BOSTON — The Archdiocese of Boston has decreed that children of same-sex couples can enroll in its parochial schools, reversing a controversial 2010 decision at the parish level refusing one such admission.
The decision, very different from one made by the Archdiocese of Denver last year, drew a mixed reaction from Catholics, but won the swift endorsement of Michael Reardon, executive director of Boston’s Catholic Education Foundation, an independent organization that funds school construction and repair as well as scholarships. The foundation had announced in the wake of last year’s rejection of a same-sex couple’s child that it would provide no scholarships to schools that discriminated in this way.
“From the perspective of the foundation, the key part of this is that it does not exclude any group of students, and it promotes what is essential to Catholic education, which is inclusivity,’’ Reardon said.
The Jan. 12 statement from the Catholic Schools Office of the archdiocese cited a statement made by Pope Benedict XVI to an assembly of American Catholic education officials in 2008 that said, “No child should be denied his or her right to an education in faith, which in turn nurtures the soul of the nation.” The schools office also states that “Parent(s)/guardian(s) of students in Catholic schools must accept and understand that the teachings of the Catholic Church are essential and are a required part of the curriculum.”
In contrast, Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput strongly supported Sacred Heart of Jesus School in Boulder, Colo., last March, when it told a lesbian couple their child could not enroll for first grade.
As the archbishop explained at that time, Catholic schools are committed to working with parents in teaching the Catholic faith. But “if parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.”
Teachers Conflicted
Noting that “most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced,” Archbishop Chaput argued, “That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents. That isn’t fair to anyone — including the wider school community.”
The archbishop said that children of non-Catholics and of divorced parents are allowed to attend Catholic schools “as long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.”
He also noted that Catholic parents pay twice for education, once through taxes supporting the public system and a second time through tuition for the Catholic schools. They should be able to count on getting what they paid for, he argued: a Catholic education and not the education they might expect elsewhere.
However, Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver, British Columbia, former secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education in Rome, said via e-mail that the children of same-sex couples would not automatically be excluded in his archdiocese: “A child of same-sex parents would not be treated any differently than any other child.”
He added, “All families must complete a ‘Family Statement of Commitment’ that they will work with school and parish to provide an environment where faith and learning go hand in hand.”
Archdiocesan spokesman Paul Schratz said that unmarried parents would face the same challenge as same-sex parents signing the commitment and convincing the school admissions committee, which includes the pastor, that they could honor the commitment. “It would be a teaching opportunity for the pastor with the parents.”
Schratz said several same-sex couples had been presented with the commitment document, but he was not aware of any children of same-sex couples presently enrolled.
Sending a Signal
Women for Faith and Family’s president, Helen Hitchcock, said she found Archbishop Chaput’s arguments compelling. She finds plausibility in an argument for inclusiveness — “that exposure to Catholic teaching would have a good effect even if the parents were 100% opposed to some elements of it.”
But given that many who call themselves Catholic openly disagree with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, she said, admitting the children of homosexual couples “would send a signal that this behavior is all right. If the Church sees no problem with the children, then it looks like it doesn’t care about what the parents are up to.”
Hitchcock also raised the question of the parents’ motivation: “Why would they want to send their children to a Catholic school when they don’t agree with its teaching? Do they just want to make problems?”
Register correspondent Steve Weatherbe writes from Victoria, British Columbia.
Jimmy Akin: Was Same-Sex "Marriage" a Christian Rite?
Comments
Post a Comment
Your Eminence,
First: the Kennedy Funeral Fiasco, now: “Children” of Homosexuals can attend Parochial Schools!
To allow enrollment of children from same sex couples is opening up Pandora’s box. Why do we need to lower our standard of beliefs in order to include children in these situations. Yes, these children do need the teachings from the Bible, but if other children in the class find out that their fellow student has 2 dads or 2 moms from a same sex marriage, what are these other children learning? That same sex marriage is OK? There has to be a way of educating these children another way. Allowing these children in the class is creating that “crack in the door” that will allow a lot more in than this. Why are these couples wanting to enroll their children anyway? Is this their silent way of saying that they don’t respect or even want to obey the teachings of our Holy Mother the Church?
What happens when the “child of a same sex couple” learns that “daddy and daddy” or “mommy and mommy” are living in the state of grave sin, or has that concept been dropped in favor of “inclusivity?”
IMO: 98% of these partners want to send their kids to Catholic schools because of some misguided social activist instinct. The other 2% are perhaps celibate and trying their best to live free of sin and honestly want their children to be imersed in the faith. Tough one because I can identify with the kids but worry about a Trojan Horse effect.
Helen Hitchcock is right! The parents(?) are mischief makers. Once they get in the school, they exert their influence and poison others with their homosexual agenda. I know this is true, as years ago, I had several young men in my youth prayer group. I thought they were sincere and good Catholics. My sister from Texas attended one of my youth prayer meetings. After they were gone my sister dropped a bomb. She said, Rosie, they are ALL homosexuals! I was shocked. Eventually, their future actions proved her 100% correct.
It is my opinion that that is how the homosexuals invaded our seminaries and caused the tremendous scandal in the priesthood.
This is why no one respects the Catholic Church anymore: we don’t stand up for what we say we believe in. Once children of same-sex couples start entering parochial schools, the Catholic Church will be forced to be silent on its teaching about homosexuality. We’re becoming the Episcopal Church.
I do not think that is a wise decision as of right now when most of the gay activist groups are trying to stir things up to make scandal and catch attention from the media. I can see the Head Lines, “Church officials stand accused of racqueteering and extorsion for forcing the parents to sign an agreement which violates their children human rights to an education” Either way they will make the Church look bad. I rather deny admission.
Just like the other NCR, this one, finally, also rallies against the bishops we don’t agree with. Thanks EWTN for bringing some backbone to NCReg.
Read more about this atrocity and Fr. Bryan Hehir, the Boston priest behind it, in several articles at http://bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com/ Recall that Fr. Hehir wrote the infamous “seamless garment” speech for Cardinal Bernardin, leading to Catholic support for proabort politicians. Now he and Cardinal O’Malley have effectively deconstructed Catholic schools in Boston. ...coming to a diocese near you soon??
As God’s world continues to be revealed to us through Jesus, wouldn’t it be prudent to be open to new ideas?
Cardinal O’Malley and the archdiocese of Boston are acting justly and compassionately. A child doesn’t get to choose who adopts him or her. Denying a child a Catholic school education is just plain mean. It will not cause a homosexual couple to break up or become straight. It harms the child, and causes scandal, making the church look mean-spirited despite any good intentions or sophisticated and abstract theological arguments. You people who want a meaner-leaner puritan church beware: We are all sinners in one way or another. Once you start throwing people out because of this sin and that, eventually someone will suggest throwing people like you out, too. Christ came to call sinners. The only class of people he objected to were the self-righteous.
The Archdiocese of Boston is making a big mistake. Dumbing down the Moral Doctrine of the Catholic Faith causes confusion, the turning away from faith and hindering the truth in our relationship with God. As a mother of 5 children, with one child in a Catholic school, I am witness to the fact the many of the Catholic families in the school don’t to go to Sunday Mass on a regular basis. The reasons that parents send their children to a parochial school are varied including its small, private and their children have the opportunity to play and shine in athletics. I was also witness to a statement from a fellow Catholic the other day that she thought the Bible was all a work of fiction. The Catholic church needs to stand firm on its doctrine and policies because we are not going to get the Truth from anywhere else. Everyone needs to know with clarity what is right and what is wrong.
This is a difficult issue each way. I believe that Archbishop Chaput’s arguments are very compelling, and they need to be seriously considered but at the same time the reality of the right of that child to authentic Catholic school instruction (assuming they’re getting it) is a tremendously important one. I am torn on this issue personally, but I like the idea of an agreement with regards to parents understanding the authenticity of the Catholic instruction they’re getting. I was a Catholic school teacher for years and it was so difficult trying to share the faith of the Church with those kids whose parents rejected it and raised them to do the same, but wanted to send their kids to Catholic schools just because they had higher average ACT scores. Perhaps we (and the many other schools like us) needed a similar agreement.
Jesus did not exclude anyone, neither should we. God is the final judge. We are to love our fellow men and women as Christ taught us to do. Leave the rest to God.
What about the case where the the biological parents are divorced, one parent is a faithful Catholic, while the other is living with a homosexual partner, and both parents have joint custody?
A lot of parents place their children in Catholic schools because of schools academic excellence and their good environment. Sorry to say, some of these parents don’t place their children in Catholic school for the priority of educating the Catholic faith to their children. I know a lot of non-Catholic Christian or non-Christian parents who place children in Catholic schools.
Bishop Chaput said it best: “If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.”
Understand that it would create financial hardships for some parish schools if they don’t allow everyone in, but isn’t standing up for Church teaching more important than financial well being? This is where trusting in God comes in.
Also, it is true that all children deserve to be exposed to the faith, but if there is an honest attempt by parents to raise their children in the Church, shouldn’t it start by living their life according to what the Church teaches? It sounds like the parents involved want the benefits of the private education, but none of the authentic teachings. If that’s the case, why not just send your kids to a secular private school? Could it possibly be that they want to create division and put themselves in an imaginary “victim” role?
I believe the last comment of this article hits the nail on the head. WHY would someone, or a couple, that obviously doesn’t believe in the Church’s teachings about sexuality and marriage, even want to try to enroll their children? The poor kids are being used as pawns in a larger agenda being pushed by people that want their sexual proclivities to be rendered “normal”.
The school’s primary function is to impart the truth of our faith to its students. What happens when the lesson on active homosexuality is presented? Does the school cop out on this duty? Is the catechism watered down so as not to “discriminate” against the child’s homosexual parents?
This is a very bad decision by Cardinal O’Malley. Most folks had the impression that he would be one of the few courageous shepherds in the mold of Chaput when he replaced Cardinal Law. Boston Catholics deserve fidelity to magisterial teaching.
Some of your comments absolutely scare the wits out of me. The Pharisees were so caught up in the law that they forgot how to love. Rules, ritual and judgment is not what Christ taught.
Love is the primary lesson that Christ taught us. The “Truth” with a capital “T” is up for debate, clearly.
Using an analogy, since the Church refuses to baptize children whose parents have no intention of raising as Catholic; maybe the Church should not be “nurturing” in other ways of the Faith if the parents have no intention of raising Catholic. The Church has very good reasons why we don’t force a duty onto someone who lacks proper support.
In the case of Boston, the Church should be teaching all the kids about morality and the parents will need to be supportive that this topic will come up.
Once the child of gay parents is allowed into the parochial school, what is next: do the gay parents then institute a lawsuit claiming discrimination or hate speech because the school teaches homosexual acts are immoral? I wonder, along with Mrs. Hitchcock, why a gay couple would send a child to a Catholic school which would condemn the very behavior they engage in. What is their motivation?
Forgive my paranoia, but I suspect an agenda here. The school is clearly asking for problems. It’s great to talk about compassion for the child, but what about the other children who may lose their Catholic education when the courts start pressuring the school to teach homosexuality is normal.
Framing this as an individual right is the wrong way to look at this problem.
Cardinal O’Malley and his aids have made a grave error of judgment.
The first fundamental truth of scripture asserts that we are made male and female. There are many sins and disorders of parents, such as divorce, contraception, use of pornography, and such, which while they are injurious to the Common Good, are not readily apparent to the children and parents who come into contact with them.
Homosexual couples, who flaunt their relationship, deride the moral law with every breath they take. They assert by their very relationship that there is no such thing as human nature and that the Church is profoundly wrong about everything it teaches. There is no reason for these people to send their children to a Catholic school. It is a farce.
They undermine the Catholic identity of the school and the catholic education of every child who attends this school.
“but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Mt. 18:6
I am praying for Cardinal O’ Malley.
To those who are insisting that Catholic schools should accept everyone, let me give you a reality check, they have always discriminated about who they allow into the schools. In coming students are always asked to either take an entrance exam or have maintained a certain GPA to qualify for admission. So should failing students be allowed in now as well? Of course the “don’t discriminate” crowd has nothing to say about that because it has nothing to do with equal access. It has everything to do qwith pushing the gay agenda!
Some retorts. I think Boston’s idea is not prudent-
1). Objection: Why not just look the other way if same-sex parents of Catholic school children keep a low profile and don’t put the spot light on themselves? Response: Ignorance or error about a notorious fact about another is not presumed. The fact that they have presented and identified themselves as a same sex couple impacts the purpose, mission and partnering of our Catholic schools.
2). Objection: Singling out the children of same-sex couples is really aimed at disapproving of their same-sex parents. Response: Vatican II stresses a shared partnership in Catholic schools between the students, families, teachers and school associations; Catholic schools partner with parents and families; it’s a far richer concept than just about educating kids disconnected from their parents and families.
3). Objection: There is already a precedent for offering a Catholic education to a child whose parent’s did not partner with the Church because they were either not validly married, contracepting, neglectful, divorced or cohabitating. Response: Yes; parents have gone against the mission and purpose of Catholic schools in the past but did not ask our schools to give them a categorical recognition for their behavior.
4). Objection: Why can’t you accept the child’s enrollment if the parents sign a covenant of compliance with Catholic teachings. Response: Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith with parents.” If parents live in a manner that doesn’t reflect that, a covenant can’t come about.
5). Objection: What kind of message would it send to a child to discriminate against her because something her parents did? Response: We are very concerned about the environment of such children but do not want to enable behavior that would attempt to legitimize same gender couples who adopt them which goes against our two-thousand-year-old faith tradition. Part of enabling behavior is denial.
7). Objection: All types of parents have the right to choose a Catholic education for their children. Response: The definition of both marriage and parent don’t come from human institutions, but from God’s plan for marriage and family. The first meaning of parent is the mother and father of the child. Adoptive parents stem from that model. Our faith will not allow us to redefine God’s definition of marriage or parenthood.
8). Objection: Same sex marriage is here to stay and so are their kids. Response: God’s plan of marriage being between a man and a woman and their children is the first and vital cell of society. It’s the starting point and future of the human race.
9). Objection: What if a same-sex couple thinks their adoption of a child is fine with their conscience? Response: Conscience is not just “what I think” on an issue. Conscience has to be formed.
The Archbishops decision hurts many more souls than it helps. There are many ways to bring Christ to a child in this situation if somehow, someway the parents are willing to raise this child in the Catholic faith, but having dad and dad volunteering at the school and spreading error at worst or confusion at best is not the way. To use the Pope’s statement that no child should be denied his or her education in faith and twist it to allow those openly living in defiance of Church teaching is not loving. If two people are attracted to each other and want to honor the Church teaching, they don’t stay under the same roof and live in a constant state of temptation. This seems more an attempt to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle as not sinful.
I certainly believe what the church teaches about homosexual lifestyles, but I am torn on this issue. If the parents agree to support the Catholic teaching of the school (tricky), then why shouldn’t the child be allowed to learn Catholic teaching? Otherwise, they may grow up believing there is nothing wrong with the way their parents are living. Who will teach them what is right and wrong? Do WE know what is in the hearts of the parents and the student? And when do you start pulling out the children of divorced parents, and parents who use birth control, and parents who are addicted to porn and alcohol, etc? It seems a bit like telling a child with alcoholic parents that they cannot attend Alanon/teen. On the otherhand, I agree that the Church needs to stand firm. At some point I think we need to do what is mericful and right - teach the truth to everyone and leave the rest up to God. . . .and believe in HIS justice.
In saner times, such “parents” would be incarcerated for child abuse. Hear Pope St. Pius V in his Constitution Cumprimum of April 1, 1566: “Having set our minds to remove everything that may in some way offend the Divine Majesty, We resolve to punish, above all and without indulgence, those things which, by the authority of the Sacred Scriptures or by most grievous examples, are most repugnant to God and elicit his wrath: that is, negligence in divine worship, ruinous simony, the crime of blasphemy, and the execrable libidinous vice against nature. ... Let the judges know that, if even after this, our Constitution, they are negligent in punishing these crimes, they will be guilty of them at divine judgment and will also incur our indignation ... If someone commits that nefarious crime against nature that caused divine wrath to be unleashed against the children of iniquity, he will be given over to the secular arm for punishment;”
@Josh: I think any child’s “right” to a Catholic education would be summarily moot when the parents demonstrate such a bold intolerance for the Church’s obvious teachings.
@GAHUBER95: Your proposed case has one probable result: One damn confused kid!
I don’t think admission or rejection from a school would make much difference. Direct, routine intervention0-counseling—and prayer from a holy and inspired priest or religious might be the only real remedy.
No school can realistically provide that.
The Catholic Church reminds me of what the Pharisees of Jesus’ day had become: so caught up in their own judgement of people, rituals and laws that they had forgotten how to love. God is the final judge. Jesus never excluded anyone. We ALL sin and fall short of the grace of God - even good Catholics.
I feel I need to speak up on behalf of the lesbian couple at SHJ in Boulder. I work in the Denver Archdiocese School system, the two women did not enroll their children to “make mischief”, nor does it appear that their intent was to infiltrate the school with a homosexual agenda.
Neither woman went to the press about this story, and they enrolled their children at another school in the fall without making it the media circus it could have been.
I completely agree that the Church cannot turn a blind eye to those who are living in grave sin and allow them to participate as though they are in communion with the Church. How then do we deal with the very many Catholic school parents who are: divorced & remarried (without annulment), or divorced and living with a boyfriend/girlfriend? I’m pretty sure my school isn’t an anomaly. Are some grave sins more palatable because they don’t creeep us out as much?
A divorced person is not out of a state of grace unless or until they engage in a sexual relationship with another person. There has never been a single recorded incident of a pride parade celebrating their immorality.
The reason why this policy is in place is clear. The Cardinal is surrounded by manipulative people who coincidently were also involved in the gay marriage initiatives here in Massachusetts and were appointed by Fr. Hehir who has threatened to stop giving the Cardinal money unless he instituted this policy.
Cardinal O’Malley created this nefarious policy and then absconded with the crozier. Checked out. Gone fishing, way, way out, and the Archdiocese of Boston is in chaos. (A prudent journalist would be wise to call the Chancery and inquire as to the number of days the Cardinal will be present in the Archdiocese from this moment to April 30th.)
For those reading, please know that there is no structure in place within the Church to report corruption and chaos and have that corruption and chaos acted upon by anyone within the Holy See, all the way to the Pope. It pains me to say this, but it is true. I’m sure our poor Pope is overwhelmed with what he has underneath him. God Bless him and protect him. But unless and until we beging to publicly expose the dirty laundry, our children will be brainwashed with the propoganda that will lead them to Hell. Sadly, undereath our dear Pope, there is mostly a network of men who will sweep the most sinister things under the carpets for their brother bishops and Cardinals so that they can politely rub elbows at swanky events.
Something needs to be done and it seems the only recourse we have to getting a Bishop here in Boston would be to bring the house down with the ‘b’ word = bankruptcy.
I don’t know if I’ve ever seen such misguided comments. Did I take a wrong turn somewhere and end up back in the 19th century? The Catholic school across the street from me has always had a large Jewish contingent in its student body. Jewish people like the school because of the famously good discipline, which is why lots of Catholic people send their children as well. The school has never had any problem with “counter-witnessing” in ghe case of Jewish or Protestant students. Why should they have a problem with the children of gay parents? This whole idea that gay parents want to break down the system in some way is a fantasy. they just want a good, structured education for their kids. If they’re Catholic, they want that, too.
Marie, Jesus watched everyone walk away because they would not accept the truth that we must eat His body and drink His blood. There is another side to Christ. The TRUTH is NOT negotiable. He demands we take up our cross. He demands that we die to ourselves, but He doesn’t leave us on our own to do it. He gives us grace through the sacraments. Yes it is “tricky” for a homosexual couple to raise a child in the Catholic faith. They are a constant witness against it. Wendy, this is not a question of being pharisaic. Jesus called sin, sin and told the offenders to cease. His grace IS enough. The gay spin is that it is NOT. The argument is we are all weak, we all sin. But we all ACKNOWLEDGE it as sin and turn to the sacraments for GRACE. Anything else is calling Christ a liar and denying His power over sin! This is an attempt to undermine the Church teaching on homosexual relations. And Maggie, that Boulder couple DID go to the newspaper. It was reported here in the Register.
To the comment that Jesus didn’t exclude anyone -No He called EVERYONE to REPENTANCE. When the person is living in open defiance to Church teaching by announcing their relationship and insisting on keeping it, they are excluding themselves and those under their guardianship. In the circumstance where one parent is a devout Catholic and the divorced spouse is in a homosexual relationship alot depends on the divorce ageement, custody, the effect on the child etc. There can’t be blanket rules.
Eli,
I’d be curious to know if the school has ever balked much at teaching Catholic faith to its student body due to the Jewish populace?
We’re not discussing an issue of inter-religious dialogue in these cases with Denver and Boston. Rather, it appears that self-professed Catholic parents—who’re apparently living an actively gay lifestyle—wish to send children to Catholic schools. Maybe it sounds innocent enough, but these kids WILL ultimately see a difference between what they’re learning at school and what “Mom and Dad” are doing at home. That’s likely to create conflicts.
I find some of the reaction here rather surprising.
Many Catholic parents, wishing their children to learn Catholic orthodoxy, have chosen to send their children to public schools and teach the faith themselves at home. Or they home-school.
Why?
Precisely because too many Catholic schools have failed at living Catholic identity. First they allow this, then they allow that, then they DO this or that. Before long, they’ve fairly abandoned any meaningful definition of “Catholic” school.
I think Catholic schools that become more picky will likely find their enrollment improve with time.
I don’t know about every diocese, but in Cincinnati and Indianapolis, this would be quite laughable. The Catholic schools have TEACHERS that are OPENLY living with someone, or in an adulterous marriage, or using birth control (chemical or sterilization, you name it). Or sometimes they talk very freely about going away for a mini-vacation with the boyfriend. I really doubt this diocese is any different. You know why there can’t be blanket rules? Cuz then you couldn’t target the sins that happen to invade your comfort zone.
Eli, It is the immorality of the lifestyle.
Most of these posts seem to believe that homosexual people are inherently evil in God’s eyes - not surprising in light of the Church’s intolerant teachings regarding people who were born homosexual.
The Church’s treatment of people that God has created as homosexual is very un-Christlike. How would ‘good’ heterosexual Christians feel if the Church told them not to love somebody they were naturally attracted to?
Many of the posts seem informed simply by fear of the other. Why can’t we simply respect others for whom they are instead of judging and rejecting them?
As Mary Price has posted, “Rules, ritual and judgment is not what Christ taught.”
I feel that it’s very difficult to make a blanket statement in this case. Historically, there have been many cases where a child of non-Christian parents chose to embrace Christianity because of attending a Catholic, or other Christian school.
On the other hand, this situation is extremely awkward for all involved, since the church doesn’t recognize that a pupil has “two daddies” - at least not in the sense that the couple would be claiming. When two opposite sex parents aren’t married, or have an irregular marriage, that situation may potentially be regularized. But it’s very awkward to have to tell a child that his family situation is inherently incompatible with Catholic faith.
Of course, that’s what we expect our parishes to teach! And we would not tell a same-sex couple with children that they could not bring children to church, or enroll them in Sunday school (Children’s Liturgy, etc.) or what not. Or would we?
There are a few situations where this would arise. One is where one of the child’s biological parents was a Catholic, and badly wanted the child to have a Catholic education. Perhaps the child had been baptized, or even made First Communion. What if the child attended mass with Grandparents, and had Godparents who actively desired the child to have a Catholic upbringing, to the greatest extent possible. Does the Church then not have a duty to one of her own?
There are also cases where same-sex couples are neither celibate, nor actively trying to undermine Church authority. Sometimes there are people who accept the idea that they are living “in sin” - or, if they don’t believe in sin, they may still see some things about their condition as not-ideal. I’ve known a number of homosexual Christians who experience tremendous feelings of guilt about their lifestyle, but find themselves unable to stay celibate. For some, seeking to have a monogamous relationship represents their resolve to, at least, not be promiscuous. Seeking to have a child receive Catholic education might, in many cases, be a sort of penance. Just like many parents who don’t go to church themselves nevertheless want their children to do so. They hope they turn out differently from themselves.
The bottom line? If we believe that there is an “age of reason” where a child is responsible to take on baptismal commitments for him or herself, to begin going to confession, receiving the Eucharist, etc., then that child should be presented with an opportunity to believe and respond to the Gospel, in its fullness. Are we saying that the children of same-sex couples do not have to believe in Christianity, or should not hear the Gospel of Life because it might offend their families, or hurt their feelings?
This is very odd, since Catholic Charities in the Archdiocese stopped adoptions because of same-sex relationships.
Still, the children should not be punished for the sins of the parents.
Wow, those of you who say that Jesus accepted EVERYONE need to read scripture. He accepted EVERYONE WHO REPENTED OF THEIR SIN! And, yes, there is objective truth taught in scripture. Homosexuality as a same sex couple is a public SIN. As a mother of a Catholic school student, No we cannot admit children of homosexuals. And yes, we also should deny admitance to parents who are living together, because again, it is a public sin. No, homosexulality is no greater a sin, just more obvious and must be taught against. Those of us who are paying Catholic school tuition, should not have to “reteach” what is being taught in our schools. To Eli, Jewish children are accepted into Catholic schools because their parents allow them to be taught the faith and because being Jewish is not a SIN. Yes, the children need to be taught the Truth, but there are other ways of doing this (private instruction with parish or diocesan instructors) without exposing our vulnerable children to SIN presented as being socially acceptable, thus appearing to be morally acceptable.
I think the Archdiocese of Boston is making the correct decision here. It seems that some of the posters here have a strong dislike for homosexuals and think that it is a sin to be gay. It is sad to think that some feel children should be banned from a Catholic school because of the antipathy that some feels towards that child’s parents. It is obvious that some would see the parents as inferior and sinners. Is the child also considered inferior? I wonder what Catholic schools in the South did 50 years ago if an interracial couple wanted to enroll their biracial child in a Catholic school. At that time, interracial marriage was illegal in many states and opposed by 80% of Americans, many of whom thought that interracial marriages were an abomination. People need also to realize that same sex marriage is legal in Massachusetts so that may also figure into this decision.
Mr. Johnstone et al,
I’ll do be my best to be charitable here, but I DO think we have a need to be pretty pointed.
I’ll turn 37 this year. I’ve met hundreds of people over my lifetime; learned numerous teachings, religious and otherwise. EVERYTHING has fallen short EXCEPT the teachings of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, based in Vatican City, and headed by our Pope.
Frankly, I’m beginning to be offended by these attitudes that our Church has been “intolerant”, medieval, or whatever.
You declare the Church’s teachings regarding homosexuals or homosexuality to be intolerant. You think we’re being cruel and unfair. Can you demonstrate some form of competent authority for making these assertions?
Every one of these that I’ve encountered truly came down to this: Someone did NOT like to be challenged by the Church’s teaching. They did not wish to hear the Truth or be called to repentance from sin.
That’s it.
I’m doing what I can to live and pray in communion with God and His Church’s teachings. I wish to wind up in heaven.
The only fear I have right now would be seeing and hearing gutsy priests and bishops declining from their tasks as gutsy priests and bishops.
Heaven help us all when THAT happens!
PS. No one, the Church Herself especially, has declared homosexuals to be evil. If you examine the teaching more closely, you’ll notice that we’re all called to be holy, regardless of what cross we’ve been given to carry.
Whether homosexuality can be labeled as an inborn or chosen identity cannot accurately be determined right now, both because we lack His knowledge of His creation, AND because the matter has become entirely too politicized for any real clarity for all to be possible.
Even so, the Church’s teaching has been consistent: We’re called to love ALL persons, but to loathe their sins.
Hopefully, we’ll be bothered to pray for each other to carry our crosses well.
Peter, It isn’t a question of calling homosexual couples evil. And definitely NOT in God’s eyes. Lost sheep is what He calls all sinners. Sometimes I think to Him we must look like two year olds having a temper tantrum. He can laugh at some things and shows real concern for other things we might rebel about. God has created people born with spiritual and physical crosses. So just because you are born a certain way is not a good argument. However, I question how many people are “born” homosexual since I have seen so many “made” homosexual and often didn’t recognize how they were being conditioned. It is a question of recognizing that God is true to His word. Gabriel tells us “Nothing is impossible with God.” Jesus tells us, “Ask and you shall receive.” This is about truth and faith. “God is light and in Him there is no darkness.” The homosexual act is objectively disordered and abstaining is a cross. It is a battle between the flesh and the spirit. There are many desires people have that they have to die to and society depends on people to die to. And with Christ they can. Fighting the cross only makes it harder. The posts here are reflecting a desire to uphold the Truth that Jesus Christ and the faith are greater than ANY sin and some upset that anything could undermine that!!
@Michael, Everyone is welcome to a Catholic Mass. Not everyone should go to communion. So yes homosexual couples could drop a child off at Mass or go with the child, but the homosexual couple shouldn’t receive communion.
In your scenarios where the parents feel guilt or that the situation is less than ideal, if they are sincere they should be working with a holy priest who believes in Christ’s power to heal or the “Courage” program if it is lead by holy priests. God may be drawing them back to Himself through these feelings. Children are not adults. They are children so they are vulnerable. Certainly the Church wants them to know Christ, but the couple is a constant witness against His teaching so it is complicated and it seems a private setting is probably better than a group setting so the child is not put in the middle.
Christ taught us that love is the greatest commandment. That does not fit well with the intolerance of the Church towards homosexuals and the predilection of the Vatican and some bishops to detailed bureaucratic controls and discrimination.
I expect that children attending school with the children of homosexual couples will develop a more inclusive and less judgemental lifestyle, more in keeping with Christ’s teachings.
I guess some people feel more comfortable with autocratic and simplistic dogma, possibly supported by an arcane interpretation of scripture, but that is certainly not Christ-like, as the Pharisees discovered.
Peter it fits perfectly with the greatest commandment to love because a soul that gives in to sin is dying. God HATES sin. Do you want to forget that. He LOVES the sinner and releases him from sin! Including sin is not being inclusive it is being UNFAITHFUL! God tells us many times through the saints and in our own lives His GRACE is enough! This is not about hating individuals this is about fighting the destruction of light and goodness and grace and healing and faith in the TRUTH of God’s word! Remember when He was asked “Will many be saved?” His response was “Take the narrow road. The road to destruction is wide.” You are on the wrong road if you want to embrace immorality. The truth is neither arcane nor pharisaical. It is loving and truthful and often difficult to hear.
@Mareczku: You are also misunderstanding the difference between hating the sin and loving the sinner. No one is calling anyone inferior, just IN OPEN OPPOSITION to CHURCH teaching. I would submit that if someone knew they were gluttonous and did nothing through the sacraments and prayer and their own will to overcome their state it would be a sin to be a glutton. Same with a sex addict or whatever. So yes, it is possible that it is a sin just to be homosexual if one is aware and enjoys the temptation and doesn’t work on their faith in Christ’s power to overcome sin etc. Absolutely! But it is not a sin for someone who is working to overcome it. We can never know who is doing what and therefore cannot judge, but yes it can be a sin to be a self-satisfied homosexual. And you are looking at three people instead of a whole student and parent population. The child and couple are enrolling in a religious institution with a set of beliefs they don’t want to conform to and actively oppose with their lifestyle. There is no comparison between discrimination because of race and discrimination because of open opposition to the moral teachings of a faith.
Good Afternoon,
Mr. Johnstone, I will suggest to you that many who’ve posted on here have grown up with a routine LACK of discipline; dozens of bishops have simply refused to exercise their appropriate authority, and have allowed us to “express our faith as we wish”. They’ve assumed that such permissiveness would be a blessing.
Surprise!
I and millions of others have come to understand dogma differently. Not as a bogeyman to be forced into the grave, but a Truth of life to be embraced and celebrated.
Love itself IS the greatest commandment. But how can I truly love another if I don’t know what love IS? I can’t.
Love isn’t some subjective idea that each can define as he pleases. Love itself presents an objective Truth, one that explains how we may live life most fully and aid others most effectively.
If you believe the Church’s teachings regarding homosexual actions intolerant, I will suggest that you may not know Christ’s own teachings quite as well as you think.
Dogma isn’t slavery; instead it’s the “rules of life” that offer freedom from our own concupiscent state.
Praise be to God!
Catholics who place their kids in such schools can easily sign a statement, since they believe what they say the Church teaches. If the statement SPECIFICALLY mentioned homosexuality, how many dissenting people would sign? Very few, I’d argue. “We are OK with you telling our kids in a classroom context that we choose to live in a way that consistently dishonors God.” Right!
O’Malley is effectively side-stepping the issue. Bad witness on this score.
It doesn’t seem right that anyone would put a child in that position. Why would anyone want a child of same sex couple to be put in a catholic school where they would be put between the Truth, the Word of God and the reality of there parents sinful lives. It seems to me that the shame would damage them. I can see no other motive on the parents part than to think they are forcing the church to deal with their view of the world; to try to change the direction of catholic education with regard to homosexual lifestyle. It seems very wrong, for the schools will have to avoid speaking about this issue or have to sugar coat the Truth in order to protect the children from bad feelings.
John, thank you for declaring your view that “Dogma (is) the “rules of life” that offer freedom from our own concupiscent state.” Your willing subjugation to directions from bishops is one way of life but I’d suggest that a more responsible approach is to use your God-given talents to consider whether those directions are appropriate, whilst ensuring that you are informed by all of Christ’s teachings, the greatest being to love one another. Infallibility is limited to the Pope and even then is a very constrained concept. God expects us to act in accordance with an informed conscience and sometimes that must mean that the people of the Church question the decisions of the very human hierarchy - a lot harder road than the admittedly difficult road of subjugation.
Good Evening, Peter,
If I exaggerated a bit with commenting upon dogma as the rules, my apologies. Your previous post had suggested that dogma shouldn’t be taken at face value. In a sense, that’s correct actually. Dogma exists to teach us those things that need to believe if we wish for faith in other concepts. As you suggest though, dogmatic teaching doesn’t encompass everything. Even the late John Paul II commented upon that.
I don’t follow you in this deal about subjugating myself to someone else though. Dogma and doctrine have never been there to be accepted completely without question. We’re certainly intended to contemplate all that our Mother, the Church teaches. When something doesn’t make sense, we’re called to further prayer, contemplation, and study on the matter. Subjugation to someone else would generally imply abandoning one’s own judgement for that of another. I don’t believe the Church has ever taught this.
I agree too that we need to be informed by all of Christ’s teachings. I think though, that you risk miscasting the concept of loving one another. We’ve never taught that “loving one another” means that you don’t confront sin for it’s ill character. In fact, failing to educate people regarding sins and allowing them to live sinful lifestyles has long been understood as the very ANTITHESIS of love for one another.
I think we can safely agree that this discussion regarding two bishops’ approaches to parents, children, and schools could be cast as a matter of prudential judgement.
I think many of us are opposed to “open enrollment” in this matter in no small part because we’ve seen this sort of permissiveness undermine the Church’s teachings on many, many occasions.
Peter Johnstone, God does not expect you to act in accordance with an informed conscience. He expects you to act in accord with a properly formed conscience guided by the teaching magisterium. A properly formed conscience understands the great love God has for obedience. Your tone suggests you don’t value it as He does. There is no question that there are Bishops who are more “democrats” than Catholics. It becomes obvious they aren’t happy with the faith that has been passed down for 2000 years. But we have the lives of the saints that have come before us to show what Christ finds pleasing. The narrow road is still the road to Christ.
This issue in Boston is actually doing the Church a favor. The “termites” are starting to “come out of the walls” and you can see just what they are really up to. It has a lot to do with “inclusivity” and a worldwide “socialist” global government. Malachi Martin presaged it with his writings. There has been a significant agreement made between the Russians and the Vatican through Pope Paul VI post Vatican II. Do you really believe that Ronnie Reagan, as much as I like him, “tore down the Berlin Wall” or that this was an agreement to merge Communism in the East and capitalism in the West? The thought through Our Lady of Fatima was that if this was not done that the Russians would take over the world. They forgot to mention that they were going to shoot JPII. Don’t forget that Fatima predicted an “assasinated” Pope and not one who was almost assasinated!
D Paul, you say that “The “termites” are starting to “come out of the walls”. I don’t think name-calling and conspiracy theories add much to the discussion, but more relevantly, you also appear concerned by the threat of “inclusivity”, a concept that Christ embraced, e.g. in the “sermon on the mount” where He also made some other comments relevant to this discussion, e.g. “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” and “Do not judge so that you will not be judged”.
As I said in an earlier post, Christ’s teachings do not fit well with the intolerance of the Church towards homosexuals and the predilection of the Vatican and some bishops to detailed bureaucratic controls and discrimination.
I would be pleased for my grandchildren to attend school with the children of homosexual couples as I’m sure that would assist them to develop a more inclusive and less judgemental lifestyle, more in keeping with Christ’s teachings.
Good Morning,
Funny how “inclusivity” and “tolerance” always come running when we’re being told that we must abandon morals so as not to “offend” those who loathe those morals.
If we’re being “judgemental” these days, it’s almost always because someone wishes to reject appropriate correction on moral matters.
@Peter Johnstone. How do you get from “persecuted for the sake of righteousness” to tolerance for the homosexual lifestyle? Seems an oxymoron. It would seem the persecuted are those in love with Christ and neighbor enough to call sin a sin.
An awful lot of progressives in this audience. This is how we ended up with the abuse scandal. Rosina’s right on the money!
For those who think Jesus was “open to new ideas”, you think he was cool with homosexuality?
Lots of Trojan Horse infiltrators here. No wonder the Catholic Chhurch is hemorraging members.
Seems Linda equates progressives with some sort of evil and that anyone prepared to question Church authority is a ‘Trojan Horse infiltrator’. That’s not in accordance with Christ’s teaching. Christ was progressive, e. g. in his rejection of the Pharisees, and there is nothing clandestine or ‘Trojan horse’ about openly stating one’s concerns and subjecting them to criticism, even personal criticism that fails to address the arguments in a respectful manner.
Please, Linda, accept for a moment that people born homosexual find their orientation as normal as heterosexuals find theirs, only heterosexuals are not rejected by their Church and told that their sexual orientation is essentially evil. I believe in a God Who loves all his creatures. Christ told us to love one another!
Mr. Johnstone,
You’ve been making pretty much the same case all the way through. Those who will be convinced, have been already. Those who have not been, most likely will not be.
I will thank you to cease mis-casting the Church’s actual teachings and repent of your sins, as must we all.
John, I certainly have no wish to miscast Church dogma and would welcome your advice as to the dogma you feel that I’ve ‘miscast’. Is the sin you feel I need to repent of the misrepresentation of Church dogma, or perhaps just criticism of Church dogma? I make no apology for the latter. As a member of Christ’s Church, I accept an accountability to speak up when I feel the Church has gone astray! e.g. its treatment of homosexual people, or you may be more accepting of the need to condemn the Churh’s protection of pedophile priests from the law with the accompanying failure to protect vulnerable children? I also accept that my own fallibility means that I should be prepared to consider and address contrary arguments, so thank you for your many responses above.
@Peter Johnstone, It is mischaracterizing things to say anyone is being called “evil”. Objectively disordered means that disorder is observable without subjectivity. If someone is truly born homosexual, that is an anomaly. When a child is born with an anomaly a parent wouldn’t normally deny that, would they? A child with spina bifide feels perfectly normal because his condition is all he knows. It doesn’t mean it is a normal condition. Jesus does love you and all his creation, but we all need different kinds of healing. Denying that is a spiritual obstacle.
Pam, I hope that a child born with spina bifida is never subjected to any discrimination, but that is another issue - the Church does not subject such people to the discrimination to which it subjects people who are born homosexual. Thank you for your assurance that Jesus loves me, but I wonder if homosexual people would be as easily assured given the Church’s discrimination against them and condemnation of the sexuality with which God created them.
“...only heterosexuals are not rejected by their Church and told that their sexual orientation is essentially evil.”
This strikes me as a deliberate effort to mis-state the Church’s teachings. The Church does not now, nor has it ever, declared that persons who suffer same sex attractions are fundamentally evil. But this has NEVER been the question in the modern day battle.
The gay rights lobby has insistently demanded that the Church acknowledge the “right” for two men or two women to “marry”. The Church DOES teach that this is fundamentally wrong.
You know, as disgusted as I am with people for their insistence on pointing to pedophile priests every time they’re corrected themselves, I guess I should see it as a back-door victory: If someone wishes to refuse repentance because they can focus attention on a “greater” sin, well, at least this someone acknowledges, in some way, that homosexual behavior—or whatever behavior is being chastised—does, indeed, constitute sinful behavior.
We’re all in need of humility and repentance.
Peter, No one needs to be a sodomite. It should be discriminated against by every Church. Jesus Christ gives grace to all who seek to do HIS will. If you want to overcome homosexuality you can. It is sin, not who you are. You are a man. You were an infant and child with no sexual desire. The leaning towards men may have been part of your makeup, but I have seen too many groomed to homosexuality to believe it, except perhaps very rarely. This sin is very carnal and earthbinding. It is a stumbling block to centering your life on things above. You need to let temptation in and entertain it for it to take hold of you and that is what this is about.
Pam, to say that no-one needs to be homosexual is an assertion against compelling and conclusive evidence to the contrary. I assume that you, like me, are heterosexual and do not have to suffer the discrimination from society and even from the Church that homosexual people are subjected to.
You could also assert that you and I don’t need to be heterosexual, but why would a heterosexual person choose to be homosexual? That is what you suggest has happened with homosexuals.
Could I sincerely suggest that we all need to get to know people of homosexual orientation. They’re people like the rest of us trying to live their lives, but with the added burden of condemnation by the Church and by too many in society generally.
It might be a tidier and less threatening world if we were all the same, but that’s not the way God made us. Christ made it clear in the sermon on the mount and in all his teachings that love is the greatest commandment.
Mr. Johnstone,
You’d be somewhat convincing if you’d even admit that we’re dealing with a militant lobby that demonstrates little interest in traditional mores. For what I’ve seen during the past 20 years, the gay “rights” lobby has no intention of admitting to any obligations to moral virtue they might have. If anything, we’ve been summarily condemned for daring to speak against “progressive” proposals.
I think it’s sad, but all too often, when you have a militant group marching on your doorstep, you’re required to be just as militant in forcing them back to the street.
Sin has serious consequences. I regret that this appears to be one of them.
Mr. Johnstone, The reason I am so convinced about what I write is because I been exposed to the homosexual agenda in so many forms. I do know people who became homosexual and I know they were groomed or stereotyped or traumatized or coerced into it. There is no condemnation of the sinner, just the sin. And it is a sin. Everyone regardless of sin is welcome in the Catholic Church. There is no discrimination. All sinners looking to know and love Jesus Christ are welcome. The problem is the lack of recognition of sin.
John, I don’t know much about the ‘militant lobby’ but I’d prefer to understand rather than condemn. It’s my impression that we have a lot to learn from the courage with which many homosexual men and women live their lives despite rejection by the Church,
John, I don’t know much about militant lobbies in the homosexual community or in the Church, but I’d prefer to seek to understand rather than condemn. I think we have a lot to learn from the courage with which many homosexual men and women live their lives despite rejection by the Church,
Peter Johnstone, Very interesting that you continue to refer to the Church teaching as rejection as opposed to the healing it really is and that you don’t respond to the sin of homosexual relations. The militant homosexual lobby is a group of like-minded people like yourself perhaps, that reject calling this sin, sin. In the Church it is homosexual priests who will refuse to admit people who teach the true faith to any role of responsibility and who will actively undermine and question their faith or charity. Parishioners do not have a pulpit and are helpless since reporting this to the diocese brings no change. In the world the militants use social networks to label and undermine the faithful and mental abuse and entrapment techniques to try to find flaws in those they disagree with. It is a vast web of sin and must disgust our Lord very much. God does not use evil to do good. These people use evil for their supposed good. How much better to welcome a homosexual to our Church and its sacraments and His love and have them recognize they are in error and with his grace can remain celibate. It may be a kind of courage to live with rejection of your sin, but it isn’t nearly the courage that living in the truth would be.
Good Morning,
I’ll add one footnote to Pam’s comments:
It’d be nice to have a reasonable dialogue with the gay rights lobby, promote understanding of differing viewpoints, and vigorously promote the virtue of all people.
Unfortunately, on (almost) any occasion when I’ve attempted this..well, to be diplomatic, I’ll say it’s a one-sided conversation. If I mention anything regarding faith, I’m either subtlely or openly condemned for an ignorant fool, a bigot, some kind of old fashioned freak, or a religious fanatic who needs to dismiss such “medieval” thinking, but grow up to live in the modern world. Granted, it’s more vigorous coming from the secular world, but I’ve rukn across this manner of view within the Church too.
..And, for what it’s worth, it’d be nice if this were limited to this issue alone, but it’s not. On almost EVERY SINGLE “social issue” of note, whether I’m speaking with someone within the Catholic faith or not, it’s always the same attitude: I need to quit “taking orders” from a pack of idiot, dried-up old men in Rome, but embrace the “modern” views of secularism, progressivism, rationalism, or whatever other excuse someone can pull out of thin air.
THIS has been my experience of some 20-25 years, beginning somewhere around my pre-teens.
How am I intended to dialogue with anyone who’s primary attitude makes quite plain that I don’t even belong at the discussion table if I dare to mention faith or the Bible?
““That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents.”
Then why do they make every attempt to do this in the public square?
“‘Parents’”? Does the author really think that those who have had children and are now practicing homosexuals are no longer parents?
“Then why do they make every attempt to do this in the public square?”
Seems to me you forget: In the name of “tolerance”, First Amendment rights have been all but openly smashed. Every secular influence imaginable has all but summarily damned faithful people if they so much as open their mouths in dissent. Claiming that the Church has harmed anyone intentionally..strikes me as a view of ludicrously absurd proportions.
As to whether parents cease being parents, don’t forget that Catholic parents have a moral responsibility to teach the faith to their children both by word AND deed.
You can’t seriously expect a youngster to give their mother or father a fair hearing if that mother or father has chosen a lifestyle that openly and directly opposes the Church’s teachings.
And yes, before you mention it, it’s true that divorce has had a serious impact on the faith in America. I believe several of the Church’s leadership struggled mightily against that vice some 40 years ago. Don’t hound the current Church leadership about the fact that society at large chose to ignore their concerns. I think we can expect similar consequences from the acceptance of gay “marriage”.
We already have.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.