The case of a the kindergarten age child who was refused an opportunity to return to his local Catholic school because his parents are openly gay is creating a nationwide stir, and has even faithful Catholics on opposing sides in attempting to ascertain the right thing to do.
This is a sad situation because you’re dealing with a child who is not at fault at all. If you’re interested, here’s some excellent thoughts on this issue from around the Catholic blogosphere:
In a post entitled “Moses and the Burning Bush” Fr. Bill Breslin, the priest who made the decision, writes about his decision making.
Jimmy Akin sees to the heart of the issue at the National Catholic Register.
Fr. Z writes at length about it at his blog. As always, Fr. Z is a great source for information.
Fr. James Martin has some pointed questions to ask because that’s what Jesuits do. But in fairness they are good questions and ones I had to sort through as well.
One thought I saw mentioned in a few comboxes I found just laughable. A number of people have said that this case is exactly why Catholic schools are suffering from lack of admissions. Is anybody really arguing that Catholic schools are suffering from TOO MUCH adherence to Catholic doctrine? Come on.
The whole thing is a sad situation but unfortunately I think it’s one we’re going to be seeing increasingly.
March 10, 2010 at 9:32 pm
A caveat: if the children are Catholic, I have a problem with this. If they are not, then I do not, because the parent is just looking for a private education which can be given at another venue.
March 10, 2010 at 9:58 pm
"Folks, including some writers above, have that wishy/hopey thing going, thinking that a human being (in this case a school child)should not have to suffer the implications of other human beings' decisions. Oh yeah? Since when?"
No. What people are saying here is that the child should not be punished for the actions of the parents.
I'm not talking about a "teachable moment" in teaching children to accept homosexual relationships as right, as you seem to imply. read my posts carefully. You will note that I said it should be made clear that the school will teach Catholic doctrine, INCLUDING the teachings on homosexuality.
March 10, 2010 at 9:59 pm
I do not know where punishing the child for the sins of the parents is a Christian virtue.
The punishment is coming entirely from the parents. They might has well have strapped high explosives to the innocent child and tried to get her into the school.
Scott W.
March 11, 2010 at 1:20 am
No. What people are saying here is that the child should not be punished for the actions of the parents.
And she isn't being punished at all. In truth, the child is being harmed because of the actions of her lesbian mother and her partner. The archdiocese and the school are doing the right thing.
This is not all that different than the church refusing to baptize a child if the parents are not willing to assume their responsibilities in raising the child according to the faith.
March 11, 2010 at 1:52 am
Please explain how the child is being harmed by these women wanting to enroll the child in a Catholic school.
March 11, 2010 at 2:06 am
I find it hard to believe that a faith based on the teachings of Jesus Christ can refuse anyone. Jesus wanted to reform the Jewish people of the first century and make them realize that they needed to be more open and accepting of all people. I also find it hateful, by all you followers of Jesus, that you are so hurtful towards people that aren't like you. Open your minds and hearts to the beauty that differences represent in people. One faith is not the answer, it only leads to segregation and war, but through open communication and acceptance we can truly become more like Jesus and more human.
March 11, 2010 at 2:27 am
Actually, what Christ admonished the Pharisees for was in not internalizing the word of God. In other words, only giving lip-service to God, all the while making the people of God abide by rules. Christ never abrogated those rules on the people. In fact, Christ told the people to do what the Pharisees told them to do. So, while homosexuals must be accepted, we do not have to accept as valid marriage between people of the same sex, nor do we have to say that what are doing is NOT a sin. That isn't what acceptance means. Acceptance means loving people because they are signs of Christ, no matter what their sexual orientation is.
March 11, 2010 at 2:33 am
So then my question to you is would Jesus have turned away the child because of his parents?
March 11, 2010 at 2:49 am
Anonymous:
I don't think it's a matter of "What Would Jesus Do." That's nothing more than cutesy, sentimental Protestant thinking. The question is "what should we do?"
My answer is this: look on this child as a sign of Christ. And yes, even the parents as well. Because everyone is a sign of Christ for us. We look at the needs, wants and desire of the child. It's quite clear to me that on some level the parents want the child to have religious instruction. They are right in wanting to give the child a Catholic education, even if their understanding of Catholic education falls short of what the actual meaning is. The school and the Archdiocese dropped the ball on this one and should have admitted the child to the school, regardless of the status of the parents.
And I use the term "parents" rather than parent because the child knows these two women as both parents and both are acting as parents to the child.
March 11, 2010 at 2:52 am
Kim:
I wish more faithful had the knowledge and understanding that you have.
Casey
March 11, 2010 at 3:02 am
Casey:
Thank you. As with anything, there is a fine line between having a faith that is based on rules and is not internalized. The Church's teachings are right on homosexuality. The problem we have in front of us now, though, is what to do with these families that are inevitably cropping up. We have to deal with the problem in front of us. While it's understandable to say "the child should not be allowed in the school" it is also a moot point. We will be seeing more and more children of same-sex couples and we simply cannot say that they are not good enough to enter into a Catholic education. That serves no purpose. These children need to also be taught the truth of the faith. Keeping them away from the school and religious education not only doesn't teach them the truth of the faith, but pushes them away. The church has no problem explaining why remarried parents are wrong if they haven't gotten an annulment, and they should have no problem with the children of same-sex couples.
March 11, 2010 at 3:39 am
Some of you are deceived into thinking the Church will not baptize the child of two people living in public and permanent adultery. The way the Church gets around that is to keep the situation secret as it welcomes them into the Church, even accepting the new adulterous partner through RCIA and openly acknowledging them as a couple(even though this is a lie and the Church knows it) and the child is baptized.
Period.
This is a fact.
March 11, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Anonymous said…
Compassion or "Charity without truth is mere sentimentality."
EXACTLY! This is why the most charitable thing would have been to let this child in the school and teach her the truths of the faith.
You have missed the point entirely
March 11, 2010 at 1:26 pm
No Anonymous–I'm afraid you have missed the point.
March 11, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Firstly, I think many of you are overstating the "harm" to the child at not being readmitted–children change schools all the time, especially at that age; it really should not be a traumatic event (my daughter went from day care to preschool to kindergarten all before she was five–yes I am a working Catholic mom). It has become a traumatic event precisely b/c the mother and partner chose to make it so. They are not innocent actors in this, they did not act with good judgement when the girl was enrolled. The Archdiocese is not requried to compound their poor decision. As for Kim's suggestion that the girl be taught that her mother and partner are living in sin, that is rather more than a young child should have to process. And as for the suggestions that the Church should act in the same manner for divorce, single parents, etc.–in these cases the school is allowed to make the most charitable assessments of the living situation–these women made it impossible to do that by their very public actions (which also seems to preclude the potenial for correction, which the regualr parents still have). And let's not even get into the potential for bullying from other kids b/c of the child's living situation. It's a bad place to be–but the Archdiocese made the right decision, if a year tardy; the situation would only have gotten worse, as Hilltop illustrated.
Cathy J
March 11, 2010 at 2:27 pm
Cathy:
i'm not saying that the child should be taught that NOW. I'm saying that the child should be taught that at an age-appropriate time. How is it that a parent who remarries after divorce without benefit of annulment is somehow allowed a more charitable stance than the lesbian parents of the child in this case? Are not both worth charity, in the real sense of the word?
March 11, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Someone needs to notify Bill O'Reilly, because he spoke against the Church on his TV show last night regarding this issue. That guy really has a fairly superficial knowledge of Church Teaching..OR…he doesn't research sufficiently and makes knee-jerk statements.
Kathy
March 11, 2010 at 3:20 pm
The child is being used as a pawn by his/her mother to advance her agenda against the Church. This is flat out child abuse. The mother knew EXACTLY what she was doing when she enrolled the child – she DID NOT disclose the child had '2 mothers' on the enrollment form. This is all a set up for a lawsuit against the school and diocese. How far have we fallen that we so devalue children that they are merely a means to an end. This is tragically sad for the child. May Our Lady wrap her arms around this child and protector her from the evil that surrounds her.
March 11, 2010 at 3:47 pm
Anonymous:
Do you have facts to back your claims?
March 11, 2010 at 5:00 pm
People have been wondering about the harm to the child. If the school admits the children and they continue on the learn a solid moral theology they will be damaged in their relationship with God. How? you may ask. Simply by looking at the dynamics of the child's relationship with those raising her. I have four children and especially in the young ages, they ask me about stuff they learn in school. So let's say they hear that homosexual acts are gravely disordered and are sinful as they should hear at the appropriate time. They know that "mommy" and "mommy" are holding hands and kissing as my wife and I do sometimes around the house. So those children will ask about it and will take the word of "mommy" over that of the school. This sets up a relationship of suspicion with respect to the teachings of the Church. This will set up a wall between the children and the family of God that will take a long time if ever to tear down.
The solution proposed about making those raising the children aware that the school will teach the truth may or may not help. They seem fairly set in their ways and I doubt it would change the behavior in the home and then set up the same problem as above.
In this situation I don't see any way out. I would doubt that the child was baptized in the Church considering those raising them and so the issue is one of education and as said above they can get a good private school education in many other places.