Other Parents Want Gay Couple's Kids Out of [Catholic] School
"The teachings of the church seem to have been abandoned," John R. Nixon told the Times. "We send our children to a Catholic school because we expect and demand that the teachings of our church will be adhered to."
School officials rejected the demand, and issued a new policy stating that a family's background "does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school."
The Rev. Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of diocese schools, said that if Catholic beliefs were strictly adhered to, then children whose parents divorced, used birth control or married outside the church would also have to be banned.
Is it fair for Fr. Horan play the moral equivalence game, or is there something fundamentally different about a child in Catholic school that has two daddies vs. the issues he lists above?
Talk amongst yourselves.
There's several fundamental differences each with respect to contracepting couples, divorced couples, and married-outside-the-Church couples:
1) Contracepting couples are engaged in a private sin, one which doesn't have an inherent element of public scandal. Or to put it another way, nobody has any way of knowing whether a married couple is using birth control, so the act *in and of itself* need not undermine the Church's public witness. Showing up on Parents Day with two daddies is an inherent flaunting of sin.
2) The Church recognizes the validity of non-sacramental marriages, both those performed by Protestant churches and those performed by the state alone. And even, in certain circumstances, of civil divorce (only remarriage would be an inherent public sin). In contrast, no homosexual acts can ever be approved.
3) To the best of my knowledge, while there is certainly public comment and pressure on changing (ha!) the Church teaching on divorce and contraception, there is no mainstream public lobby, comparable to the Human Rights Campaign, Lambda Legal, the ACLU, et al, for Contraceptors Rights. And even though the state has discrimination laws based on marital status, it is not my general experience that people yet consider divorce to be A Good Thing (a painful necessity, part of life, the best among a set of bad options -- sure, but that's not the same thing.) The point being, that there is better reason to suspect that a homosexual couple with an adopted child is Making A Statement (or even looking for a causa belli, creating an opportunity to become the Rosa Parks of Gay Parenting) than with a couple who is divorced or secretly using a condom.
I happen to disagree, although yes, I must state the standard disclaimer, I am not a Catholic.
While the school is free to have the admissions requirements it so chooses, the best way to evangelize would be to allow this child in so as to train and instruct him in the doctrines of the church and in Scripture, thereby opening through him an avenue into the lives of two other people whom Jesus dearly loves and wants to repent and accept Him of the light of His love, as expressed through the Church.
Of course, if the school buckles to pressure in terms of doctrinal teachings on sexual ethics, it would be losing its "salt and light" quality which Jesus calls us to be in the world.
Accept the kid and teach him in the way he should go, especially since it contradicts that which is modeled by his custodians. But do so in Truth with godly love, and let the witness of that love and of the Gospel be sewn into the hearts of both the kid and the gay couple.
Additionally, wouldn't this be more of an issue if it were a parish being pressured to baptize the child of a lesbian woman who wishes to participate in the ceremony with her lesbian lover. That's obviously an affront to Church and biblical teaching, whereas admitting a student whose parentage is unscriptural is less so, dealing not with administration of sacraments but in the provision of education for the training of a child to know and seek God.
Ken:
Sure, admission to a school is not a sacramental issue exactly, though there are still stakes worth fighting over.
And, yes, admitting the child could be a form of evangelism. But what's MUCH more likely (in this day and age, a metaphysical certainty) is that the minute the Church teachings on sexuality were broached, one or more of several things would happen:
1) The child would turn away from the Church, because it's preaching hate against my parents.
2) The child would take some of the material home, and the parents march down to school the next day saying it is turning children against their parents. Either such hate-filled material be excised or we sue.
3) The child expresses some interest in Catholicism, and the parents march down to school ... (rinse and repeat #2).
4) In response to #2 or #3, the school waters down Church teachings for the sake of sensitivity. And implements a speech code that causes playground taunts ("yer dads are homos") to be sexual harassment, grounds for expulsion and more civil-rights lawsuits.
1) The child would turn away from the Church, because it's preaching hate against my parents.
2) The child would take some of the material home, and the parents march down to school the next day saying it is turning children against their parents. Either such hate-filled material be excised or we sue.
3) The child expresses some interest in Catholicism, and the parents march down to school ... (rinse and repeat #2).
4) In response to #2 or #3, the school waters down Church teachings for the sake of sensitivity. And implements a speech code that causes playground taunts ("yer dads are homos") to be sexual harassment, grounds for expulsion and more civil-rights lawsuits.
1) And we think that the child won't turn away from the Church when he is denied admittance to the school? I can only imagine what the parents will say to the kid about Catholicism afterwards.
2)and 3) You can not sue a private religious institution for not teaching all aspects of a debate or moral point. Now, they could sue a public school for not teaching pro-homosexuality, but that is another issue.
4)If the Church waters its teachings down for sensitivity, that doesn't say much for the institution, does it? And although taunting is normal on the playgrounds, is it really Catholic behavior? I don't think a child will be expelled for taunting, unless it occurs many times.
Has anyone stopped to think that a Catholic education might be a vehicle to convincing this child that the homosexual marriage of his/her parents is morally wrong? Maybe it will even convince the parents (but I doubt it). The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.
Maybe a Catholic education and a set of morals might be just what this child needs now in his/her life.
I think it is also a slippery slope if we begin to penalize children for their parents' sins...exactly what Christ taught us not to do by curing the sick, who had received their sickenss from their parents' sins, according to Hebrew teaching and thought at the time.
I should respond to somebody who likes ... the Carpenters?!?!?!
A couple month's ago, on a private listserve for canon lawyers, this became a hot topic among several conservative and traditionalist canonists. There are so many issues to balance here that an orthodox Catholic can come down on either side.
Basically, the child has canonical rights independent of the individuals deemed by the state to be the child's legal guardian (which I won't dignify by calling them "parents"). This would include the right to be assisted by the Church by means of a Catholic education where available (cf. can. 213).
On the other hand, the Church can regulate the rights of others for the common good, (can 223, par. 2) but any limitation of a right must be restricted to as few cases as possible (can. 18).
For the time being, I reluctancly feel the canonical rights of the child are the most important, and thus among my peers I continue to argue that such children should be admitted to Catholic schools. Nevertheless, I concede a number of arguments to my colleagues in the canon law world who feel differently, many of which Victor Morton hit upon as well.
As the homosexual lobby becomes increasingly radical in its agenda, however, I'm seeing this more and more as a "common good" issue and wouldn't be surprised to find myself switching sides in the debat over the next year or so.
Sorry, I forgot to mention John B. also raises a number of serious concerns that must be weighed on this issue. [despite the fact he's a Carpenter's fan 8^) ]
Can the "parents" and the school work together in a cooperative way to educate the child? I don't see how this is possible if the school is Catholic and the "parents" are living a manifestly evil life. If the parents are contracepting, this would not normally be evident to the child and other children in the school. If the parents are not in a valid marriage, this also is not normally evident.
I understand the needs of the child and that he should not be punished for the actions of his guardian. Fair enough. How do we address the needs of the other children in the school and the point that the parents chose a Catholic education for a reason, including to avoid exposition such "lifestyles" and having to explain them. What do other parents tell their children? Do you think most parents would permit their children to go to these boys' house?
This is a bit different from the old days where an unwed mother was ashamed and wanted her daughter not to suffer for her sins. The parish school (theoretically) understood and accepted the child for her own wellbeing and possibly helping the mother as well. Most people could be gracious and charitable. How does one behave charitably toward those who do not consider their lifestyle sinful and have no sense of guilt or shame at all? We're not dealing w/remorseful sinners here.
Victor:
Perhaps before using ad hominem attacks on something posted with a bit of humor on my site, and before wholeheartedly dismissing my viewpoint, you might want to read my web site a bit and see that for the most part my views are closer in line with yours than you think...I just think that the school is missing the point on this issue.
I am not asking the Church to change its views on homosexuality or gay marriage, but these children neither chose to be adopted by this gay couple nor asked to be judged as to their fitness for attending a Catholic school based on his parents' sexual orientation or immorality.
Perhaps allowing the child to attend school at a Catholic institution would move toward changing the views of the child later in life or the parents now on homosexuality...let's try to make something good out of this rather than dismissing the opportunity to educate two children in the Catholic faith based on knee jerk reactions.
And by the way...The Carpenters really aren't that bad!!!!
Well, IS there something fundamentally different about the child, or the family arrangement? Are they holding themselves out as married? Will their child be allowed to make first communion (I've heard that at some schools parents are strongly encouraged to regularize canonically irregular marriages before their children do so)? Is the child baptized, or has the school been taking their money all along without further intentions? Does the school currently have non-Christian students?
The plain fact of the matter is that Catholic Schools are for the most part no longer Catholic...I know...I've taught at three of them...essentially there is no difference between a catholic and a secular high school with of course excetions here and there...the hope is in the new private secondary and collegiate institutions cropping up also here and there....of course this superintendent's argument is fallacious...let's just ban all kids from catholic schools because their parents somewhere along the line committed sin....how ridiculous...
The sins of Heather's two mommies should not be visited upon her.
If the lesbian couple in question is dumb enough to subject their child towards education which will counter their erroneous value system, then so be it.
I have an inkling that sooner or later they'd decide to go Episcopalian anyway.
John:
It was just a joke, bud, borne in part of the fact I didn't have time there and then to respond in detail.
Besides, Carpenters fans deserve it.
My actual response to Richard-and-Karen lover (and the length confirms what I wrote in my last post):
On my point 1): OK, fair enough. But I find it hard to believe that two men, holding themselves out as married parents, won't poison the child's mind against the Church no matter what.
On 2 & 3) You have more faith in the reasonability and rationality of courts than I do. Or any Papist should have. For one thing, public money finds its way into Catholic schools no matter what, creating a state interest. Look at Hillsdale to see the lengths to which colleges have to go to keep out the federal tentacles. Further, the claim would not be that the Church is not "giving both sides" (like in the evolution/creation/design disputes) but that it is traumatizing the child by telling him his parents are sinners. That denies him equal educational opportunity by creating a "hostile environment" -- I'm essentially just applying the rationale of the existing sex-harassment jurisprudence. And given the Supreme Court precedents in Roemer and Lawrence (that moral opposition to homosexuality is essentially an irrational prejudice). And the state court precedent in the Catholic Charities contraception case that Church teachings can be swept aside if the institution performs, as judged by the judge of course, too much of a secular function (a point which Catholic schools have to argue they do in other contexts). Given all these precedents, it doesn't require great imagination to see where having a child with gay parents in a Catholic school could go.
On 4): Of course, it doesn't say much about the school if it waters down Church teaching, but we're kidding ourselves if we think that won't happen at least some of the time. Again, look at the Catholic Charities case. We might soon be faced with the situation when the Church declares herself at war with Caesar, and that's not a day I want to come any sooner than necessary. "Lead us not into temptation" or something like that.
And yes, playground taunting is not Catholic behavior. But it happens (and don't think for one second kids won't notice he has two daddies). And my concern is the chance for litigation and the pre-emptive responses they breed. There are cases of primary-school kids being suspended for sexual harassment (pulling the girl's pigtails ... crap like that) simply because the school feared lawsuits and so put in these stupid zero-tolerance rules, which, yes, DON'T require repeated violation (hence their name: "zero tolerance").
Yes, the Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways. But one thing we know about Providence at this instant is that It has granted us a militant pro-gay movement, bent on destroying the Church, with the complicity of Caesar's regulators and judges. In *this* day and age, it would be criminally irresponsible not to assume the worst of two men holding themselves out as a family with children (i.e., always and necessarily, in Cardinal Arinze's words, "mocking the family").
We know, from elsewhere in the gay legal lobby's behavior, that they seek out test cases, particularly "hard cases" that tweak the judge's and jury's sympathy. It occurred in Canada, so I'm sure Pete is familiar with it, but there was case of the Ontario high-school senior who persuaded a court to force a Catholic school to let him bring his boyfriend to the prom (there's a fawning documentary that the Sundance Channel plays ad nauseum). It is useless for Catholics to pretend we still live in the world of BOYSTOWN -- where the Church and its leaders are accorded appropriate cultural respect and deference, and can persuade through prestige, moral force and example. This is the age of legalistic secularism.
Regarding the principle of visiting the sins of the parents: Look, I'm not crazy about keeping the kid out being the only safe course. But, as Pete surmised, I see this as already being much more a matter of the common good -- a protection of the *other* children's right to proper formation free of scandal and counter-formation to the extent possible. We are NOT talking about people who have made mistakes and regret them -- hence the flaw in the analogy with unwed mothers in the past (a point someone else made above). Yes, the child is different, but at some point, there are limits to what can be done to save a child from wilfully bad parents. The Holy Spirit can work on an 18-year-old as well as an 8-year-old. I don't see this as an "opportunity to educate two children in the Catholic faith" as much as "handing to two wilful men, proud in their sin, a potential knife to cut out the education of hundreds in the Catholic faith."
Every child should have a chance for an education in the fullness of the truth---but instinct tells me the child will be in school 2 months and suddenly the parents will be "offended" and file a lawsuit to stop the church from teaching doctrine.
In the interests of full disclosure and further illustration of Pete's point: that well-known lavendar mafia front group the Catholic League came out against me. Well, not me specifically, but my position ... you know what I'm saying.
Is (are?) the gay couple Catholics, ie, at least baptized and confirmed? I am wondering if this is part of the consequence of opening schools to non-Catholics in general.
The Church does seem to have a standard for being a Catholic in good standing. My sister, who lives across the country from me, had to have her pastor prepare a letter to my parish to that effect in order for her to become my son's godmother.
Perhaps this sounds harsh, but it would seem that, if some family are not active parishioners, then they should not be able to send their children to the school. At least they should not have priority over other families. Apparently space is limited these days, yet spaces are given to non-Catholics who are eligible for social welfare programs as well as those who are able to pay the tuition.
This manifestly grave sinful life these men are living somehow put the school families in a very awkward position.
Incidentally, Victor has incorrectly stated Catholic doctrine when he refers to marriages celebrated among Protestants as non-sacramental.
He probably was thinking of how the Church regards the marriage of unbaptized persons as an authentic natural marriage, though it does not have the character of a Sacrament.
When any two baptized Christians marry (i.e., unless there is some impediment), the Sacrament of Matrimony is conferred.
RC:
I did not know that subtlety. Never had to worry about it, I guess.
Actually, had I thought about it for long and been told to think in a certain direction, I probably would have figured it out, because (treading out into the waters of sacramental theology again) Confirmed-Bachelor-Me did know that marriage is not, formally speaking, performed by the priest, but by the couple. The conclusion pretty much follows.