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 11, 2010 at 6:36 pm
Fact: It was the child who told the teacher he/she has two mommies. If it was disclosed on the enrollment sheet the teacher and school would have already known that.
March 11, 2010 at 7:31 pm
Sure, deny the child a Catholic education. But also kick out the kids whose parents are divorced and living in sin, contracepting, and pro-abortion. Whoops! You cleared out the whole class, my friend.
March 11, 2010 at 7:59 pm
Blackrep,
Absolutely. Couples that are not in sacramental marriage should be required to work (annulment?) to get one as a condition of enrollement. Kids whose parents living together should be required to set a wedding date with the priest as a condition for enrollment (assuming they are Catholic). For the non-Catholics they should be married within their own faith tradition in a reasonable amount of time.
As for contracepting and abortion, until our priests and teachers start stressing the evils that they are, people will continue to unfortunately go down that road. When we start calling evil what it is then we might make some progress.
Wouldn't it be wonderful to actually be Catholic. I'm on the Education Commission in my parish and I can tell you that they have put the business of the schools above the teaching of the Church (we don't want the mission statement to be "too" Catholic. We stopped teaching Catholicism a long time ago and now we are reaping the rewards. Either we are Catholic or we are not. The only reason everyone's coming down on the Church is because we selectively have a backbone. I always say that the problem is not the Church, it's the people. If we would just teach and back up that teaching then it wouldn't be a problem.
For the most part people don't send their kids to a Catholic school to be Catholic they do it for the status in "rich" communities and for a quality education in "inner-city" communities. Catholicism has very little to do with it. In fact in many schools you're lucky to get 50% of you students Catholic.
March 11, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Again regarding the divorced parents, single (straight) parents, contracepting parents: all these folks have discretion on their side. Unlike many of the folks here, I do not think there needs to be an admissions test for every set of sinful circumstances. But this is really un-missable: the little girl has 2 women acting as parents. It cannot be charitably ignored, shall we say. And she will notice, and she will wonder, even at a young age, and maybe ask her teacher, and then where are we? Telling her her moms are bad people. Or her parents telling her the teachers are wrong. Great!
I also agree this situation screams set-up.
Cathy J
March 11, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Cathy J and all other who continue to call the two women "parents;
The two children have a mother and a father. Simple biology allows for one of each and no more. It is only possible that one of the two women is the actual mother. One is, one is not. Calling both "parents" is not possible. You could say both are custodial adults, guardians or are "raising them".
March 11, 2010 at 11:36 pm
To all those who see the terrible duplicity in this situation when children of adulterous people, who masquerade as married, are not seen in the same light as children of same sex people, thank you.
The Church is causing great harm here.
These are issues it has avoided confronting until it can no longer avoid them. We who have been persecuted by the Church and its acceptance of our maliciously abandoning spouses and their evil lovers, who refuse to repent, AND OUR CHILDREN have been gravely harmed. Our relationships to OUR CHILDREN HAVE BEEN GRAVELY HARMED.
Those who use children like this ARE CHILD ABUSERS and the Church should hold these unrepentant child abusers to account.
I do not know what is the best course of action.
What I do know is that priests encouraged and continue to encourage all types of perversions regarding adultery and its consequences. I know their bishops know this and will not even respond in any constructive manner. I have seen this in person. Rome knows this but will not act to help.
I am deeply sorry for the innocent children in these situations but they are being used to shield those who CONTROL THEM and this is clear in cases like ours. I am not saying a thing about the gay people in this situation. I am writing of the situation I know intimately, that the Church, somehow, finds OK to support.
It is simply grossly wrong and it is feeling the fruits of its errors now, as it should.
March 12, 2010 at 2:38 pm
To JFK:
I think I was pretty careful to generally refer to them as "acting as parents." In fact, she has one mother (I am assuming, maybe incorrectly, that it is one of the two women) and a father somewhere else. It gets tiring to keep qualifying…..
Cathy J
March 12, 2010 at 4:54 pm
Rock on Arch. Chaput and Fr. Breslin! You're standing strong in the Faith, and we're praying for you in your witness.
March 14, 2010 at 8:45 pm
The Catholic school is a private school. You have to pay to get into it. The school should be able to set standards for conduct and influences at the school. Of course they cannot set conduct rules at home, only suggest. The parents who send their children to Catholic school expect that Catholic ideals will be taught. There is no way that the relationship of the child's two moms will not be known and talked about in the homes of the other children. There is no way to keep it out of discussions in the classroom or on the playground. There is no way to keep it out of play dates, parties and fundraisers when school life and home life come together. The school did the right thing. Why did the women send their child to a Catholic school except to challenge the system and cause an uproar.