Omaha, Nebraska
Jami’s family, like Scott’s family, experienced a time of infertility before deciding to look into foster care or adoption as a way to grow their family.
But they were also drawn to it in other ways. Before they were married, Jami and her husband had volunteered at a summer camp that united foster care kids with siblings living in other foster homes.
“We volunteered for that as camp counselors, so we’ve always had a special spot in our heart for kids in foster care, so we wanted to try it out for that reason also,” Jami told CNA.
Jami had also grown up in Omaha, Nebraska, the home of Boystown, a temporary home for troubled boys and youth founded in 1917 by Servant of God Father Edward Flanagan.
“I have a special relationship with him, even when I was younger, I used to think he was so cool,” Jami said. “And all through us fostering, I would pray to him and through him because he knows, he helped these kids in trauma.”
Jami and her husband took an infant, Bennett, into their home. His older sister was placed in a different foster home while they waited to see if the children could be reunited with their mother.
It was an “emotional rollercoaster,” Jami said, because she knew she needed to bond with Bennett, while she also had to be prepared to let him go at any moment.
“I would pray through Fr. Flanagan and tell him just ‘please.’ I trust God and his choice in whether this kid goes home or not, because that was also really hard – I was feeling guilty for wanting to keep the baby, because it’s not yours. We’re there to help the parents,” she said.
“So I really believe that (Fr. Flanagan) was holding this whole situation, he just took care of it,” she said.
“The most challenging thing is letting yourself go, letting yourself bond with the child and not trying to protect your own heart,” Jami said, “and then coping with the emotional roller coaster because that can put a lot of stress on yourself, your husband, the whole family.”
“But the most rewarding part is helping these families, helping the parents have the time they need to overcome whatever challenges they’re facing,” she said. “And getting to bond with the (child) is such a gift because literally if you don’t give it who will? And that is such a gift to give a child.”
“This is hardcore Gospel living” – Michaela; St. Louis, Missouri
Michaela’s foster parent journey differs from many others. She and her husband already had children – four of them, all in grade school or younger – when she felt God was calling her to consider adoption.
When the topic of adoption was brought up during her bible study, “my heart just started burning for adoption, the Spirit was moving within me, but I knew that was not something I could just impose on my family or my marriage,” Michaela, who lives in St. Louis, Missouri, told CNA.
She decided to keep the inspiration quiet, and told God that if this is something he really wanted from her family, then her husband would have to voice the same desires first.
So she never mentioned it to her husband. But one day, some time later, he came to breakfast and said out of the blue: “I think we’re being called to adoption.”
As their research into adoption began, they realized that they didn’t feel called to infant or international adoption – two of the most common routes. They realized that God was actually calling them to foster care.
“It was exactly the desire of our heart, it was where God was calling,” Michaela said.
The prerequisites for foster care include classes that prepare foster parents for worst-case scenarios – children who come from broken, traumatic situations who will exhibit difficult behaviors.
But to Michaela’s surprise, “They come and they’re just the most innocent children, this pure innocence comes from a broken life, they don’t resemble the brokenness that they come from.”
Michaela’s family is relatively new to fostering – they started just six months ago – and already they’ve had four children between the ages of one and seven placed with their family.
One of the most rewarding things about foster parenting has been the lessons her biological children are learning from the experience, Michaela said.
“These aspects of the Gospel we cannot teach our children – I cannot teach you how to lay down your life for someone else. But I can show you with this,” Michaela said.
“This is Gospel, this is hardcore Gospel living.”
The hardest part about foster parenting can be letting go – the goal of foster parenting is not to keep the children, but to provide them a temporary home while their biological family can get back on their feet, Michaela said.
Michaela said that’s a concern about foster parenting that she often hears: “What if I get too attached? Isn’t it too hard?”
“These children deserve to be attached to, so they deserve us to love them so that it hurts us when they leave,” she said.
For this reason, she asks case workers to let herself and her children accompany the foster child to their next home – whether that’s with their parents or with another foster or adoptive family.
“It’s super hard for us, but it’s really good for the kids to see us cry, to know that they are loved that much, that someone would cry over them,” she said.
Michaela said she found great support as a foster parent through the Catholic Church and also through other Christian denominations.
“Our own church totally opened their arms to us, and brings over clothes and car seats and was just hugely supportive and welcoming when new kids come to church,” she said.
“Other churches have provided meals – there’s just such a community within the church, within foster care. They’re all telling us they’re praying for us – so it’s the bigger body of Christ within the foster community,” she said.
Michaela encouraged couples who are considering becoming foster parents to trust God and lean on their faith, even when it may seem like a difficult or impossible task.
“When he calls us to those scary, unknown places he provides, he just shows up in ways that we could have never planned for or imagined,” she said. “He does, he makes a way.”
Adoption and foster care programs for Catholic families can be found through local Catholic Charities or Catholic Social Service branches.
[…]
“learn from any mistakes on the part of anyone involved,”
Like, say, jumping to conclusions without knowing all the facts?
“and begin the process of healing.”
I can’t begin to express how very tired I am of hearing about “the process of healing.”
The Diocese and the school bore false witness against these young men, and acted with rash judgment, participating in the calumny against them.
The only honorable thing for the Diocese and the school to do is PUBLICLY confess that the condemnation they issued was intentional, willful, and of grave matter, and a serious mistake. Then a PUBLIC apology should be issued to the students.
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, whoever “even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor” is guilty of rash judgment, and whoever, “by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them” is guilty of calumny.
These are not apologies.
About fifty years ago, as a member of a group of boys from an all male Catholic high school, I attended events in Washington DC. We were wearing ROTC uniforms, and I remember a moment when we were heckled by Vietnam war protesters. Some in our group wanted to respond, but others said, “…just move on, keep moving”. As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best. And, the possible discovery of our actions would have brought the ire of our famously irate principal. We were more concerned about his possible disciplinary action than fulfilling our own tribal loyalties.
What made us different from the Covington group? “There go I, but for the grace of God”? Possibly… at any rate, cooler heads prevailed in our group.
My thought is that the Covington group had multiple opportunities to truly defuse the tension, but chose instead to ramp it up by voicing “school spirit” cheers. That is the reason for spirit cheers, after all, right? Yes, express enthusiasm for your cause. We typically use those cheers in a school sports event scenario to “intimidate” the opposing team, but when used in another context, they can be threatening. The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path, and by encouraging respect. Yes, the optics here are, in a word, bad.
I think about those young men, and about my brotherhood with them, recipients of a fine education. I’m hoping that sooner, rather than later, they come to realize the reality of the situation, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged to participate in the Catholic education system.
“The young student facing off with the drummer could have more easily defused the incident by gracefully opening a path”
That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path. He didn’t; there was a clear path to the monument already. He wanted to get into the boy’s face, and he wanted to cause an incident, or he wouldn’t have been accompanied by cameramen and so forth. You’ve only to look at his group’s attempt to disrupt Mass at the Basilica. The boys did not give him what he wanted, which was a violent reaction; and the boy in whose face he was drumming remained calm and smiling, which was admirable.
If the boys had moved away from him, it is most likely that he would have followed them or, judging by his record, have claimed that they were disrespecting an elder by walking away.
There is nothing the boys could possibly have done to make the “Black Israelites” calm down, and their cheer did nothing to provoke the “Black Israelites” because that’s group entire function seems to be to scream insults and everybody who isn’t them, including not only the boys but Indians, whom they were also badgering.
The students did nothing wrong. Period. The full tape shows that they were verbally abused by a group of anti-Catholic bigots for an hour and did nothing in response. The phony Vietnam ” vet” who fixed appliances next to Disneyland during his Vietnam tour and ended 4 years in the USMC as a private jumped in the face of the kid for a photo op- as anybody with two synapses can see. The poor kid victimized as a “racist” did what many of us would do- try to ignore the taunts of an ignorant man.
But hey, what is that to 3 bishops who want to cast the first stone? Too bad the students were not abusing little boys- then these “princes of the Church” would have said nothing.
Acting as an apologist for the instigators is not a character trait to be proud of. The next time some thug wants to rob your home while you’re in your bed sleeping by all means diffuse the situation by getting up out of bed and help them loot your belongings.
Another big blunder by the Catholic hierarchy. They jumped to conclusions without knowing the facts just like the mainstream media did. Their revised statement should, at least, have been the first statement, instead of threatening the boys with expulsion. Another example of where the Church ranks are so quick to throw children under the bus, while they continue to close ranks and protect the SHAMEFUL coverup they’ve all engaged in over the years!!!
ALL Diocese and school authorities who bore false witness against the young men must apologize and then resign. There must be a boycott of the church until that occurs.
“That would be true only if the drummer wanted a path, he didn’t…”
I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?”
Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident. Their primary purpose, the Right to Life March, has already been relegated to footnote status. Now, Catholics are divided… some in full throated defense of the boys actions; some shaking their heads at the thoughtlessness of the participating boys.
How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?
I ask educators to examine the problem closely.
“I cannot pretend to know exactly what was in the minds of the teens, or the drummer. My question was left unanswered in your response, “What made us different from the Covington group?””
The difference is that there was nobody there trying to set you up and film it. But how *dared* you wear ROTC uniforms when you knew that htere were some people who hated the military?
“Look again at the net results. The Covington boys group will be known in history as willing, enthusiastic participants in a controversial incident.”
The *only* thing that caused a controversy was the Indian with the drum and the boys’ reaction to that. Nobody even knew about the Black Hebrew Israelis or whatever they call themselves until the controversy was well under way and the longer video was found. And the controversy was ginned up by selective editing. There was no reason that the boys should have had to walk away. They were doing nothing wrong. When the drummer started his bullying, they *still* did nothing wrong.
“How is it possible that 50 years ago a Catholic boys group possessed a situational awareness of outcome, where the current boys school crop failed to recognize the pitfalls ahead of them?”
Pitfalls for standing and smiling? Pitfalls for dancing to a drumbeat? If they had walked away it would have been “How dare they disrespect this well-respected elder by walking away from him?”
You are blaming the victims, and it’s shameful.
“The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents? My point is, my group was quite aware of opportunistic media reporters fifty years ago, ready to jump to photo at the first signs of a confrontation. The Covington boys should have had similar awareness.
Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.
There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek. God given, a right given to us at creation with free will. We should more carefully consider it’s practice.
“The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
“Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.
Your original statement was, “As we discussed the incident, the conclusion was that any response by our group would have legitimized the protesters and provided bad optics for us as bad actors, at best.” Really? Any response? Any at all? Even just standing there quietly and ignoring them? Manifestly a cheer routine or dancing along with any drums they may have decided to pound would have been inappropriate because you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform in the first place, you know, and provoking them).
Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame, and I have seen no action that deserve any such blame. You seem to forget that the video that caused all the outrage had nothing at all in it about the Black Isreeli group. Any responses they made to that wasn’t what caused the problem, so you can leave that aside entirely.
The Indian drummer was not blatantly heckling them at first, as you say the Vietnam War protestors were heckling you. It appears as if at first nobody knew what the drummer was up to; after all, he was unaffiliated with the Black Israeli group, and came out of nowhere, drumming; until he got into their faces and his companion starting making racist comments, why would they have moved, and after that, why should they? And the incident lasted only a few minutes. It would be as if those protestors who were heckling you had been succeeded by somebody who came up to you playing bagpipes or something. Your first thought wouldn’t have been to assume they were there to cause trouble.
“Don’t try to create “victims” of the boys. I’ve watched that practice evolve over the years by all sorts of religious groups.”
The boys were the victims of an attempt to make them look bad. I don’t have to “create ‘victims’ of the boys.” That’s already been done.
“There is no doubt in my mind that the boys made a choice… whether or not to turn the other cheek.”
There is no doubt in my mind that you have no idea what you’re talking about. The boy who was most vilified especially didn’t respond in any way that was blameworthy. He stood there quietly in the face of rudeness and an attempt to make him angry, and he smiled. That actually pretty much *is* turning the other cheek.
“Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
“Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision.”
….
If you will be kind enough to refer to my earlier posts, you should note that I stated, “some in our group wanted to respond”, (I’ll truthfully admit I was one of those wanting to respond, I never made a “brilliant decision” worth “preening” myself. In fact, I am embarrassed when I recall my actions in the event). A few cooler heads prevailed in our group. You should remember, this was at the height of the war protest era, videos and photos in the news every day, plenty of reporters in DC. And, as I stated, our primary concern was of discovery by our disciplinarian rector. I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.
“you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”
We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some. Perhaps that is not equivocal, but since you brought up “provoking”…
“Specify what exactly it is that you find so terribly heinous about the boys’ behavior. You keep accusing them of being to blame”
I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”. I see the words I used… “thoughtless, made a choice not to turn the other cheek, willing participants in a controversial incident, failed to recognize ,and optics are bad.”. Not a single one of my phrases fit the “heinous” or “blame” narrative that is portrayed of my posts.
I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame. I merely pointed out possible alternative actions, that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.”
Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart? That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children. Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.
Peace
I said, “The difference is nobody was there trying to set you up and film it.”
Your reply was, “Please honestly answer this… How could you possibly know that, unless you can claim you were present at both incidents?”
Now you’re complaining, “I fail to understand how your reasoning whether or not I would “preen” myself could affect your answer??? You still failed to answer my question, choosing instead to make uncomplimentary characterisations and speculation of what I might do.”
I answered quite clearly. Your said that only if I had been present at your incident would I know if someone was trying to film you to set you up. The implication is that since you were there, you did know whether someone was trying to film you. I still don’t believe that anybody was filming you, for the two reasons I mentioned:
“Because, for one thing, judging by the rest of your remarks, you would have been sure to preen yourself that you noticed cameras and that was the reason for your brilliant decision. For another, fifty years ago there were far, far fewer people filming anything.”
You quote me ( ““you were in uniform (and again, it’s all your fault for wearing a uniform”) and then replied, “We were required by our school to wear military uniforms… and, you are correct, that was a provocation to some protestors. I doubt that Covington required students to wear MAGA hats, which is admittedly offensive to some.”
That you actually believed that I was seriously blaming you and your companions for wearing ROTC uniforms tells me a lot about you. I would have thought it blatantly obvious that I was engaging in reductio ad absurdam regarding your belief that the boys are to blame for the incident because they wore MAGA hats. I can’t believe that you didn’t reply to me something along the lines of “We had every right to wear our uniforms!” as any normal person would.
“I’ve checked my attitude, and revisited my posts, and cannot find a single instance where I characterized the boys behavior as “terribly heinous, or where I have “accused them of being to blame”.”
You have said that the situation is their fault in essence because unlike you and your companions of ffty years ago, they were not “situationally aware” and weren’t afraid of their disciplinarian principal, so they didn’t scuttle away.
“I submit I have maintained the position that the boys are neither blameless or to blame.”
That makes no sense at all.
“Another of my questions was not answered, what is different about the incidents fifty years apart?”
1. You had a group of hecklers who were angry about the Vietnam War (a political issue which at a stretch at least connected with the fact that you were in uniform) who were probably stupid but also probably sane. You ignored them and moved away (you wrote that someone said “Keep moving,” so it might even have been that you were already moving when they started heckling you, but I can’t tell for sure).
The boys from Covington Catholic High School were gathering at a designated meeting point. They had insults yelled at them by a group of hecklers who were, to say the least, none too stable mentally, and who were yelling at them and at everybody else in the vicinity, for reasons unrelated to anything the boys were doing or wearing. They could not move away because this was where their buses were meeting them; and there was no reason they should. In any case, the heckling by the group screaming at them really wasn’t an issue, and neither was any response they made. That’s not what went viral.
2. You knew from the get-go that the hecklers were targeting you, and why. The boys from Covington at first apparently did not realize that the Indian drummer was targeting or attacking them; he was just some guy drumming who came toward them. The incident didn’t last all that long, and even after the drummer was pounding his drum in the face of students some of the group were still not sure that he was attempting to provoke them.
The hecklers in your case were quite forthright and obvious. The drummer was not, and has since lied through his teeth.
“That was never about who cast the first stone, rather it was about rising above the fray to find a gentler, less confrontational approach to teach our children.”
You are ignoring the fact that the boys didn’t cast a stone, even a metaphorical one, at the drummer at all. I can’t think of anything gentler than smiling and not doing anything. The only confrontational approach I saw was on the part of the drummer and his companions.
“that in hindsight, some boys likely would have preferred, as one stated, he “wished it had never happened.” Considering the smiling boy’s comments at his interview, sounds to me as if he wished he had done it differently. Perhaps he learned his lesson the hard way, like so many of us.”
I think you are drawing unwarranted conclusions. If someone stole my locked car, parked in a mall parking lot in broad daylight, I’d wish that it had never happened; but that wouldn’t mean that I considered that I should have done something differently, with the implication that it was somehow my fault, perhaps for daring to own a car.
Why do anyone you bother with this hateful astroturfer called Bob. It is obvious he was hired to “hate” in this comment area. I wouldn’t respond …the video speaks for itself. The boys are TOTALLY innocent and acted with great restraint. We should be proud of them. Look into the Indian and his background and you can see why Bob the hater loves him. It’s his reflection.
I am astounded that any poster could perceive me as a “hater”, or that my comments are “hateful”.
Again, look at the words I posted…
“the optics are bad”, meaning that the boys participation could easily be subject to varying interpretations, some not favorable.
“I think about those young men and my brotherhood with them, and the higher expectations placed on those of us privileged…”
“thoughlessness of the participating boys”
“boys failed to recognize…”
“boys should have had awareness”
…and so on.
Why should my comments be interpreted as anything more serious than a gentle rebuke to the boys for allowing themselves to be “played” by a group of bad actors? One of those students now expresses a wish he “could have walked away and avoided the whole thing.”. What does that tell you about a real participant’s feelings in hindsight?
A gentler discourse would provide a great example to students, perhaps allowing them to choose “the high road” rather than sacrificing their self respect for a fleeting moment of tribal gratification.
Peace
I think this sadly speaks of the cowardice and bad intentions of the Church hierarchy. The politicization of everything by secular progressives has infected the Church. Unfortunately, we don’t have Pope John Paul II to face this threat.