The Preschooler’s Two Mommies (Updated)
[Guest post by DRJ]
A Boulder, Colorado, preschool student won’t be allowed to continue classes next year at a private Catholic preschool but it’s not the student’s fault. It’s because the student’s parents are lesbians whose relationship violates Church beliefs:
“According to teachers at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School, a meeting was held Tuesday to discuss the issue. The staff was told a student would not be allowed to re-enroll because of his or her parents’ sexual orientation. The staff members were also told not to talk to the media.
In a statement sent to 9NEWS, the [Denver] Archdiocese said, “Homosexual couples living together as a couple are in disaccord with Catholic teaching.”
The story apparently became public after staff members disgusted by the decision decided to speak with the media.
— DRJ
UPDATE 3/8/2010 — The Denver Post reports there was a protest outside the church Sunday. In addition, the report includes this background information:
“Inside the church, the Rev. Bill Breslin addressed the issue in his sermon. He also posted his comments on his blog.
“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad,” Breslin said on his blog. “We don’t want to put any child in that tough position.”
DeMelo said the schools do not ask questions about sexual orientation during enrollment, but once they found out, they had to address it according to their policy.
“We’re not trying to weed out people,” DeMelo said. “But when they can’t agree with our Catholic philosophy, it really makes it difficult to be a strong part of the school community; it’s a difficult situation.”
The article says the student is currently a preschooler and has been denied admission to next year’s kindergarten program.
“Homosexual couples living together as a couple are in disaccord with Catholic teaching.”
A private Catholic preschool. The big surprise is what?
daleyrocks (5710d7) — 3/6/2010 @ 10:17 pmThe school did nothing wrong. The real question is why a lesbian couple would want to send their “child” to an Catholic pre-school.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 3/6/2010 @ 10:20 pmWonder if they were a plant for a possible lawsuit?
BradnSA (980254) — 3/6/2010 @ 10:23 pmdid anyone ask the turkey baster where it wanted it’s child to go to school?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/6/2010 @ 10:37 pmIf they really wanted what they thought was best for the little girl, they would selflessly live their lives in a more discrete manner.
cts22 (3a3646) — 3/6/2010 @ 11:04 pmJust as the parish(es) has the right to keep out folks due to behavioral issues, I have the right to cease being a member of the parish.
I fail to understand how the mission of catholic schools jibes with refusing an innocent child its services and love. Unless the parents are publicly calling out the priest and Bishop on some matter of canon law, or otherwise forcing disruptions, I don’t get this. I just don’t.
My best friend was a longtime pastor and ran excellent elementary schools. No way would he seek this fight. The child and God’s love for him is the thing.
People suck.
Ed from SFV (f6a87d) — 3/6/2010 @ 11:07 pmTo deny the “parents” the benefits of the church is within the purview of the church;
AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 3/6/2010 @ 11:45 pmto deny them to an innocent child, is not!
We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone. How unclear is that?
CT Lostaglia (b64b49) — 3/6/2010 @ 11:50 pmdid anyone ask the turkey baster where it wanted it’s child to go to school?
Actually, it’s very possible the girl was conceived the old-fashioned way. That’s because many homosexuals are, in effect, bisexual. Such behavior is best symbolized by one of the few actors in Hollywood (or actually an actor based in Britain) who labels himself as “gay,” but who also says that his affairs with a variety of women have been a puzzling and contradictory aspect of himself.
Of course, many liberals love to discourage the idea that such examples of free choice deserve society’s scrutiny, and that people should be criticized for making poor choices in life.
The worst aspect of the girl’s same-sex parents is I bet they’re socially and politically of the left. I notice even a large number of gays who consider themselves Republicans often are “progressive” when it comes to certain social-cultural issues.
Mark (411533) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:01 amLegally, they probably have that right.
AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:03 amBut, the Church is not a legal institution, it is a moral one, and the morality of what they did is wrong.
They are punishing the child for the sins of the parent.
That goes against the teachings of most every Christian Church that I can think of.
So much for that Modern Family. Good for the church.
PC14 (82e46c) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:04 amI feel sorry for the child.
He/she will be deprived of an education that is probably superior to what would be possible via the pub-ed system.
It is particularly painful for other Catholic families due to the nation-wide closing of Catholic K-12 schools due to falling enrollment; yet here, we have a parent duo who wish to pay the freight to provide a superior education for their child, and that system (which sorely needs the money) refuses to help THE CHILD.
Now, if this little exercise has been nothing but the build-up to a law-suit:
AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:11 amA pox on all their houses!
Interesting that there is the assumption that not getting a Catholic education is punishing the child.
tyree (0a1327) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:14 amWell, they do seem to do a better job than the run-of-the-mill pub-ed systems – if you’re willing to learn, that is.
AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:27 amEd from SFV,
I sympathize with your concerns. I want churches to model Christian behavior, which is one reason why this is a tough case. The odds are the preschooler will talk about his/her mommies so the topic will come up at some point. What specific, practical advice would you give the School and its teachers in how to handle this topic in a class of 3- to 5-year-olds that is consistent with Church teachings?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:30 amhate the sin, love the sinner?
i’m a lousy source for doctrine though: i gave up being Catholic for Lent one year and never went back.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:33 amGood luck with teaching 4-year-olds their playmate’s mommies are sinners we really need to love.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:37 am… and also with the follow-up that their parents are sinners, too. Maybe combine it with teaching the Fifth Commandment?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:38 am“…this topic in a class of 3- to 5-year-olds that is consistent with Church teachings?”
That is the $64T question, isn’t it?
AD - RtR/OS! (9dbe33) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:41 amAnd, it seems that the way out of the conundrum for the Church was to deny the child entrance; which is a shame.
Since you don’t have to be Catholic to attend Catholic school, treat it the same way you would treat parents of another religion. They teach Catholic doctrine there without judging the family’s religion or trying to convert anyone. Let the parents know that if asked a direct question, they will answer it with Catholic doctrine. If the parents understand and accept that, and still want the kid to attend the Catholic school, no problem. If they don’t want their child taught Catholic doctrine along with academics, pick another school. The school shouldn’t keep the child out though if they’ve already been attending. If the parents can pay the tuition and accept the teachings, the kid should be allowed to stay at the school.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:43 amStashiu3,
I think that’s fair but what should the Church tell the parents they will say if the topic comes up? Shouldn’t the parents have this information so they can decide whether they want their child to stay enrolled?
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:49 amIf asked directly, and phrasing things appropriately for that young a child, the Archdiocese statement “Homosexual couples living together as a couple are in disaccord with Catholic teaching” works just fine. Then, “We are here to teach you. We are teaching you things from regular school and things about the Catholic faith. We’re not here to change you or judge you. We will pray that you find your way to live a good Christian life, but how you do that is between you, your church, and God. Now, let’s get back to our regular lesson and your parents will answer any other questions you have.”
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:59 amis that anything like the Fifth Amendment?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:59 amSeriously, Catholic school teachers do not go into long diatribes about why being a Baptist/Muslim/Jew/Buddhist/whatever means you’re not getting into heaven. I had two kids in Catholic school at one point and they studied Catholic doctrine, but never had to practice Catholicism. To my knowledge, they were never even asked their own beliefs. Religion was just another academic subject. (Having helped with homework, I learned a lot about Thomas Aquinas.) I can’t imagine it’s any different for pre-school.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/7/2010 @ 1:06 amThat said, I would stress again that the school shouldn’t be the deciders here as far as re-enrollment. If the parents got divorced, that would be “in disaccord with Catholic teaching”. I doubt it would be a reason to not let the child continue school there. If a parent went to prison for something serious, like murder, would the parent’s sin be enough to bar the child from attending? Again, doubtful.
The school is wrong here, IMO.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/7/2010 @ 1:11 amIf the staff members were really disgusted by the decision, why don’t they quit in protest?
Gerald A (dba36d) — 3/7/2010 @ 2:02 amtime to fire the staff.
cedarhill (c50cf5) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:37 am“The worst aspect of the girl’s same-sex parents is I bet they’re socially and politically of the left.”
Of course it is. Childrens’ Services should take children away from all of these abusive lefty parents.
JEA (63b53e) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:12 amThe school took the right decision, for everyone concerned. If the child had been enrolled, and continued in school, eventually he would be exposed to teaching, in his own school, that his parents were living in a sinful and immoral situation; the school itself would be undermining his relationship with his parents. And if the student had been enrolled, and continued in school, the nature of his family would soon become known to his classmates, and there would be two results, both bad: the other kids would be making fun of him and telling him that his parents were immoral and sinners, and the other children would be exposed to a situation in which the Church was tolerating a situation — for money — that it was teaching to be immoral, thus teaching the other students that the Church was hypocritical, and didn’t take its own teachings seriously.
The Catholic Dana (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:30 amMaybe there is an Islamic preschool nearby where they can send the child instead.
daleyrocks (5710d7) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:46 amI think Stashiu’s point in #25 is the right way to look at it. I could support, from a moral perspective, the position of the school if it were consistently applied. So if they also denied admission to students of parents who had gotten divorced and remarried (without benefit of an annulment from the Church), because those parents, too, were in “disaccord” with the teachings of the church, fine. And maybe the school really is that hard-core, in which case more power to them.
But it seems more likely that they, like too many churches, focus far more negative emphasis on the sin of homosexuality than they do on most other sins, particularly heterosexual sins, when no such distinction is actually warranted by the Bible.
PatHMV (003aa1) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:54 amMaybe there is an Mormon preschool nearby where they can send the child instead.
daleyrocks (5710d7) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:03 amAnd when the student was exposed to teachings from the school that his parents were living together immorally, and was heckled by the other students for having such parents, wouldn’t the school be legally liable for that “injury?”
The Dana who isn't a lawyer (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:13 am“wouldn’t the school be legally liable for that “injury?””
The Dana who isn’t a lawyer – Do you mean to suggest I can sue the schools for the ridicule and shame my kids endured for having parents who did not believe in the AGW crap they tried to ram down their throats in class?
daleyrocks (5710d7) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:20 amAccording to school policy the parents didn’t qualify to enroll their child in the first place. However, unless the parents misrepresented themselves on the application, once the child was accepted and had satisfactorily attended the first year, the school should not have prevented re-enrollment.
ropelight (bc07c8) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:22 amI think it’s pretty clear the two moms want to provoke a confrontation. Mission accomplished.
The Church has no moral obligation to accept this child, much as a yeshiva has no obligation to accept a Muslim student.
East Coast Chris (ded5f2) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:35 amKids don’t get to pick their parents.
JEA (63b53e) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:44 amI agree that it is a sad situation for the child, that the topic would be confusing and hard to explain to a pre-schooler (both for other children who attend as well as the child, if it came up), and with the concern that there may be more to the story than meets the eye.
As we are constantly reminded (I’m reminding myself right now), we are looking at this situation through the eyes of the newspaper reporter. If there is a “Patterico Equivalent”* of the news in Denver it would be good to know their take on it.
The article does say that the child “will not be allowed to return next school year”, so that implies the child was there this year, and we don’t know if there have been specific events this year that have contributed to the school’s actions.
Two other general comments:
1) It may be important (maybe not) to know that a/the bishop or archbishop of Colorado was an outspoken critic of the idea that a Catholic person in good conscience could vote for someone that was not pro-life. (I could be wrong, but) I think this in response to comments Nancy Polosi made on national TV that blurred what the Catholic teaching on abortion was. (She could have used a little more understanding of Aquinas, Stashiu3, rather than trying to split hairs of theology because some staffer thought they could whitewash the issue). So, from a political strategy perspective, trying to embarrass the diocese might be a winner for those on the Left. (I don’t tend to think in these terms, but I know many do).
2) From my experience living in a predominantly Puerto Rican/ predominantly Catholic neighborhood, I don’t believe they really hold to a standard of “purity of lifestyle” for parents of their students. A significant number of children are to single moms (not currently celebate) or to those in “common law” arrangements. If every child that came from a home not living up to Catholic teaching on sexual morality was expelled, I expect class size would diminish significantly.
One significant difference in the situations may be something that was left out. According to Biblical teaching, FWIW according to one’s views, Scripture makes the point that advocating and promoting sin is significantly worse than sinning. It is one thing to fail in living up to God’s standards, and quite another thing to encourage people in habitually flaunting them. Perhaps it was perceived, or in fact, that this situation was not just another home of sinful people trying to do the best we can like all of us, but that the situation was actually focusing attention on the issue and trying to “make a point”.
No matter how kind and accepting we can be of one another in one on one interactions, I don’t see how one can avoid the logical necessity that “A” and “not-A” are contradictory. I’ve worked as hard as possible to save the lives of many men who were bi or homosexual. I respected them and they respected me and were appreciative of what I had done for them, (even one fellow who was in ACT-UP), but I don’t think any of them thought I would be on the front lines promoting gay marriage.
So, if the family was “quietly minding their own business”, I understand how the situation could become difficult for the child or others in the school, but if the parents wanted to face those issues in the context of assenting to the reality that the official position of the school was not supportive of same-sex couples, from far away I would think the school should have worked with them. I am sure that like Stashiu3, many send their kids to a Catholic school realizing their children will learn moral philosophy and religious doctrine from a Catholic perspective, but at the same time not feeling a particular concern about feeling pressured to assent to all Ctholic doctrine.
On the other hand, I think it would be a curious situation where people who were public in their support of same-sex marriage would want to have their child in a school where that was in direct conflict.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:48 amIrrelevant, JEA. The state has no business getting involved in Church policy derived from Church doctrine. And the Catholic preschool is in the right here.
John Hitchcock (cdd36b) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:51 amdaley rocks this question:
Maybe. If McDonald’s can be sued — and lose — because some moron is driving around with hot coffee between her legs, and scalds herself when she spills it, if a homeowner can be sued because a burglar gets injured whilst burgling the house, and the burglar wins, then any stupid thing can happen.
The Dana who isn't a lawyer and doesn't play one on the internets (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 8:53 amMD from Philly wrote:
I’ve had children in Catholic schools, and have seen non-Catholic students in them. However, the ones I’ve seen were students who came from non-Catholic, but otherwise Christian families. They were expected to attend Mass, but didn’t receive Communion, and it was no problem, because most of what was taught in religion classes was not so different from what their particular churches would have taught, and their parents knew that there would be those minor differences.
But this situation is completely different. In a pre-school, I’d guess that the topic would never arise, but if the child continues in Catholic schools, eventually he will be exposed to teachings that aren’t just the minor differences between denominations but the very major one that his parents — at least one of them — couldn’t be parents at all, nor that the relationship that they had could be considered anything other than sinful. There’s a real difference between teaching transubstantiation to a kid whose parents believe in consubstantiation and teaching something that could undermine the student’s relationship with his legal parents.
The practical, Catholic Dana (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:02 amHere is something to consider: The Bible declares homosexuality to be an abomination. There are many things declared sinful. And all sin is declared worthy of death (separation of the soul from Providence). But very few sins fall into the Biblical category of an abomination.
To accept a child of a homosexual couple could be seen as a tacit approval, or at the very least a non-disapproval. Such a position, if it were held, would be sinful. Even giving the impression of holding such a position is also considered sinful.
Sometimes it is necessary to draw a hard line in the sand and let people attack you for it, calling you all sorts of things, like “heartless” and “uncompassionate” and whatever else, as you hold to Truth.
John Hitchcock (cdd36b) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:03 am“Maybe there is an Mormon preschool nearby where they can send the child instead.”
Comment by daleyrocks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is no such thing… they don’t exist.
If the school charter or guidelines specify that this (“two mommies”) is unacceptable behavior, therefor grounds to deem applicant as not meeting application requirements, I would think the school has a foot on solid legal ground. If not, they don’t.
GeneralMalaise (04e9c2) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:28 amComment by The practical, Catholic Dana-
I think we agree, just looking at it from a slightly different angle. Though it gets a bit complicated, because there are those who would claim they are Christian but disagree with the interpretation of the Bible, and those who are agnostics as well as maybe many Hindus and Buddhists who wouldn’t be bothered one way or another.
Comment by John Hitchcock-
It is true one can find Scripture that uses that phraseology, but I have some points to raise.
One can find in Scripture passages that condemn Sodom and Gomorrah for their sexual sin, but other passages condemn them equally as strongly for being selfish and greedy and ignoring the poor even though they were rich. There is also a passage in Revelation that puts “cowards” in pretty bad company as well.
The issue of giving tacit approval “will always be with us”. At times it will be a valid concern that we will need to adapt our behavior to avoid. At other times it will be an issue more for those who observe and want to make a deal of it, like those who condemned Jesus for spending time with “tax collectors, and sinners”.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:29 am#10 AD – RtR/OS!:
Life does that.
It’s not fair, it doesn’t seem right, but that’s the way life is. And that observation is made a number of times throughout the Bible, for example in Exodus: Preserver of Kindness for thousands of generations, Forgiver of Iniquity, Willful Sin, and Error, and Who Cleanses – but does not cleanse completely, recalling the iniquity of parents upon children and grandchildren, to the third and fourth generations.
Setting aside divine retribution for the moment, life is uncomfortable for children of those ostracized for whatever reason~whether because the parent was a murderer, homosexual, or an AGW skeptic. I tend to agree with Dana, I think the school made the right choice because I think the child will be better off at a school where morality of the parents won’t become an issue for the child to deal with. And like PatHMV, I certainly hope that the school is applying those standards consistently.
But the bottom line is, life isn’t fair. And there is no way for us to make it fair~despite Obama’s promises to the contrary. It is, as they say, “above his paygrade.” And ours.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:36 amI had a Jewish kid in Catholic school with me in the 1940s. There were Hebrew schools in the neighborhood but none with K-12 education.
I think the school was wrong but there may be more to the story. The fact that the Archdiocese said they all have to follow Catholic doctrine sounds pretty radical. Among other considerations, maybe they have thousands clamoring to get into Catholic schools there but many inner city schools, like the ones I went to, are now virtually 100% non-Catholic because the students are all black and the parents are mostly Baptist or other Protestant sects.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/7/2010 @ 9:40 am” the topic would be confusing and hard to explain to a pre-schooler”
What’s so hard to explain? Some kids have a mom & dad, some have 2 moms and some have 2 dads.
A simple explanation like that satisfies a young child. Why the hell does our society make such a big deal of the facts of life? It satisfied mine when he asked.
JEA (63b53e) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:15 amWhy are people like JEA so anti-science. It is not biologically possible for a child to be born to 2 mommies or 2 daddies.
JD (0e735f) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:32 amConservatives are pro-science only when it suits their biases.
JEA (63b53e) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:37 amThe facts of life? Didn’t you advance far enough in school to be exposed to a biology course.
No child has two dads or two moms. You might be satisfied with such an explanation when you’re very young. But eventually you’re going to find that in fact one parent is missing.
How hard you take the fact you’ve been lied to all those years will depend upon how heavily indoctrinated you’ve been to believe biology doesn’t matter.
That indoctrination will not be given to you in a Catholic institution. The child will not be told that some kids hae 2 moms or 2 dads. Because, JEA, those aren’t the facts of life. It is pure propaganda. I think you help highlight just how dangerous it is for the Catholic school to allow the child to continue there.
The Catholic school simply will not utter the falsehoods that you seem to desire.
Anyway, I side with those who believe there is more to the story. And I’d focus on the staff angle. I’m reminded of a similar situation on the east coast. I don’t recall all the details, I believe it was at a Catholic hospital, but I do recall the ultimate resolution.
A group of staff members sued the institution and said they were being discriminated against because they were being denied “reproductive benefits” (i.e. birth control and abortion) in the health plan. The church lost and the government forced it to provide services that violate Catholic doctrine.
I don’t have any problem whatsoever with what the Catholic preschool did in this case. For two reasons. First, the Church is following a long held doctrine. Second, I don’t see this as an isolated incident. More and more I see the Catholic Church taking steps to avoid similar situations to the one I mentioned earlier, where it will be forced to violate its own doctrines.
And really, wouldn’t the child ultimately be better off at an institution which teaches JEA’s version of the “facts of life.” Undoubtedly a public school, where the child will never be confronted with a serious biology course.
Just serious courses on recycling, saving the polar bears, and the evils of capitalism and religion. You know, like the public schools in Detroit.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:44 amNot only untrue, but such utterances are handy in pointing out that JEA is brainless all of the time.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:53 amNo, JEA, that would make us liberals. Read Burke. The essence of conservatism is following the evidence no matter where it leads. And if the facts conflict with our beliefs, we adjust our beliefs to fit the facts.
Liberalism is the exact opposite. If the facts conflict with their ideology, they reject the facts and launch ad hominem attacks.
In any case, the Church learned its lesson a long time ago following that dust-up with Galileo. The church’s doctrine can not conflict with science. The Pope isn’t Dr. Zeus, bent on hiding the facts.
In any case, your observation here isn’t an argument. It’s merely an ad hominem attack.
“You only care about the facts when it supports your beliefs” sort of avoids the obvious. In this case, the facts do support the Church’s beliefs.
Assaulting someone’s ulterior motives for actually following the facts is simply an attempt to shift the focus from the facts to the individual.
In this case, an ineffective attempt.
I’m not attacking you when I say, your personal version of the “facts of life” are quite the opposite of what objectively the facts of life are.
Do you think the Church should have to teach your version of the facts of life? If so, then wouldn’t that bear out the wisdom of the Catholic pre-school nipping this little effort in the bud.
To avoid getting trapped into doing exactly that.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:54 amA private school has the right to select its students. Private schools will come under increasing pressure, including that of the US Government when liberals are in power, until they submit to the dictates of the elitists who know best how we shall all live. The Salvation Army and the Boy Scouts are only the first step in that process.
mhr (29dfe0) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:56 amWow, such open-mindedness. What exactly constitutes a ‘serious biology course’? Creationism and anti-global warming, I’m sure.
Keep living in your fantasy island.
PS. Id you actually paid attention to what I wrote, I never said the school was wrong.
JEA (63b53e) — 3/7/2010 @ 10:58 amNow JEA is arguing with the voices in its head, you godbothering new earth creationists. Does AGW have anything to do with biology, JEA? Do your “serious” biology courses teach that 2 women can reproduce?
JD (a080a1) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:08 amA simple explanation like that satisfies a young child.
And in Utah, some kids have 4 mommies. Some may have 6 or 10 mommies. In parts of Muslim culture — which is becoming more commonplace throughout the Western World — the same thing applies. So why should society make such a big deal of the facts of life?!
Moreover, if mommy and daddy are spouting off, for example, bigoted, racist comments about the new neighbors down the street or, for that matter, the guy now in the White House, and the existence of that rhetoric somehow gets caught up in the grapevine at school, why should anyone be worried about that causing a big ruckus in the classroom?!
After all, c’est la vie, baby!
Childrens’ Services should take children away from all of these abusive lefty parents.
Liberals are far more likely to buy into the philosophy of self-entitlement and the idea that their kids’ self-esteem should be protected at all costs. Therefore, to a good percentage of such people, it’s not “when in Rome do what the Romans do.” To the left, it’s “when in Rome I’m going to do whatever the hell makes me happy. And if my feelings are hurt, I’m gonna sue, sue, sue!!!”
Mark (411533) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:11 amIt’s the JEAs of this world that make life more amusing. Don’t go away mad, JEA… go away educated.
GeneralMalaise (04e9c2) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:15 amThe church lost and the government forced it to provide services that violate Catholic doctrine.
Meanwhile, in Canada — which is such a tolerant society (yea, where tolerance — or “tolerance” — runs in one direction only) — two male students who wanted to attend a Grad Night party as a couple weren’t granted permission by the Catholic school they attended. The kids sued and a Canadian judge ruled in favor of them and against the privately run and managed — repeat: privately run — school.
Mark (411533) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:18 amHeadline of The Day…
“Gay Catholic Ex-Stripper Awaits Birth of Twins Carried by Husband’s Sister”:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/dailymusto/archives/2010/03/gay_catholic_ex.php
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
GeneralMalaise (04e9c2) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:20 amNo, I never said you did. I said your version of the facts of life is wrong.
I went to a Catholic school. We weren’t taught creationism.
I seriously doubt they are teaching “anti-global warming,” either. Whatever that is. They may well not be teaching “AGW,” either, as that isn’t science but advocacy. But I don’t want to be drawn of on a tangent, discussing how many ways the AGW advocates avoided following the scientific method.
Ultimately, the point is that not even a half-serious biology course will teach that a child can have two moms or two dads.
Trying to imply that conservatives believe in ideologically-based pseudosciences (falsely, I might add) when it’s convenient doesn’t alter the facts. In fact, it helps highlight the point that all you have are ad hominem attacks. Ad hominem meaning, “to the person.”
“Look at all the crap you believe” is an attempt to shift the focus from the facts under the discussion to the person/persons you are discussing them with.
Your facts of life are not, in the final analysis, the facts of life. Trying to imply that conservatives also believe irrational things seems to me to be a tacit admission that you know you are advancing nonsense, but that it should be allowed because you think your opponents do it as well.
Is that what you are saying?
Second, I was pointing out that there are those in society that would have the Church conform to such irrational values. I wasn’t necessarily saying you were one of them.
In fact, if you read my post I asked you if that is what you wanted.
The larger point is that the Church is in conflict with people who are attacking it for its doctrines. Those doctrines do conflict with modern societal vanities. And in the past the Church has been tripped up and forced to violate its own policies. Probably because when it entered into its initial agreements to cooperate with government, it never realized just how hostile that government would become to an independent Church following its own doctrines.
My somewhat educated opinion is that the Church is looking further down the road than this one child. The Church is pretty good at looking further down the road; it’s been doing if for two thouand years.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:33 amGood catch, Mark. That’s an example of what I mean by the Church looking further down the road.
I really don’t understand the liberal conceit that if they insist we have to look at something as an isolated incident, that means the conservative has to look at things the way the liberals want.
These are not isolated incidents. The Church is a global institution. It would certainly be aware of what is going on in Canada in Europe. And learning its lessons about what to do, and what not to do, in order to avoid further assaults.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 11:45 amI know that 2 men and 2 women can’t biologically produce a child – I never said that, either. Do you think a child will go through their entire eighteen years without ever meeting a homosexual? Don’t you think a child will ask about it? It so happens my son’s kindergarten teacher was gay, and my son did ask me about it. Don’t know what you do with your kids – if you have any – but I’m matter of fact with mine when they ask questions about sex, and answer them as best as they can understand at their age.
JEA (63b53e) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:05 pmHow many strawpeople do you intend to introduce into this discussion?
JD (425aab) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:17 pmGodbothering creationist not-straight talking (homophobe) to your kids new earthers.
JD (425aab) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:19 pmI think PETA should be forced to accept Outback Steakhouse as a sponsor.
JayCee (00f5a1) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:40 pmGiven that you think its cool to teach your kids that some children can have two moms or two dads, even though you know that is biologically impossible, I’d say that your best isn’t very good.
That’s also illustrated by the quality of your latest evasion.
The issue isn’t whether or not a child will ever meet a homosexual.
The issue is whether or not the Catholic church was correct in its actions by remaining faithful to its own doctrines.
If you want to change the subject, you’re going to have to do better than your previous best.
And by the way, it’s amusing that someone who teaches his kids counter-factual crap is here accusing others of not talking straight to their own kids.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:55 pmI’m going to have to apologize to JEA for the last sentence of my previous comment.
The not talking straight comment was written by JD, not JEA.
I think as I push 50 I may be starting to need glasses.
But the rest stands.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 12:58 pmEducation is a partnership between the school and the parents. The parents need to be comfortable interacting with the school and the school needs to be comfortable working with the parents.
nk the new PTA Parliamanterian (db4a41) — 3/7/2010 @ 1:02 pmAnd I don’t think homosexuality is an abomination, and a woman who wants to marry another woman is very nice to spare a man and very foolish to get herself a wife.
nk the sometime misogynist (db4a41) — 3/7/2010 @ 1:04 pmThe school is not a church and conflating the two does not make it so. It’s not about the church’s right to adhere to doctrine. The church is certainly welcome to tell the parents, “You may not join our church because your lifestyle is in disaccord with our teachings.” The school is free to continue teaching that doctrine as well, and the parents need to understand that the doctrine being taught will say that they’re going to hell (or whatever current Catholic doctrine teaches). If the parents are objecting to the teachings, they need to find another school. If they’re not asking that the curriculum be changed, it’s wrong for the school to deny re-enrollment because they don’t agree with the parents lifestyle. I would not enroll my kids in a school that judged my child by my actions though. Unless something changed with the kid, why is this particular sin targeted when kids with abusive, alcoholic, drug-dependent, divorced, incarcerated, and/or many other situations in “disaccord” are able to attend?
The school is wrong because they’re not a church. The parents are stupid for not saying, “Fine, we’ll take our business elsewhere.”
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/7/2010 @ 1:17 pmFrankly it sounds like their were far too many staffers at the school who were far too comforatable working with the parents against the interests of the school and the Archdiocese.
The school was very clear and straightforward about its admission policies.
For the staffers to claim to be “disgusted” over the school actaullly abiding by them seems to point to the actual problem.
That is such a gross misrepresentation about what the school preaches (given, of course, that what it preaches is Catholic) it almost defies belief. It’s right up there with Nancy Pelosi’s lies about what the Church teaches about abortion.
The most charitable explanation is that the people who are “disgusted” by this decision have no clue about what the Church preaches.
But that’s unlikely. The most probable explanation is that the “disgusted” staffers are hostile to what the school preaches and wish to overrule it.
The problem, when you get down to it, isn’t that the school can choose which students can or can’t attend the school. It is that the school can not discriminate against those who reject its philosophies when it comes to hiring staff.
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/7/2010 @ 1:21 pmIn any case, the Church learned its lesson a long time ago following that dust-up with Galileo. The church’s doctrine can not conflict with science. The Pope isn’t Dr. Zeus, bent on hiding the facts.
Actually the Roman Catholic Church was following what was the accepted science of the time, which was that everything revolved around the earth. Church scholars interpreted a few Bible passages to mean that, but which don’t actually say that, based on the established scientific doctrine of the time.
When they went after Galileo, it was as a result of being influenced by the scientists who were opposed to Galileo, plus probably one other factor – Galileo had written a “fictional” story where one of the characters was pretty obviously the Pope and it was not a complimentary representation.
The Catholic Church endorsed evolution decades ago for the same reason as they endorsed the geocentric view of the universe, i.e. following what most of the scientists said.
A good discussion of the whole thing can be found in “What’s So Great About Christianity?” by Dinesh D’Souza. The Galileo story has been distorted to fit the usual secular agenda.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 3/7/2010 @ 2:20 pmThis discussion is nice to see.
A point of note for some, though, when I attended Our Lady of Good Counsel I don’t recall much about doctrine being taught in the early grades. The mean and tough as nails nuns were more concerned with getting me to learn my alphabet and not fidget.
From what I can recall, I studied for my Communion up the street at the associated Church.
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 3/7/2010 @ 2:47 pmThe Galileo story has been distorted to fit the usual secular agenda.
Speaking of which, I know some liberals in today’s era have pointed to, for example, ancient Greek culture as indicative of how different people were — and, at least in the context of sexuality, in a good way — over 2,300 years ago. Of how philosophers like Plato were so much more permissive, hip and different compared with peoples attuned to an age familiar with the Bible and Christ, etc.
I almost bought into that, particularly when historians have noted that, for instance, all the athletes at the ancient Olympic games competed in the nude, and writings from Plato proclaimed that homosexuality was perfectly fine. Moreover, and as another sign of the idea that as much as things change, some things never change, Plato — sounding similar to an intellectual in 2010 (and better yet, one living in San Francisco) sneering at Red-State America — also accused people opposed to homosexuality as being barbaric and backwards.
I had to shake my head and laugh at the irony of it all when I read quite recently that towards the latter years of his life, Plato then started declaring homosexuality as unnatural and certainly not deserving of the support he formerly voiced about it.
A case of back to the future.
Mark (411533) — 3/7/2010 @ 3:27 pmUh, how did the kid get into the school in the first place? Me and my siblings all went to different private schools, and each time my parents were interviewed as part of the admissions process. The source doesn’t address this.
Either way, it’s a private school – they can do what they want. Why these mothers chose to send their child to a school that was in direct conflict with their lifestyle is another question.
tdpwells (6c977b) — 3/7/2010 @ 3:28 pmYes, I realize that there was considerable support for the geocentric theory among the scientists of the day. But the fact remains that the Church declared the minority heliocentric view to be contrary to scripture, and eventually found Galileo suspect of heresy.
What I meant by saying the Church learned its lesson, is that that the Church may endorse a scientific theory but never makes belief in any theory an article of faith. A theory may be widely accepted. But it is never settled. Any theory may be successfully challenged.
Ironic, isn’t it, that those who still subscribe to the benighted, 17th century approach to science the Church long ago rejected, led by “pope” Pachauri and the church of the IPCC, consider themselves to be the rational ones?
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 4:11 pmA group of staff members sued the institution and said they were being discriminated against because they were being denied “reproductive benefits” (i.e. birth control and abortion) in the health plan.
When I began in practice, I started at St Joseph’s Hospital in Burbank. That was 1972. The nuns were going to build a new 10 story addition to the hospital. They were told that they could not use federal funds unless they allowed abortion. So they built the new building for cash. My next door neighbor was a bank VP and he told me that the wealthiest private organization in Los Angeles at the times was the Sisters of St Joseph.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/7/2010 @ 4:24 pmMy last word…
AD - RtR/OS! (3024f3) — 3/7/2010 @ 4:29 pmI lean to the side that believes that this dust-up is a prelude to a lawsuit; and I would hope that these two women can get their child into a Montessori School, where the beliefs of the parents and the school will be more in synch.
The story of Galileo is often used to ridicule the Catholic Church but the heliocentric universe had been known since Ptolomy’s time. The problem was a passage in the Bible which says the sun stood still in the sky, which implied it revolved around the earth. It was just ignorance on the part of religious leaders who were not scientists and should have known it. Sort of like Al Gore.
There are similar stories about Columbus thinking the earth was flat. That is bad history. The problem is that they did not know that the earth is as big as it is. Columbus thought he could reach China because they thought the circumference was only 2/3 of what it really is.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/7/2010 @ 4:32 pmI suspect that is a deliberate on the part of the source.
Your question about how the kid got into the school in the first place is a good one. I went throught the same admissions process you did before elementary and high school.
So my conclusion is that some person or person’s on the admissions staff were deliberately ignoring school policy and the Archdiocese.
I read the Archdiocese’s statement (the portion the poorly written news article cited) as more a rebuke to school’s staff than the “2 mommies:”
It certainly seems to me that whoever is in charge of admissions at the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School isn’t on board with the program.
The fact that some members of the staff went to the media to vent their “disgust” over the school actually enforcing those policies confirms my suspicion. Actaully, whoever is declaring their “disgust” is blatantly saying they are not on board with the program.
Somebody is using this child in their campaign against the Archdiocese, and ultimately the Church. That much is obvious.
Whether or not the couple raising the kid were knowing participants, obvious not so much. I’m going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say no.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 4:41 pmBad history indeed.
No sailor since time immemorial ever thought the Earth was flat. That was obvious to them because you could see the masts of a ship long before you could see a ship itself.
One quibble. It wasn’t that he thought he could reach the far east because he underestimated the size of the Earth. It is that he thought he had reached the far east because he underestimated the size of the Earth.
That’s why we have the West Indies. He thought he had reached the actual Indies. Europeans at the time considered everything east of the Indus to be the “Indies.” Columbus remained convinced throughout his life that he found the actual far east, just not the route through the islands of the “Indies” to the mainland of “Cathay.”
Of course, I only know that because I went to a Catholic school.
If I went to a public school I’d have learned something useful, like the inherent evils of this nations founding as well as the inherent nature of the materialistic, imperialistic, militaristic, and racist capitalist system.
Not any of that silly math, history, geography, or science crap.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:07 pm(Full disclosure: I was a Catholic School student for about 8 years.)
Certainly as a private school, the Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School can legally reject applications, and as a private religious school, can reject applications due to moral discordance.
Perhaps this is more of a Catholic issue than a secular one. IMHO, the question is should this Catholic School reject this student solely because the parents are lesbians.
If truly the parents’ sexual orientation is the only reason of rejection, then from a Catholic perspective how is it morally defensible; holding children accountable for the sins of the parents is against Catholic doctrine.
Many of the arguments discussed here in this thread are quite good (minus JEA’s garbage). One type of question remains unanswered: what about other equivalent moral practices that are in discordance with Catholicism – like divorce (the “un-annulled” kind), or pre-marital sex, or a women who received an abortion, etc — should such also be grounds for an application rejection (given a consistent and rational application of policies and standards)?
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:18 pmPons, this is why I brought up the point about the Bible declaring homosexuality an abomination. As far as I know, there is no such declaration for murder, fornication, etc. I think that difference should possibly be given a bit of consideration.
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:25 pmJEA asked:
Well, I did, or at the least, I went through the first eighteen years of my life without meeting anyone I knew to be homosexual. Of course, back in those days — I turned 18 in 1971 — people who were homosexual normally didn’t announce it. Personally, I don’t see why I need to know that anyone, other than close friends, is homosexual or not. If homosexuals are going to tell me that their sexuality is none of my business, why do so many insist on making it my business by telling me about it?
The sheltered Dana (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:26 pmSteve wrote:
Without more information than we have, that’s just useless speculation. It is entirely possible that the parental situation changed after initial admission; perhaps the student came from a single-parent family, and the real mother then decided to bring in her lesbian lover.
The practical Dana (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:33 pmI turned 18 in 1983. The first person I met I knew to be homosexual (and I didn’t know it at the time) was in 1990 or after. He was married to my then-sister-in-law at the time…
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:34 pmJohn, I defer to your knowledge on that matter (my own is quite lacking). However, the child is not the one who is practicing homosexuality — his or her parents are.
The child is not at fault. On this basis, the school should not do this (that they can, I have no dispute, as it is well within their authority and power. To me, it is a question of should they).
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:35 pmSheltered Dana, personally I get tired of people making a point to inform the public of their sexual preferences. It seems rather self-centered to assume others really want to know such personal information, or that it even matters.
Dana (1e5ad4) — 3/7/2010 @ 5:37 pmIt all started with the chant of “we’re here, we’re queer, GET USED TO IT!” While I understood why gay activists felt that defiant rallying cry was needed a few decades ago, it’s become nothing but caterwauling from another special interest group wanting it’s own special exemptions.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:03 pmFor an understanding of my own philosophy, which I’m sure the lawyers around these parts will just love, allow me to describe a completely different situation.
I believe a thief should be forced to repay his victim four times the value of what he stole. If that means the thief must turn over everything he owns to the victim, leaving the thief, his wife, and their 6 children out in the cold, so be it. It is not the court’s fault the children suffer for the thief’s crime. It is the thief’s fault. And the wife is partially to blame for allowing her children to be placed at such a risk. This may sound cold and uncaring, and perhaps it is a bit, but it lays the blame squarely where it belongs: on the parents. And drawing hard lines leaves no grey area.
Turning this back to the topic at hand, this is not punishing the child for the sins of the mother. This is not even punishing the mother for her sins. But it is holding the mother fully responsible for her child’s care, as it should be.
Aside from that, doesn’t the state claim state-run or public education systems are just as valuable as faith-based or other private education systems? With that in mind, how can the state then argue that this situation is deleterious for the child?
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:07 pmMr Hitchcock wrote:
Allow me to suggest 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, in which the punishment for all of those sins is the same, being unable to inherit the kingdom of God.
The Bible scholar Dana (474dfc) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:42 pmHe was married to my then-sister-in-law at the time…
He actually should be considered bisexual. That word is no less accurate than “gay.” But then it would imply that free will is a part of human behavior, thereby making homosexuality (or sexuality in general) somehow different from the state of being blind, deaf, paralyzed, dyslexic, limb-less, black, Latino, male, female, etc.
Mark (411533) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:44 pmMr Dana, my #42 covered that, I think.
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 6:46 pmJust because you have no other information, practical Dana, doesn’t mean I don’t.
Dana, does being “practical” somehow prevent you from using Google? Further information can be found from a variety of sources, including the Sacred Heart of Jesus’ parish priest’s blog.
Personally I believe the priest is being too kind. Perhaps he is just being cautious. Maybe on the advice of counsel as (since you can’t use Google, practical Dana, so you wouldn’t know this) the GLBT “community” is rallying to the cause and looking to see if the Archdiocese is guilty of discrimination.
First of all, these teachers (or staff members) aren’t being “forced” into this particular conflict.
They are deliberately seeking it out; going to the press to vent their “disgust” and presenting themselves as bold whistleblowers.
The only “conflict” they have apparently have is with the religious mission of the school where they work.
I said earlier the charitable explanation is that they don’t understand what the Church preaches. But anybody that stupid is unqualified to teach anywhere. So I doubt that. As I said earlier, the more likely explanation is that they don’t like the church’s, and consequently their school’s, position.
The GLBT “community” says it is going to do more “outreach” toward parochial schools, including finding straight allies.
Well, it is definitely not “speculation” on my part that they already have allies on the school staff at the Sacred Heart of Jesus.
And it is perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that staff members who are now publicly and enthusiastically denouncing the Archdiocese for whom they work would have quietly and unobtrusively ignored the admission’s policies in the first place.
Steve (1c9d9a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:14 pmSteve, back off on your personal attack of adj-laden Dana. It is way off base and very uncalled for.
John Hitchcock (73e09a) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:20 pm#80 I suspect that is a deliberate on the part of the source.
Even I know that the Catholic School is one of the best, probably the best in any city around.
Mine was in an Irish Catholic neighborhood filled with (ask Bill O’Reilly about his childhood) the least tame kids around. Including me.
And they tamed us and educated us. Who wouldn’t want to go to the best school? Let’s not start getting paranoid here. *Boo*
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 3/7/2010 @ 7:23 pmPerhaps there are other possibilities, such as the staff does not believe that a child should be held accountable for the actions and behavior of his or her parents. Certainly one can disagree, but it is not necessary to assigned negative assumptions and questionable motives to a staff that may genuinely (and possibly correctly) believe that this decision is contrary to the Catholic faith and its teachings.
To say that these staff members do not like the church’s position, assumes that position is to exclude membership of a child from school specifically for the homosexuality of the parents. That assumption is likely incorrect, as Catholic doctrine holds that a parent’s fault is not transferable to a child.
To say that these staff members do not like the school’s position is more likely, but because it may be contrary to the church’s teaching, not for the sake of an undefined “campaign against the Archdiocese”. Indeed, it is highly doubtful and completely speculative to insist they have a “campaign against the Archdiocese” as no such evidence is presented.
Beyond that, the larger question is should the Catholic School system, as a matter of policy, exclude the children of homosexual parents from enrolling? From a Catholic perspective, the answer has to be no. There may be other reasons for such an exclusion, but not for the sins of the parents.
—
It would be helpful to know how the archdioceses happened to obtain their information. If some sort of public statement was made (perhaps if the lesbian couple somehow used the school’s tolerance as an argument or attack on the church’s position of homosexual relationships…), then the moral justification of not admitting the student might make more sense. A lesbian couple and a slanted media with a gay agenda are not nearly as speculative as unnamed Catholic staff members with a gay agenda.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:45 amOh, gawwwd, not this schtuff again.
Back in 2002, a Sacramento-area Christian preschool student was expelled because it was discovered that her mother – Christina Silvas, a former Sunday school teacher – had taken up stripping.
On Free Republic, a cyber-donnybrook broke out between people who (like myself) saw the mother as violating a contract with the school to raise her child with identical values, and those who said that it wasn’t the school’s business how she made her money and/or that the sins of the mother shouldn’t be visited on the child.
In the Sacto case, the church operating the school actually offered to find her employment consistent with the values they supposedly had in common. She refused. And word got out because her friends and family contacted the media. The MSM’s take on it was to the vilify the church despite the fact that the stated reason Silvas started stripping was because the child’s father stopped paying child support. Nobody but I and a few others wanted to know why HE wasn’t the bad guy.
In any event, this current controversy shouldn’t be deemed worthy of a single headline unless there’s some reason to believe this precious child will be scarred for life by being ripped from her preschool. Give me a break. If this is the worst thing that’s happened to the kid, s/he will have a blessed life.
This is about the “mothers'” hurt feelings, the renegade employees misplaced priorities, and the media’s predictable promotion of a pro-gay agenda. Nothing else.
L.N. Smithee (581353) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:16 amDid the church go through all of it’s students to find out who’s parents are divorced, who’s mom or dad cheated, killed, stole, and if the preist’s themselves were in trouble for impure thoughts? If not, maybe they should start. I also remember something in the bible about “those who have not sinned, cast the first stone”. What a missed opportunity if there ever was one to teach tolerance, everybody is equal and all are loved in the eyes of God.
Paula (12675e) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:57 amHow many times has that exact same argument been made in this thread?
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:41 amPaula is a drive-by troll who I doubt ever learned that Christianity isn’t based on an all-inclusive anything-goes set of mush-doctrines.
John Hitchcock (d6b18d) — 3/8/2010 @ 7:29 amAccepting your absurd argument on its face — It doesn’t make sense practically or financially to investigate every one of the parents, so the school did the smart thing: Asked the parents to agree to raise their children in harmony with the values of the school as a condition of enrollment.
After all, isn’t what the parents are paying for a Catholic education?
Yeah, here’s the full text — and more importantly, the full context — of what think you remember:
The Pharisees, Jesus’ mortal enemies, were constantly trying to find a way to hang him with his own words (they eventually succeeded). Similarly, the MSM and the LGBTQ community (or whatever they’re calling themselves this week) are trying to hang the school.
But, Paula, what was Jesus asked to do versus what the Catholic school has done? The school will not re-enroll the child of the lesbian couple. OTOH, Jesus was asked to condone the execution of the adulteress.
Tres different, no?
And note what Jesus said to the adultress at the conclusion of the incident: “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” He didn’t say, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin some more!” And that’s what this all boils down to: Whether or not a religiously-based school has the right to specify what is sin and what is not, and whether it makes any sense for a school to bother instructing a child whose parents’ lifestyle stands in stark contrast to the education being given.
I’m inviting you to explain how that makes any kind of sense at all. Seriously, I want to see you take a shot at it.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/8/2010 @ 10:14 amAm I a drive-by troll as well? She made almost the exact argument I did. You’re being a little quick on the trigger just because someone has a different opinion. This is exactly what Leviticus has been arguing and I agree with him, the troll label should be reserved for dishonesty, not honest disagreement.
L.N. Smithee, the school is not a church. I was never required to sign anything like that agreement you mention to enroll my kids in Catholic school. Are you certain that was a condition of enrollment, and if so, why did it not apply initially? And again, I think the parents should tell the school “Fine, we’ll take our business elsewhere” now that the story is out.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/8/2010 @ 11:31 amThe school is not a church per se, but there’s always the alternative of preschools that have no religious aspect or an aspect that’s consistent with your values. If you as a parent choose a Catholic private school for your child despite your aversion to aspects of Catholic teaching — especially one so fundamental to the nature of your daily family life as your “spouse” — whose fault is that?
If your children were given a Catholic education and they didn’t care about the spiritual aspect of your child’s life, what exactly was the point? I were Catholic, and enrolled my child a school where anonymous employees were trashing it in the media for being too Catholic, I might rethink my child’s enrollment if heads didn’t roll.
Steve’s comment at 3/7/2010 @ 7:14 pm details the parish’s stance. I don’t know if the school required the parents to sign anything, but I can’t imagine how it could avoid it in this sue-happy society. The article linked at the top from the Denver TV station ends with “According to legal experts, it is legal for the Archdiocese to deny a student enrollment because of the school’s policy.”
Which brings us, again, to the only reason this is being discussed here or anywhere: The MSM’s promotion of a pro-gay agenda. There’s nothing to see here, but someone called up the local news so they could bring their cameras to come and make villains of people who take their religion seriously.
L.N. Smithee (b048eb) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:10 pmI completely agree and think it was foolish of the parents to make this choice originally. My point is that this is a re-enrollment with no misbehavior by the child or change in family status. If the original enrollment violated policy, punish the person who originally violated the policy. If the kid hasn’t been a problem, it’s a good opportunity to teach Catholic values and doctrine to someone who otherwise probably wouldn’t get it. Using the “in disaccord” excuse reveals them as hypocrites if they don’t apply the same standard to divorced parents, or anyone else who hasn’t been ‘in accord” with doctrine.
If this is an example of a pro-gay agenda being pushed, they were pretty patient to wait until it came time for re-enrollment. Until I see evidence of something to the contrary, I am going to assume good-faith of the parents desire for a safe, high-quality, and moral education at the cost of being seen as sinners. Not a choice I would make, but it might have been the best option they saw at the time.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/8/2010 @ 12:53 pmStash, you know I have much respect for you, as you have earned it over a period longer than your existence on this site. But I have to say you gave a very cursory skimming of Paula’s foolish statement and accusation in this instance. By her statement, if you ever thought something “dirty” about a woman in a bikini, you cannot say anything bad about Roman Polanski or you’re a hypocrite and in violation of Providence’s Laws. And you are not there at all.
John Hitchcock (d6b18d) — 3/8/2010 @ 1:45 pmJohn Hitchcock,
Respectfully, either you read too much into her statement, or not enough into mine. She didn’t make that contention and neither did I. Now, you and I are going to disagree on whether homosexuality is a different level of sin according to Catholic doctrine, and that’s fine. Neither of us sets Catholic policy and it’s beside the point here. Don’t let the parents join the church and there is no inconsistency. Absent any misrepresentation during the initial enrollment, misbehavior by the child, or change in the family status… why deny re-enrollment? The school is not the church and my understanding is that nothing changed from the first enrollment.
The school is being hypocritical because this is a re-enrollment, not an initial application. Applying the standard after-the-fact in this case, and not to others, is my objection.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:14 pmPaula said, in part:
There is not much reading into what Paula said beyond “an impure thought is the equivalence of a Biblical active abomination.” So, Paula did, indeed equate thinking “dirty thoughts” to Roman Polanski’s actions. And Paula did, indeed, declare anyone who would ostracize Roman Polanski to be a hypocrite if the ostracizer ever thought “dirty thoughts.”
John Hitchcock (d6b18d) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:29 pmActually, stashiu, I think the reason is hinted at by whoever linked to one of the parish priest’s blog. It sounded to me that the parents were pushing for everyone to agree that their living arrangement was a good thing, and the church couldn’t do that.
Some chump (050674) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:38 pmStashiu – If what some chump referenced above is correct, I would think that trying to rub the Church’s nose in their arrangement is likely why the re-enrollment was not approved, not that they actually needed any reason.
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 2:40 pmYes, JD, that is the major reason the school took the action it did.
Apparently a lot of people here can’t read, but I’m glad you can.
As the pastor said on his blog, “If people are living other conflicts with our faith and publicly defend that conflict (for example someone publicly encouraging divorce) we would have the same problem.”
A secondary reason was that they didn’t want to put the child in the middle of a conflict (a concern the two women raising the child apparently didn’t have).
But, again, the primary reason was “It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that.”
Steve (7d8b00) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:02 pmsome chump, a quoted excerpt from the priest’s blog (it wasn’t linked, but no biggie beyond that quibble) that doesn’t say what the couple actually did different than when the child was first enrolled is not convincing to me. What it “sounds like” and what it was may be far different. The priest (carefully) doesn’t say that the parents have done anything different, just that they defend their lifestyle. Rationalizations from an interested party may be sincere, yet still wrong. If he had just left it at:
they’re on solid ground with me. Again, selectively applying the rule after-the-fact is wrong unless something changed. I haven’t seen anything that says that.
JD, I agree that they didn’t need a reason… they’re a private school. Claiming a reason that is only applied selectively like this is hypocritical and the source of my objection. Speculating what the couple was trying to do as a likely reason for the denial? If imdw did that, you would rightfully skewer him. If they had just said “We don’t want you anymore and it was a mistake to admit you the first time”, no problem. They haven’t done that. I’m not defending the parents and have said they made a foolish choice. I’m criticizing the school for being hypocrites.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:28 pmI understand you, stashiu. I agree, that there is much speculation. IF they are getting their noses rubbed in the parents lifestyle choice, then I agree with the actions taken. If not, it is a shame that a child will be deprived of a superior education based on the actions of the parents and the Church.
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:40 pmSteve,
A rationalization is just that. It may be valid or not. My question remains… why did this not apply to the initial enrollment? Maybe the blog goes into more detail than what you’ve quoted here. I would bet there are divorced parents who have children at the school or the priest wouldn’t have felt the need to address it. That they’re not defending divorce as a good thing is irrelevant, it’s still “in disaccord” with Catholic doctrine and those parents are still divorced. If the couple had said “We don’t think our lifestyle is a good thing, but we’re still going to continue it”, would that be okay? I don’t think so. So why is it okay for divorced parents? It’s the selective application of the standard they used that I object to. My reading comprehension is just fine.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:42 pmJD, it’s pre-school, not medical school. 😉 That’s why the cry of “abomination” is so over-the-top. Don’t want the kid attending because you don’t like the parents lifestyle? No problem, don’t let the kid enroll in the first place. Once it’s done though, make the standards clear and as long as the kid and parents adhere to them (and are not disruptive), let it go.
Then, don’t admit anyone unless you’re sure you want them. Don’t approve any application by the parents for Kindergarten. Finally, don’t be hypocrites and selectively apply rules after-the-fact. It’s that simple.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/8/2010 @ 3:51 pmStashiu – We had to be interviewed, approved, and the like for our little angel to be accepted into a private pre-school. I had to hide my flaws 😉
JD (8b8f03) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:00 pmWhat I think would make sense, to me anyway, and is speculation, is that when they enrolled nothing was made an issue. Whether this was because of staff who didn’t follow protocol or there was no desire on the part of the school to bring a parent’s personal lifestyle into the decision.
The pastor’s blog points out the issue is when a parent publicly defends a conflict in opposition to Church teaching. This sounds to me like a subtle way of saying the parents made an issue of it themselves, and once they did that the situation had changed. I’m assuming that “publicly” doesn’t mean a teacher or administrator found out about it, but that it became a “public”/ out in the open to be discussed and debated topic.
That is speculation, and if we had more details than the soft-spoken suggestions of the priest we would know better.
As I and others said before, I would find it odd that a lesbian couple would want to have their child attend a school that is not in agreement with their lifestyle. I could see it, especially at such a young grade, if it really was the best school option.
As I commented before, Scripture sees one who encourages others in deliberate sin as very different from the “average sinner” who fails in their efforts to live righteously. The latter find forgiveness and mercy, the former are readily condemned as long as they persist.
Ans yes, I’m too busy or lazy to find more myself on the web. I appreciate Steve’s info.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:07 pmHere is Father Bill’s Blog and here are the two excerpts that imply some sort of public argument or attack was made against the church:
I was hesitant to mention this @97 because most of his blog is centered around doctrine, but there is an implied statement that church doctrine may have been publicly attacked. If in fact the school’s tolerance was used as some sort of justification for attacking Catholic doctrine, then that would make much more sense as to why the student’s application was rejected.
IMO, the school should not exclude a student from attending because of the homosexuality of the parents, as morally such an exclusion for that reason is against Catholic perspective. However, the church certainly has the moral right and even the obligation to defend itself from attacks in order to protect its faith and doctrine for future children.
This also makes more sense as to the motives of a biased media outlet (slanting its coverage by not reporting pertinent facts, such as public attacks) and a lesbian couple, both of which would likely have a gay agenda.
This would also answer the questions of “why now, instead of last year” and “how did the archdioceses find out about the sexual orientation of the couple”.
However, it is still speculation, as there does not appear to be any explicit mentioning of a public attack prior to the student’s rejection. Hopefully, time will reveal that this speculation is indeed correct, as it is morally defensible from a Catholic perspective, IMHO.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:14 pmUh, JD, that is exactly what I was trying to say but with three essay’s; each one, a few hundred words 😉
Thanks JD, you rock as always!
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:20 pmI didn’t mention it to convince you. I mentioned to show that there may have been a change in the attitude of the parents which fomented the school’s action.
It’s possible that the school just recently discovered the status of the parents. It’s possible that the school administration just changed its mind about admitting the child. It’s also possible that the child was admitted with the understanding that the parents wouldn’t make a stink about their home life, and the parents reneged.
Whether you think that’s convincing is up to you.
Some chump (050674) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:21 pmI’ve updated the post with a link to a Denver Post article.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/8/2010 @ 4:50 pm#111 – The Priest’s statement is so vague as to be unimportant as to why the kid can’t get the best education and maybe learn from interaction with other Catholic kids.
We could suppose there was a feature in the newspaper about two lesbians who owned a (whatever lesbians own these days) store. They may have PROUDLY mentioned their kid was getting the best education they could afford.
At this point, we don’t know whether the “publicly” point is advocacy or mere acknowledgment with a spurious fear attached to being known to have any of teh geighs attached to the parish in these trying times.
Point remains that the kid should get the best education possible.
Jeff Barea (eff5e1) — 3/8/2010 @ 5:42 pmI’ll refer back to my post at #38 for a second and point out that the Catholic Church (the archbishop or bishop of Colorado) in this region took on Pelosi (and politicians in general) toe-toe on her attempts to cloud Catholic doctrine on abortion during the campaign season. The liberal powers that be certainly would have reason to bring turmoil there. More facts needed before a final judgement can be made.
MD in Philly (70a1ba) — 3/8/2010 @ 6:24 pm