You presume to present what is an authentically “Catholic” approach though you are not the competent authority on the matter-
Not all bishops are Chaputs, Burkes, and Bruskewitzes, despite what some on CAF might want.
The Cardinal has chosen to not press this issue and I agree with his approach.
You could not be more wrong. Unlike many on CAF, I do not “presume” (your word) to substitute for particular bishops. I have never pretended to do that; nor will you find that in my postings, and it’s unfortunate that you are twisting them to equal that. I was defending Catholic teaching regarding role-modeling in Catholic schools against a clear misinterpretation of that by someone who is not arguing from a Catholic educational perspective. His arguments are not founded on the philosophy of Catholic education. Rather, those arguments reveal a failure to understand why certain schools, dioceses, parishes, make the decisions that they make – without violence to either morality or charity.
I don’t particularly follow individual bishops’ policies, most of them, until they become prominent because of news stories (favorable or not), or if for any reason they happen to be more in the media spotlight, which could be neutral. So do not classify me with die-hards on CAF who have “fave” bishops and endlessly talk about which clergy are faithful, which are not, which of them should be condemned or supplanted, which of them is radical or losing their mind. I have both criticized and praised individual statements (or sometimes actions) of individual bishops, which is the right of anyone on CAF to do so. I tend to be fairly familiar with the two bishops in my region, much less familiar with those in other regions. So apparently you dislike Burke, Chaput, and some other guy. I don’t know much about them, actually. Do not categorize me as some group or party. Try that with another poster. It won’t work with me.
I do know what is authentically the reason why Catholic schools in general make certain decisions regarding the role-modeling of parents, and how central that role-modeling is to instruction and enrollment. I will post that without apology and do not need your permission, or some bishop in Massachusetts’ permission, to do that. He may decide – as someone else has said – not to implement that traditional policy, for any number of reasons (call them pastoral, call them political, call them practical or realistic), but the fact is the policy, when implemented, does have an authentic theology behind it in its support. It’s not hypocritical; it’s not false; it’s not an excuse for discrimination. It’s centered in Catholic theology. I do not presume to know the motivation for the Bishop is the Boston archdiocese (or more correctly, his lay representative – at least she was the one who announced it) for making that choice.
So while the thread subject is indeed the Boston situation, the argument branched out, particularly from one poster, to challenge the very premises and foundation of enrollment decisions in Catholic schools. That’s what you saw me arguing about – had you taken the time to understand that, but which you chose not to.
