BOSTON — When headlines announced last week that a Boston Catholic school had denied admission to a student because his parents were lesbians, the Boston Archdiocese scrambled to contain the damage.
The superintendent of Catholic schools, Mary Grassa O’Neill, insisted there had been a mistake and vowed to locate another parochial school for the child. The executive director of the Catholic Schools Foundation warned that subsidies would be withheld from any school that discriminated against such students.
The quick turnaround earned approval from homosexual-rights groups, media commentators and many local Catholics in Massachusetts, where same-sex couples can legally “marry.”
Privately, though, Church administrators acknowledge that their public response sidestepped the key role of pastors in school admissions decisions, and even suggested that the policies of fundraising entities, like the Catholic Schools Foundation, trumped the traditional chain of command.
Cardinal Sean O’Malley had been out of the country, accompanying Pope Benedict XVI on his pilgrimage to Fatima, when the story hit the news. Yesterday, Cardinal O’Malley posted a response on Cardinal Sean’s Blog that backed the pastor, acknowledged the Church’s tradition of welcoming children from many backgrounds, and pledged to establish guidelines on school-admissions policies.
The cardinal expressed his regret for news stories that featured “undue criticism” of Father James Rafferty, the pastor who made the admissions decision.
“After consulting with the school principal, exercising his rights as pastor, he made a decision based on an assessment of what he felt would be in the best interests of the child. I have great admiration for Father Rafferty; he has my full confidence and support,” stated Cardinal O’Malley.
The skirmish surfaced in the wake of a similar admissions controversy in Boulder, Colo., that produced a somewhat different outcome. Cardinal O’Malley noted that the Denver Archdiocese’s policy, which “calls into question the appropriateness of admitting the children of same-sex couples,” would “be seriously considered” in his own review process.
When the Boulder story first broke, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver quickly backed the pastor’s decision, and then issued a statement presenting the controversial judgment as a painful but necessary step to protect the mission of his schools.
“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,” Archbishop Chaput wrote in a statement issued in early March.
“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,” he said.
New Conundrums
Both stories, though differing in tone and emphasis, confirm that the growing prevalence of nontraditional households poses new conundrums for Catholic educators. Once, they denied admission to students from broken families; now they struggle to articulate Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality before students from widely diverse homes.
Maureen Huntington, superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese of San Francisco, the epicenter of the homosexual-rights movement, sums up the challenge posed by a variety of domestic arrangements — from homes headed by single mothers or unmarried couples to parents that have been married multiple times.
“The teachers must present the doctrine of the Catholic Church,” Huntington said. “That is the goal: living according to God’s plan. Still, they need to be sensitive and respectful, and not make the child feel bad that they are responsible for the situation at home.”
The advent of legal same-sex “marriage” in a handful of states like Massachusetts has only deepened classroom tensions. Last year, during an interview at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ meeting in Baltimore, Cardinal O’Malley noted that archdiocesan CCD teachers had reported a sharp rise in classroom disputes regarding the morality of same-sex “marriage,” with more public-school students opposing Church teaching.
At the same time, parochial school administrators must continue to deal with budgetary issues that force them to seek support from corporate and community leaders who may not wish to be associated with controversial Catholic practices.
When the Boston story surfaced in the news, superintendent Grassa O’Neill sought to balance the needs of students with the mission of Catholic education. She said that parochial schools “welcome children based on their parents’ understanding that the teachings of the Church are an important component of the curriculum and are part of the students’ educational experience.’’
However, the Catholic Schools Foundation issued a letter, which warned local pastors supervising parochial schools that any exclusionary practices would provoke a withdrawal of subsidies by the foundation.
The letter, written by Michael Reardon, the foundation’s executive director, stated that the denial of admission was “at odds with our values as a foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately Gospel teaching.” St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham, where the child was denied admission, does not receive subsidies from the funding group and thus was unaffected.
In a subsequent interview, Reardon described his organization as a separate but “related entity” to the archdiocese. “Cardinal O’Malley is our chair,” said Reardon. “We raised $8 million last year, and that goes mainly to inner-city schools.” He noted that when the group first began to target corporate donors and other city leaders 20 years ago, they raised just $100,000.
Since the Catholic school system first emerged as a powerful alternative to public education, Church leaders have sought to balance a deep compassion for families on the fringes of society with a prudent exclusion of applicants that threatened to disrupt the schools’ fundamental mission.
In the early 20th century, New York’s Catholic schools transformed the Irish immigrant experience, drawing gang members off the streets and into the classroom, sharply reducing high illegitimacy rates and juvenile delinquency. A similar, if less dramatic pattern, is still repeated today in many inner-city parochial schools that provide an oasis for students who live in chaotic, drug-infested neighborhoods with few positive male role models.
Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York for almost three decades, acknowledged that school administrators continue to address a host of social issues, but he “could not recall” a controversy over an admissions decision regarding a child with a same-sex couple as parents. In any case, he added, pastors and principals typically decide these matters, and high-powered donors largely applaud the schools’ distinctive religious identity.
Denver Case
Canon law invests local pastors with considerable authority for administering parish schools, and when the controversy erupted in the Denver Archdiocese, Archbishop Chaput quickly backed the authority of a local pastor.
In a statement published in March, Archbishop Chaput confirmed that the “main purpose of Catholic schools is religious; in other words, to form students in the Catholic faith, Catholic morality and Catholic social values.” That religious mission took priority over secondary issues, including the sensitivities of students in nontraditional households.
Francis Maier, the chancellor of the Denver Archdiocese, echoed the key principles that forged Archbishop Chaput’s public stance: “The only reason Catholic schools exist is to fulfill their religious mission. Catholic parents who send their children to parochial school are already paying a financial penalty. It is unjust to deny their children a fully Catholic education and not teach them the truth. We are not out to offend anybody, but we are insisting that Catholic schools need to teach the full truth.”
Maier said that the archbishop’s response had prompted a largely positive reaction from pastors, administrators and teachers, but continued to fuel some controversy among parents.
But he expressed frustration that some critics sought to “impose an arbitrary rigidity that has never been the case for school admissions. The pastor has to have a certain freedom of action within the larger obligation of ensuring that this is a Catholic school. Given human nature, there are always circumstances when the pastor has some degree of latitude.”
Each year, a number of students are asked to leave the system, he said, “for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuality. The idea that we do this to isolate homosexuals is false. Nobody hears about these cases because it’s none of their business, and we don’t want to embarrass families.”
James Flynn, vice chancellor of the Denver Archdiocese and a canon lawyer, said that two canonical principles shaped Archbishop Chaput’s response: “The pastor is the administrator of the parish and, with some exceptions, it is his prerogative to decide these issues. Second, the parents are the child’s primary educators, and the school is their partner.”
“If that partnership isn’t going to work out because the two aren’t aligned on human sexuality, human dignity or doctrinal teachings,” Flynn concluded, “that partnership can’t continue.”
Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Jimmy Akin: Was Same-Sex "Marriage" a Christian Rite?
Comments
Post a Comment
I think this is an excellent, informative article, but I find the use of the term, “homosexual-rights groups”, distracting. I agree with the Associated Press Stylebook: “gay—Used to describe men and women attracted to the same sex, though *lesbian* is the more common term for women. Preferred over *homosexual* except in clinical contexts or references to sexual activity.”
The school made an appropriate decision within the context of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. One of the strengths of Catholic education is that the school reflects the values and the traditions of our faith - and by extension, the Catholic family. That Catholic schools allow non-Catholics to attend does not dilute the fact that these families are affiliating themselves with a Catholic institution. A host is not expected to suspend their practices, traditions, and culture to accomodate a guest. In this instance, the family in questions cannot be compatible with the explicit and implicit goals of Catholic education - the instilling of traditions, values, and Catechism of the Church. Homosexual ‘marriage’ - while legal in Massachussetts - is contrary to the CCC. Refer to sections 2357-2359 for the justification of my argument.
Why can people not see that it is out of love and concern for the child that admission was denied? Kids can be cruel. If you’re being taught the truth that acting on homosexual tendencies is a mortal sin and that dieing with mortal sin is a ticket to hell what is that child going to go through? Or what if the other students use that to taunt that child with things like “Your mothers will burn in hell” and other statements. Words hurt when you’re young and no matter how much teachers intervene kids still get the jabs in. When you choose to enter your child into a school that clearly teaches that which you do not belive in or choose to ignore those teachings you must have a motive behind your actions that are not honorable. There are other private schools that do not have such clear teachings against the immorality of such behavior choices.
Not to be cliche, but wwjd? Of course we welcome the child. If we are true to mission we want to educate and bring into the faith everyone we can. The rub is what is the motive of these parents that want their children taught a doctrine that condemns their lifestyle. Nonetheless, what is the difference between for our purposes between a child from the home of a serial marrier, a same sex couple, or in the case of the missionaries of old a child from cannibalistic or otherwise savage indigenous peoples. I see know difference. The child is not liable for the sins of the father. It will be incumbent upon the educators, when/if questions arise, that the parents will ultimately have to reconcile themselves to God. Lastly, unlike a tribe in the Congo, a single child in the midst of children from tradtional families may be subject to redicule. But again this brings into question the motives and selfishness of the parents of said child.
Two cents, worth what you paid for it.
*CCC* 1651 implicitly encourages mothers and fathers who, because of divorce, cannot be validly married to each other to send their children to Catholic schools to “bring up their children in the Christian faith.” In enunciating this principle, which defends the right to the child to be taught the true religion, the Church’s teaching authority sees no infidelity to its insistence on the indissolubility of marriage. By the same token, welcoming into parish schools children being raised by two persons living together in a same-gender relationship does not automatically signal approval of that sinful relationship. If Catholic schools were to deny admission to children being brought up by same-sex couples, then, logically, our schools would also have to exclude children being raised by parents who, according to the words of Christ (*Mt* 5:32), are living in adultery because they have remarried after divorce.
In addition, *CCC* 2358, which rejects unjust discrimination against persons with a same-sex orientation, can be understood as pointing in the direction of granting their biological and adopted children the benefits of a Catholic education. It should go without saying, however, that admitting the children of same-gender couples to parish schools should not diminish by one iota Catholics’ firm and principled opposition to the agenda of the “politically correct” movement, including its advocacy of government recognition of same-sex unions and adoptions by same-sex couples. If a Catholic school accepts children from *any* homes in which mothers, fathers, and guardians are violating the truths of the Gospel in their interpersonal relationships, then the school must still uphold those truths without compromise in its teaching of the Faith.
This whole subject is so idiotic. All Catholic schools teach religion as one of their subjects from 1st to 12th grades. I know, because my children went to Catholic grade and high school. The lesbians know what the schools teach and there is no reason why they should change the school curriculum for one family. That child will be taught in the higher grades that active homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of the Catholic church. Now isn’t this going to confuse the child if she/he hears this. What is the teacher suppose to do—tell the child to leave the classroom for that particular session, so the child won’t hear it? I still believe this is an effort by the homosexual(sorry—gay)community to change the laws to their way of life and they are using their innocent child to do it—-whereas the Church is protecting the child.
If children are victimized by bullies in *any* school, the correct reaction is to discipline and, if necessary, expel the bullies, not the victims. In a *Catholic* school in which children are being bullied for any reason connected with same-gender issues, the correct solution must include emphasizing the following official teaching of the Catholic Church concerning persons attracted to the same sex: “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (*CCC* 2358).
Can there be such a thing as “two Mommies “.? Or “Two Daddies”..? I doubt that. This is a very delicate issue. It would probably be best for them if gays and lesbians just stopped advertising and challenging religion. Some churches willingly accept and encourage them. Why don’t they just attend those..? What is their purpose in trying to be the decider of all religious doctrine in the world..? What qualifies them ? For the sake of the child, I would also probably refuse this one entrance ,too. A mommy and her friend..is one thing..but two “mommies”...Whaaat..?
I’m not worried about the child being bullied. I’m worried that the child’s presence will be an excuse by lukewarm Catholic teachers to skip over some of the Church’s teachings. If this one school in the Boston Archdiocese is following the reaching of the Church, then why would the lesbian couple hope to find another school that won’t. That’s not a good thing, is it?
98% of Catholics contracept, which is the same sin as the homesexual act, yet children of contracepting parents aren’t excluded from the school. We like to think that the children will feel out of place, but in reality it is my 13 year old son who wants to be a priest that is the one getting picked on at Catholic School. I think what needs to happen is a little consistancy in the teaching of the faith at these schools. None of the children my kids go to school with think homosexuality is a sin. Even though they should. Pray for our schools and our children. May the Holy Spirit renew the face of the earth.
Lynne F. Why tghen , don’t we let them in and let them tell us how t change the error of our ways..TOTALLY..They can overtake the Holy Father..and start running the Catholic Church. Like all people who think like you, Lynne, You make “righ” and “wrong” your total song..You play on that themed for every point you want to make. Catch up on your theology. So you decide, and then, you know, you get to live with it.
As usual, Archbishop Chaput put it charitably, and truthfully…this “judgment is a painful but necessary step to protect the mission of his schools.”
“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,” he said.
It does raise the question WHY would they want to enroll their child in a Catholic school, when they are at odds with what the church teaches.
I think Lynne hit the nail squarely on the head “the child’s presence will be an excuse by lukewarm Catholic teachers to skip over some of the Church’s teachings.”
Both Cardinal O’Malley’s and Archbishop Chaput’s support for this Pastor helps me to see that it truly was the right decision to safeguard the mission of the Church.
Mr. O’Brien is extrapolating on 1651. 1651 says parents who have divorced and remarried should be encouraged to raise their children in the Christian faith. That’s all it says in that regard. It makes no mention of doing that through attendance at a Catholic school… Let’s leave these decisions in the hands of the hierarchy God has put in place to deal with it.
“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (*CCC* 2358). Can we keep it simple folks…Thank you Stephen.
By anology, would fathful practicing Catholic parents want to enrol their child in a school that teaches all Catholics will burn in hell?
Yes, let’s keep it simple.
It’s a ‘lifestyle’ contrary to the teaching of the Church.
Safeguarding ALL of the children is not discriminating.
Actually, being Catholic ISN’T simple…if you want ‘simple’, try being the UCC - they are pretty much ‘anything goes.’ Bishop Serratelli expressed our obligations clearly when he said:
“To be a Catholic is a challenge, and to be a Catholic requires a certain choice, and these are the choices that are consistent with the Gospel of Jesus,”
*CCC* 2229 states: “As far as possible parents have the duty of choosing schools that will best help then in their task as Christian educators.” For Catholic parents or guardians, such a school is a Catholic school. This principle is still valid even when the parents or guardians are living in a sinful relationship. It’s commendable to see that a child is raised in the true Faith even if the adults in a child’s life are not fully living the Faith.
I don’t agree with everything in *Commonweal*, but it recently published an article in which a Catholic woman in a same-sex relationship explains why she has decided to enroll her adopted sons in a Catholic school, even though she realizes that a Catholic school will introduce them to the Church’s uncompromising teachings on marriage and chastity. She writes: “I want our sons’ teachers to know that I hope they make no apologies for what they teach.” This article is worth reading:
http://commonwealmagazine.org/sins-admission
In my first post on this thread, I’d like to correct the typo in the second sentence, which ought to read as follows: “In enunciating this principle, which defends the right of the child to be taught the true religion, the Church’s teaching authority sees no infidelity to its insistence on the indissolubility of marriage.”
But, James, if what you mean by “must be accepted with respect ...” means that the Church cannot clearly teach that marriage is between one man and one woman and that same-sex “marriage” and unions are wrong, then that is not simple. It would break lots of other paragraphs from the catechism and very importantly the Spiritual Work of Mercy to “admonish the sinner” which is often lost these days of “let Jesus be the judge.” So it all depends on what you mean by your statement ... You also have to realize that many, not all, of these people are setting the Church up for lawsuits by getting in and then being able to say their kids are being discriminated against in some way, don’t kid yourself. Children are being used as pawns in some cases to get the Church to “change” and this is a grave evil for sure.
The answer to a question from the business perspective may help provide some clarity to this situation, and others regarding Catholic schools (e.g., tuition rates): Who are the customers? Clearly, the customers in this case are the parents. The primary responsibility to educate children falls on the parents; the pastor is there to help them. But Catholic schools are not the only instrument available, and not every instrument is adequate to every situation. Therefore, the pastor has a right and duty to help the parents in other ways, but he is not in any way required to allow a child’s admission to Catholic school.
Let’s stop making kids political footballs. Let’s focus on education and the Gospel, not self-righteousness. The Bible tells us that the questions we will be asked first when we appear before the judgment seat will not be “how many times did you combat the ‘homosexual agenda’” or “how many times did you flick the ‘R’ lever on the voting machine?” No, we will be asked how many times we clothed the naked, fed the poor, and perhaps, how well we educated not only our own children but those children ignorant of the faith.
Let the kids of same-sex relationships attend Catholic schools and deal with the catechism problems later. “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”—Mt. 19:14 KJV.
Stephan and James, I’m not following your perspective. A boy not being allowed to join the Girl Scouts is not “unjust discrimination.” He should join the Boy Scouts.
Active, open Lesbian parents are living in a manner that openly rejects Catholic teaching, so why send your kid to a Catholic school? If you don’t AGREE with it, then what is the agenda? What do you think the motives are for this lesbian couple?
Would any fathful Catholic parents send their child to a protestant school that teaches all Catholics will go to hell?
Stephen,
The difference is that, unlike same-sex couples pushing the envelope here, couples who are divorced, contracepting, or adulterous are not out to destroy the Church’s teaching on human sexuality. They’re not organizing pride parades and conducting well-heeled lobbying efforts to legally redefine marriage. I don’t doubt that this Hingham situation was a set-up, and the pastor has shown holiness and courage.
Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.”
I don’t think he amended it with “unless they have two mommies or daddies.”
These schools are not acting as Jesus would have. I don’t think anything else needs to be said.
I wouldn’t like to go to a school with classmates that have two parents of the same sex. And you?
I am wondering what really happened. If the priest told the lesbian guardian, “In our school your child will be taught unequivocally that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that this is God’s Divine Will for humanity, and that marriages between two women are not legitimate.” What could she say? How could she not see that this would hurt her child? The only logical explanation is that either 1) She was never informed, or 2) That she has a liberal agenda to try to change the school’s policy so that it won’t teach her child or any other children that concept. It’s pretty obvious to me that it’s the second option. That’s what makes it a hard call. Should the priest allow the child to enter the school knowing the mother is only using him for her own agenda and that the child is likely to be distressed by his “mommies” saying one thing and his teachers saying another? One the one hand, this is a bad situation to put the kid in. On the other hand, what if a teacher or priest gets through to the kid? What if the Holy Spirit has the opportunity to work in the kid’s heart and the kid converts? Maybe the kid could even convert his “mommies”? Just thinking out loud.
Sigh.
The Catechism is very clear. As Catholics, we affirm that we are in communion with the Holy See every week at Mass. Listen to what you say….at least those of you who actually go to Mass. Part of that communion means that you accept the Magisterium. The Magisterium is clear on this issue.
I would argue that the lesbian parents are the ones keeping the children from reaching Him. Call me narrow-minded. Call me intolerant. As long as you call me faithful to my obligations as a Catholic.
I wonder how many of the commentators who see no problem with this situation are those who vote for pro-abortion candidates because their ‘other’ stances are good.
Catholics are Catholics. We stand firm. There is a word for Catholics who compromise the Magisterium.
Protestants.
When I was a child,if I had a classmate who had same sex parents, I would feel terribly sorry for them.
In a nutshell ~ it is the lesbian “couple” that is using the child as a pawn. (Or political football as posted above.) It seems illogical that they would WANT to send their child to a Catholic school. So it causes one to wonder why? The “Gay Rights movement” has huge political backing, and has made huge strides in totally turning around what society feels about gays (personally I like the word duped.)
The one rock solid, unflinching component of society that continued to speak of homosexual behavior as a sin is the Catholic Church. (And, some other Protestant denominations as well. But they are smaller and therefore not as big a target.)
Rose said it well…“You also have to realize that many, not all, of these people are setting the Church up for lawsuits by getting in and then being able to say their kids are being discriminated against in some way, don’t kid yourself.”
This Priest used Prudential Judgment, and protected the Church. When it was questioned, an Archbishop (who is very orthodox,) and a Cardinal spoke up, and supported his Prudential Judgment.
There is a real war of ideologies going on here. The gay rights movement would love to strike huge blows to the Catholic Church. This Priest showed courage and loyalty, and did what was necessary to protect the Church.
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.