Boston Catholic schools will enroll children of same-sex parents

[Elizabeth502]

Bleh! Sorry!

My only defense is that it was after 3 AM when I was writing that!

I know the feeling!

 

[Zatzat]

A homosexual can overcome the sin of homosexuality if that person resolves to abandon it. Where there is a failure of making restitution or resolve towards avoiding proximate voluntary occasion of sin, then there is a persistence in obstinacy which opposes the readiness to repent.

The Catholic Church teaches that engaging in homosexual acts is a sin…as well as those that you have mentioned above. The Church also teaches that everyone can receive absolution for sins committed. However, while a penitent can be forgiven, there is also an obligation on the person to correct his mistake and seriously promise not to commit the same. In our act of contrition, we say “I firmly resolve… to amend my life” and one of the means to reform is not to expose oneself to circumstances where it could lead to occasion of sin.

Well then, does the Catholic Church make a practice of penalizing the children of parents who find themselves in the occasion of recurring sin that doesn’t involve homosexuality or is it just the homosexuals that are targeted?

Why not the masturbators?

Your position is most puzzling. I see clearly that your Church doesn’t agree with you, as the Boston Archdiocese has chosen not to discriminate children of same sex parents.

 

[Julianna]

Do Catholic schools say the same thing about masturbation?

Probably the same reason why parents who masturbate, use artificial birth control, live in common law, are divorced and re-married, are having affairs, who don’t go to confession, who never go to Mass, who married outside the Church, who look at pornography or who fantasy sexually, send their children to Catholic schools.

Odd that these schools and many posters only seem to get bent out of shape about the sins of the homosexuals.

You noticed that too, huh?

 

[Julianna]

I think that this is the correct decision, but the path is harrowing either way. Jesus said, “Let the children come unto me,” but the situation in which gays and lesbians are placing their legal wards is nothing less than cruel.

Religion teachers are now going to be placed in an almost impossible situation: who wants to tell a child that his or her parents are objectively disordered, and that everything about that family’s life as a family is a lie?

There is nothing we can do for the diocesean schools ourselves, though. They will need our prayers.

At what grade level is this taught? My children attended Catholic School through grade 5 and it was not in their religion book or taught in class. Just asking…when? at what grade level?

And then with the entire class “knowing” the situation of this child…how would this child be treated by his/her fellow Christian classmates?

 

[Wowbagger]

At what grade level is this taught? My children attended Catholic School through grade 5 and it was not in their religion book or taught in class. Just asking…when? at what grade level?

At my very typical diocesan Catholic K-8 school, family life was first taught as a subject in Grade 5, and dealt explicitly with sex, contraception, abortion, and (more briefly) homosexuality. This was 1999 (so now you know how old I am. Darn). Your mileage may vary (as yours evidently did). I would be very surprised to see a whole “class about homosexuality” before Grade 4. I would also be surprised if it were not dealt with before Grade 8. Catholic high schools, of course, deal with the issue throughout all four years, as the subject is a pervasive subject of theological inquiry among students.

More importantly, however, the presumption that two-parent mother-father marriage is both the ideal configuration and the one held in common by the vast majority begins in Kindergarten. This is quickly shifting in the public schools, but obviously cannot in the Catholic. I’m envisioning an exchange something like this:

TEACHER: …so get out your art supplies, and we’re going to make your dads a mug you can give them on Father’s Day.
CHILD: raising hand Mrs. Hypothetical, I don’t have a dad. I have two mommies.
TEACHER: …]

It seems to me that the teacher is placed in an extraordinarily difficult situation here. Since the dawn of time, they’ve dealt with children whose fathers have died, and so the teacher might say, “That must be very hard for you. I’ll help you make a coffee mug for your mom instead.” In recent decades, they’ve had many children of divorce, and replied with, “You can give it to your father whenever you see him next, not just on Father’s Day.” (And, of course, contracepting, masturbating parents are a non-issue for young children, because they don’t understand those words.) But this… this is a different animal.

As a Catholic educator, the teacher has a responsibility to be kind to her pupil, but she also has an obligation not to lead her students into error, whether by commission or omission. (Thus, I once knew a Catholic art teacher who was severely disciplined for telling a particularly loudmouthed student that Bill Clinton was not “pro-abortion,” as the second-grader [me] loudly claimed, but actually “pro-choice.”) The teacher therefore cannot let the “two mommies” claim pass without comment, or the other kids in the class are going to think it’s okay, and they’re going to ask their parents about these “two-mommy families, like we learned about in school,” and Mrs. Hypothetical is going to get sacked. But what the hell is she going to say that publicly rejects the poor child’s innocent belief in her own family without causing the young one serious emotional pain?

It appears to be a no-win scenario. A Kobayashi Maru test, if you will. It’s new and unique and there doesn’t seem to be any non-cruel way to deal with it, and it’s why I find this arrangement more worrisome than the one Catholic schools have with divorced and/or non-Catholic parental guardians. (I can honestly say I’ve never seen an atheist in a Catholic elementary school, so I’m not sure whether the dynamics with that are a more or less serious problem.)

I’m certainly not getting more “bent out of shape” about homosexual sins than I’m bent, say, contraceptive sins. Heck, contraception, I think, is certainly a more serious sin in almost every case. So, despite your vague implications of homophobia, all I’m saying is that this introduces a new and unique dynamic in the schools that seems likely redound on the child in question to her detriment. And that her “parents” should recognize this, and should realize that they are being cruel.

And then with the entire class “knowing” the situation of this child…how would this child be treated by his/her fellow Christian classmates?

This is another difficulty. All Christians are called to charity, even the young. But, in reality, young people are the cruelest of all. Now, as my parents have often said, “If kids aren’t cruel about one thing, they’ll find something else,” so this isn’t my biggest concern… but it is definitely legitimate to worry that, upon discovering that this child has “two mommies,” and learning (from their parents or from their teachers) that this is an unnatural, disordered relationship, the other Christian children in the class will take this as a license to destroy this poor young girl.

If I were a lesbian couple, the very last place in the world I would send my child is into a Catholic school, which I would see as nothing but an ideological minefield waiting to blow off my “daughter”'s leg.

That being said, I reaffirm my support for the Archdiocesan decision. The fact that it creates difficulties does not change it from being the right one.

 

[Zatzat]

And then with the entire class “knowing” the situation of this child…how would this child be treated by his/her fellow Christian classmates?

I suspect that very same question was asked when African American children were permitted to attend the same schools as Caucasian children.

The African American children cannot change the colour of their skin.

The children of same sex parents cannot change who their parents are.

Yet the school and many posters aim to punish the children for the sins of their parents.

Thankfully, the Diocese doesn’t agree with the school or the popular opinion around here.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well then, does the Catholic Church make a practice of penalizing the children of parents who find themselves in the occasion of recurring sin that doesn’t involve homosexuality or is it just the homosexuals that are targeted?

Why not the masturbators?

Straw man. The issue, which you were told on the earlier Denver thread of a similar story, is not sin, but lifestyle. Should a particular heterosexual couple publicly identify themselves as unrepentant masturbators, in a form that would make it known to the student body, it would similarly be considered a scandal, and the school administrators might well decide to disenroll the child of such parents because of the extremely poor publicized example set by the parents. Outside of that, private, personal sins – when not publicized – are not a matter for denial of admission, obviously. Catholic schools have never had a policy of examining individual sin or categories of sin, but rather of lifestyle, role-modeling, example, and discretion or lack thereof. This has not changed. Further, parents who have announced that they are cohabitating rather than married, have remarried without annulments, etc., have been known to have been rejected from Catholic schools, particularly those schools with waiting lists, until such parents correct the problem and notify the pastor and/or principal. There is a character (not sin, per se) element of admission to Catholic schools. Nowhere is this more pertinent than in the matter of family life, which is at the heart of Catholic education.

Your position is most puzzling. I see clearly that your Church doesn’t agree with you, as the Boston Archdiocese has chosen not to discriminate children of same sex parents.

Do not confuse a decision by a lay administrator at one archdiocese as representing authentic teaching and policy of the Church. Indiividual dioceses and their lay and clerical representatives have deviated from Catholic moral teaching in the past as well.

 

[Santi2]

Well then, does the Catholic Church make a practice of penalizing the children of parents who find themselves in the occasion of recurring sin that doesn’t involve homosexuality or is it just the homosexuals that are targeted?

Why not the masturbators?

Your position is most puzzling. I see clearly that your Church doesn’t agree with you, as the Boston Archdiocese has chosen not to discriminate children of same sex parents.

Homosexuals are not targeted. It is homosexuals who openly engage in homosexuality that are. Homosexuality is also distinguished from recidivism because the former does not abandon proximate voluntary occasion of sin where the homosexual is in a committed gay relationship. The operative word here is voluntary. There is a difference with the recidivist in that, one can avoid commission of the same mistake and, in some cases, recidivism is indirectly willed. It is also not the case that recidivists call for the acceptance of a conduct that goes against the sin of chastity and scandal. And, the latter is where I reserve a position contrary to that of the Archdiocese of Boston because their position needs to be clarified against the Catechism of the Catholic Church where it teaches:

II. RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF PERSONS

Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284
Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285
Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea."86 Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.87

2286
Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."88 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,89 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287
Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

 

[Corki]

At what grade level is this taught? My children attended Catholic School through grade 5 and it was not in their religion book or taught in class. Just asking…when? at what grade level?

In most instances, it would begin to be taught in 2nd grade. When the children start preparing for 1st Confession, they get their first real discussion of the 10 Commandments. When they get to the 6th Commandment, the 2nd graders will likely hear it as “the love of a husband and wife is special and to be shared only when they are married”. In our diocese (both CCE and in the Catholic school) this is reiterated in 4th grade (where modesty is more stressed) and then more specifically in the Junior High curriculum where moral theology and/or human sexuality is introduced.

In all grades, starting in PK, the religion programs include identifying the love of God the Father with the love the children experience from their own fathers. While teachers are sensitive to families with absent fathers, there is no way to teach this in a Catholic way and leave out the image of fatherhood altogether.

IMHO, the classroom problems will be mostly outside the Religion class. School paperwork lists “mother” and “father”, schools have “Father-Daughter” activities and "Daddy Donut Day, Catholic schools have Masses dedicated to the Mothers and Fathers, etc. Would you expect a Catholic school to change all of this to accomodate a lesbian couple and the child they want to enroll in the school?

 

[Zatzat]

Do not confuse a decision by a lay administrator at one archdiocese as representing authentic teaching and policy of the Church. Indiividual dioceses and their lay and clerical representatives have deviated from Catholic moral teaching in the past as well.

Does a lay administrator make decisions for the entire archdocese and set policy without the approval of the Bishop?

I think not.

“The archdiocese does not prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools,” her statement continued. “We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future.”

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=21356

 

[Ahimsa]

Homosexuals are not targeted. It is homosexuals who openly engage in homosexuality that are.

What if a same-sex couple were celibate? Would you allow their children into a Catholic school?

 

[Elizabeth502]

What if a same-sex couple were celibate? Would you allow their children into a Catholic school?

Qeustion not addressed to me, , but I will offer a response:

To label yourself as a “same-sex couple”/ “lesbian couple”/ “gay couple”/ “homosexual couple” or even merely “a couple” when you’re obviously of the same gender, is contradictory to the concept of celibacy. We require the same of heterosexual couples. A straight couple, approaching a priest for a marriage preparation class, does not credibly announce to the priest that they’re cohabitating (if they are), but doing so chastely. It doesn’t fly. If they’re chaste, they move apart, because anything else, when there has been or is a sexual attraction, is too difficult and too tempting on the relationship. The honorable thing for any couple truly having the intention to live chastely, is to separate habitats, and – if in a forbidden relationship such as homosexual – to renounce that relationship and any such physical relationships as a condition of a sincere effort to join the church and to enroll a child already conceived, in a Catholic school.

So the couple, if sincere and if converted from a sexual to a chaste relationship, would never have presented themselves as a duality, if they weren’t. The biological mother would/could have gone to the church and have said, “I am the single mother of this child. He/she does have an additional guardian, with whom I once had a relationship but no longer do. I will be the one and only official contact between the school and this child, whom I wish to enroll.” The school doesn’t even have to know what kind of former relationsihp that was, as long as the (sexual, cohabitating) relationship has been renounced. For that matter, they don’t need to know how often the child interacts with the other guardian.

The same would apply to a straight couple living a forbidden lifestyle. I deal all the time in my own work with a mother or a father who presents himself/herself as “the parent” of the enrolling child, and refers to the other (separated) parent as “the child’s father/mother/other guardian” This is what truly separated and truly divorced staight parents do all the time. If you are no longer a couple, you do not introduce yourself as a couple, represent that, and parade around as “a couple.” You are very clear to others what the situation is. Anything else is playing games, and/or seeking publicity, and/or manipulation for purposes of confrontation, or even an overt purpose of scandal/ embarrassment.

In the alternate lesbian scenario I describe, I believe it would have been proper for the school to enroll the child.

 

[Santi2]

Qeustion not addressed to me, , but I will offer a response:

To label yourself as a “same-sex couple”/ “lesbian couple”/ “gay couple”/ “homosexual couple” or even merely “a couple” when you’re obviously of the same gender, is contradictory to the concept of celibacy. We require the same of heterosexual couples. A straight couple, approaching a priest for a marriage preparation class, does not credibly announce to the priest that they’re cohabitating (if they are), but doing so chastely. It doesn’t fly. If they’re chaste, they move apart, because anything else, when there has been or is a sexual attraction, is too difficult and too tempting on the relationship. The honorable thing for any couple truly having the intention to live chastely, is to separate habitats, and – if in a forbidden relationship such as homosexual – to renounce that relationship and any such physical relationships as a condition of a sincere effort to join the church and to enroll a child already conceived, in a Catholic school.

So the couple, if sincere and if converted from a sexual to a chaste relationship, would never have presented themselves as a duality, if they weren’t. The biological mother would/could have gone to the church and have said, “I am the single mother of this child. He/she does have an additional guardian, with whom I once had a relationship but no longer do. I will be the one and only official contact between the school and this child, whom I wish to enroll.” The school doesn’t even have to know what kind of former relationsihp that was, as long as the (sexual, cohabitating) relationship has been renounced. For that matter, they don’t need to know how often the child interacts with the other guardian.

The same would apply to a straight couple living a forbidden lifestyle. I deal all the time in my own work with a mother or a father who presents himself/herself as “the parent” of the enrolling child, and refers to the other (separated) parent as “the child’s father/mother/other guardian” This is what truly separated and truly divorced staight parents do all the time. If you are no longer a couple, you do not introduce yourself as a couple, represent that, and parade around as “a couple.” You are very clear to others what the situation is. Anything else is playing games, and/or seeking publicity, and/or manipulation for purposes of confrontation, or even an overt purpose of scandal/ embarrassment.

In the alternate lesbian scenario I describe, I believe it would have been proper for the school to enroll the child.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One addition to this: Institutions which enroll children do need to know contact information of any additional guardians (of single parents), or additional main persons in the child’s life. Thus, there had better be a genuinely different address, or that would call into question what the single mother represented to the school, in that scenario. It’s not up to the school, though, to question what type of previous relationship that was, any more (again) than that would be their business if it was a straight relationship.

It could become an issue for discussion, OTOH, if the single mother in question had for all practical purposes left the church while engaging in such a lifestyle, and wanted to return. It would a discussion for the confessional or otherwise confidentially with a priest, not with school administrators.

 

[Ahimsa]

Qeustion not addressed to me, , but I will offer a response:

To label yourself as a “same-sex couple”/ “lesbian couple”/ “gay couple”/ “homosexual couple” or even merely “a couple” when you’re obviously of the same gender, is contradictory to the concept of celibacy.

So, celibacy means “not living together”?

 

[Elizabeth502]

So, celibacy means “not living together”?

No, that’s not what it “means.” I thought I explained myself. It’s what it implies, however. It is difficult on a relationship, contrary to stated celibate intentions, and material for public misunderstanding/scandal, if a celibate “couple” (so-called) is living together.

(“Couple” = sexually attracted to each other, with romantic intentions/attraction, etc.)

People nowadays often do share houses, etc., with members of the opposite sex, but there is no “relationship” except by that of address. Thus, two or three separate bedrooms with mixed genders in the household. Any two members of such a household are not necessarily “a couple”.

 

[Corki]

So, celibacy means “not living together”?

actually, celibacy means not being married.

I think the word you are looking for is continence (not engagind in sexual activity). Chastity would work too since all homosexual acts are acts against chasity.

 

[TMC]

Well then, does the Catholic Church make a practice of penalizing the children of parents who find themselves in the occasion of recurring sin that doesn’t involve homosexuality or is it just the homosexuals that are targeted?

Why not the masturbators?

Your position is most puzzling. I see clearly that your Church doesn’t agree with you, as the Boston Archdiocese has chosen not to discriminate children of same sex parents.

From the beginning of time to today, and probably to the end of time, there has always been a tendency to believe that the sins of others are the really bad sins. Rather than admit that we are all chronic sinners in need of love and forgiveness, we get on our high horses and declare that our own sins are understandable lapses, but the other guy’s sins are truly abominations. Now we are reduced to shunning the children of those whose sins are not our sins. Next we will be giving them bells to ring.

 

[Ahimsa]

No, that’s not what it “means.” I thought I explained myself. It’s what it implies, however. It is difficult on a relationship, contrary to stated celibate intentions, and material for public misunderstanding/scandal, if a celibate “couple” (so-called) is living together.

(“Couple” = sexually attracted to each other, with romantic intentions/attraction, etc.)

People nowadays often do share houses, etc., with members of the opposite sex, but there is no “relationship” except by that of address. Thus, two or three separate bedrooms with mixed genders in the household. Any two members of such a household are not necessarily “a couple”.

OK, so you’re saying that the mere fact that a same-sex couple exists, gives scandal, since being in a same-sex couple relationship implies same-sex acts, even if the couple are not sexually active?

 

[Ahimsa]

actually, celibacy means not being married.

I think the word you are looking for is continence (not engagind in sexual activity). Chastity would work too since all homosexual acts are acts against chasity.

You are correct, though continence implies general self-restraint, as well as total abstinence.