Boston Catholic schools will enroll children of same-sex parents

[Feanor2]

I am proud of the Archdiocese for releasing this statement- I love the Archdiocese of Boston and O’Malley!

Same sex unions are certainly sinful and against the moral law but to deny children admittance to school based on the sins of parents is improper.

What about parents who cheat? What about parents who steal from their employees? What about Catholic parents who leave the Church? All are grave sins. The role of the school is to mold children in love, not judge their parents.

The faith should be taught and it would be up to the parents to address any disagreements they have with the faith when talking with their kids.

 

[CDelphine]

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.

Zatzat – this seems to be a common argument, both on these forums and outside them. In my archdiocese, Archbishop Chaput unapologetically maintained his position on not enrolling or re-enrolling children who live with openly homosexual parents/guardians. I understand that this bishop in Massachusetts did not come to the same policy, and I respectfully presume that he knows what is best pastorally for his flock.
Archbishop Chaput, however, pointed out that this is not simply an issue of sin, or degree of sin. The issue at the core of this matter whether or not a student’s parents offer “a serious counter-witness” to the mission of the school. That mission, in my area, is not only to provide an education, but to foster Catholic life and values among the school’s community.

Two women (or men) living together in sexual or romantic intimacy, and who openly and unrepentantly acknowledge the nature of their relationship, are offering a serious counter-witness. To address your other scenarios, these would be examples of a serious counter-witness:
– parents who masturbate publicly, or who openly claim that there’s nothing wrong or spiritually disordered about it
– parents who openly advocate for artificial birth control, or openly flout the church’s teaching on it.
– parents who are open adulterers, or advocate for adultery
– parents who are cohabiting openly without providing for having their civil unions convalidated by the Church, or who publicly or openly advocate for such unions.
– parents who teach their children or proclaim to others that obligations to attend Mass or the sacrament of confession are not binding, or are out of date, or are wrong, etc.

 

[estesbob]

As long as the Scholl correctly teaches Catholic Doctrine on Homosexual Behavior and as long as the Parents of the child dont get upset when their child is taught Catholic Doctrine on Homosexual beahvior I dont see any problem at all with this. we dont punish children for the sins of their parents

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, Feanor, you don’t get it. As already discussed multiple times on this and many similar threads – including the previous Colorado situation – this is not about sin, or people who prefer their own sins to those of others. Nothing in my posts, whcih respond to such claims, makes such a statement or conclusion.

You may happen to agree with the diocesan decision, but note that other dioceses have decided very differently, in line with Catholic teaching and not out of line with charity. I’m not impressed with the Boston archdiocese. Their language about it is very much in keeping with what is politically popular right now rather than addressing the central issue.

Having read all the posts/threads about these events, t’s really obvious when people come onto CAF knowing very little about the operating principles and practices in Catholic education. I have no doubt that even some parents who have enrolled their children in Catholic schools, also don’t undertand the principles and operations, because I witnessed that phenomenon as a Catholic school parent myself. Some parents were there by default (didn’t like the local public schools; this was merely a better social & academic alternative); they weren’t signed on much, even if Catholic, to the principles behind Catholic education, which is the spiritual and academic formation of the whole child, in concert with the formal and informal cooperation of the parents/guardians of that child. There is no such thing as separating a child from its parents/guardians – and the degree of their cooperation – in Catholic education. For all practical purposes, the school, with its sinful administrators and sinful overseeing pastor, is enrolling sinful families. The subject of their sin is a matter for their sacramental experience with their parish. The subject of their family lifestyle is pertinent to their enrollment status at the school.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, Corki, thanks for the correction on ‘celibacy’ vs. chastity, continence, etc. I responded without making those distinctions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Further, on the question of degree, priorities, “preferences.” This is not as regards sin, that a Catholic school would be concerned about, but about lifestyles and loyalties.

Imagine if you will a series of interviews with prospective school parents.

1- Parents of Family A: “We’re Catholics; we go to Church most of the time; we’ll do the First Communion thing, but we’re not super-serious or anything. We like the Church to be really open. We like Bishop ______over there; he’s really cool and with the modern times. Probably your school is not too strict when it comes to doctrine, too; that’s what attracted us to your school. My wife used to belong to a much stricter parish when she was married to someone else. After she divorced him and married me, she realized that she and I saw eye-to-eye on the fact that religion is important but not that important. You have great academics. I like that you have uniforms. Also, since we’re not all that educated on doctrine, it would be better if our child gets taught the faith by someone other than us.”

2 - Parents of Family B: “We’re practicing Catholics and really value a Catholic education ourselves. I (Mom) benefited from that; husband missed out on that and feels it made a difference in the degree of his understanding of the faith beyond minimal CCD classes. We want more for our child. We know that the local public school had academics which are at least as good as your school, and it also has more frequent PE and music than you have. But those trade-offs are worth it to us. We think that in the end this will make a difference in what kind of person our child turns out to be. There are a lot of temptations in the culture, at younger and younger ages for children. We want our child set on the right track from the beginning, not picking up the pieces later.”

3 - Parent of Family C: “I’m a single Mom. I’ve done what I can, so far, with my child, but I admit that my own faith formation could have been much better. My own parents did not take it very seriously, which had personal consequences in my life. It’s OK: My child is a blessing, and now without a husband, I know how difficult it will be to be the sole religious influence in my child’s life. In fact, it will probably be impossible. This is why, despite financial sacrifices I am making to bring my child here, I am clear on why it is more important to present my child with the right choices to make in life, than to save money for other things.”

4- Parent of Family D: “I’m a single Dad, raising this child alone. I listed two guardians on the application, but I am no longer in a relationship with that person and I have main custody of this child. Therefore, the decision to enroll is mine. I am a practicing Catholic and do intend to raise this child in the Catholic faith as well. I am attracted to many aspects about your school, but mostly in the integration of Catholic philosophy in secular subjects. This is what I grew up with and have returned to, and want my child to benefit from.”

5 - (Fenale} Parent of Family E: “My partner and I are both parents of this child. My partner is listed on the application that way. We know that the Catholic Church accepts gay people because Jesus accepted everyone. We like the idea of a welcoming community, and that’s why we have chosen a Catholic education: to enroll our child where she wil experience tolerance. We’re just a regular couple like straight couples are: we have jobs; we provide a wholesome, non-sexualized home environment for our child; we teach our child good values, and we want her school to teach that, too.”

I will tell you what the disposition would be at my daughters’ Catholic School:
Family A: Wait-listed or rejected, depending on size of application pool.
Family B: Accepted
Family C: Accepted, with financial aid. “The consequences” might have been unwed pregnancy, or divorce; doesn’t matter. Again, this is not about sin. It’s about priorities. Notice that there is no requirement to enumerate the conequences, and the parent didn’t offer those. And the administrators would be out of line to inquire on their own.
Family D: Accepted. Could be a guy who was involved in a gay lifestyle for awhile. If they could determine that from the apparent gender on the application, they might have privately noticed that his preivous partner was male not female, but there would not necessarily be any justification in questioniing this man further on that previous “life,” because he announced that was a past, not present, reality, and that he was living in accordance with Catholic teaching. That’s all that matters: intention. Intention, though, is revealed by lifestyle…
Family E: And lifestyle, combined with a narrow understanding of Catholic principles (charity minus morality) is what’s missing in the statements from Family E. Family E is seeking license for their lifestyle and a supposed mandated tolerance which by definition would include tolerance of the lifestyle. Parent also does not understand that the teaching of morality is central to the concept of Catholic education, and merely hopes that “community acceptance” will override everything else. Family E as presented here would be rejected as someone who is not signed on to what’s essential in Catholic educaiton.

 

[Julianna]

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?

I hope not. My son’s best friend’s dad left the family when he was two. This little boy went all the way through Catholic School…luckily, there weren’t any “days” as you mentioned, because the school my kids attended had “family” days…vs. a specific parent…because even in Catholic School…a mommy or daddy isn’t always in the child’s life. I bet at your school…some kids are left out. Our Msgr. wouldn’t even think of having a child left out.

 

[Julianna]

Further, on the question of degree, priorities, “preferences.” This is not as regards sin, that a Catholic school would be concerned about, but about lifestyles and loyalties.

Imagine if you will a series of interviews with prospective school parents.

1- Parents of Family A: "We’re Catholics; we go to Church most of the time; we’ll do the First Communion thing, but we’re not super-serious or anything. We like the Church to be really open.
2 - Parents of Family B: "We’re practicing Catholics and really value a Catholic education ourselves.
3 - Parent of Family C: "I’m a single Mom. I’ve done what I can, so far, with my child, but I admit that my own faith formation could have been much better.
4- Parent of Family D: "I’m a single Dad, raising this child alone.
5 - (Fenale} Parent of Family E: "My partner and I are both parents of this child.
I will tell you what the disposition would be at my daughters’ Catholic School:
Family A: Wait-listed or rejected, depending on size of application pool.
Family B: Accepted
Family C: Accepted, with financial aid. “The consequences” might have been unwed pregnancy, or divorce; doesn’t matter. Again, this is not about sin. It’s about priorities. Notice that there is no requirement to enumerate the conequences, and the parent didn’t offer those. And the administrators would be out of line to inquire on their own.
Family D: Accepted. Could be a guy who was involved in a gay lifestyle for awhile. If they could determine that from the apparent gender on the application, they might have privately noticed that his preivous partner was male not female, but there would not necessarily be any justification in questioniing this man further on that previous “life,” because he announced that was a past, not present, reality, and that he was living in accordance with Catholic teaching. That’s all that matters: intention. Intention, though, is revealed by lifestyle…
Family E: And lifestyle, combined with a narrow understanding of Catholic principles (charity minus morality) is what’s missing in the statements from Family E. Family E is seeking license for their lifestyle and a supposed mandated tolerance which by definition would include tolerance of the lifestyle. Parent also does not understand that the teaching of morality is central to the concept of Catholic education, and merely hopes that “community acceptance” will override everything else. Family E as presented here would be rejected as someone who is not signed on to what’s essential in Catholic educaiton.

Having worked at a Catholic School…“they all” will be Family B…until you get to know them. If the school used what you have written here…the school my kids went to would be empty. We had a alot of non-Catholics…who were not satisfied with the public schools…had the green to cover the fact they were not Catholic…and viola. I had close to 150 kids before and after school (egad….daycare in Catholic School)…there were close to 350 kids in the school K-8. Five of the teachers were non-Catholic and 2 had children in the school. We had alot of SAHM…that volunteered…some were great…others were a pain in the rear and gossips.

I learned real quick…all that is said from folks who are Catholic…isn’t necessarily so.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well obviously, Juliana, you and I have had different experiences. (And I’ve worked in Catholic schools, too.)

If basic (not perfect) attitudes and orientations toward the school’s priorities have not been vetted enough before offering admission, then I would certainly approve of revamped procedures which would require such basic knowledge from all families. In our parish, such essential differences were known. The pastor insisted on getting to know the families well enough prior to enrollment. It didn’t make for flawles admissions, but it did result in much more consistency and fewer suprrises than what appears to have happened either in Colorado or (possibly) in MA. I did weigh in on the Colorado thread that I did think there was not enough prior determination in that particular case.

In any case, the examples I posted were offered to parallel some of the genuine differences I did see in our Catholic school. Legitimate differences in circumstances were honored. Lifestyles not reconcilable with Catholic positions were a different matter. No one was rejected because of “sin.” There were plenty of Family A’s who were rejected (and were offended and surprised by that); there were single mothers who were accepted, whatever their pasts were. Etc.

 

[Zatzat]

Zatzat – this seems to be a common argument, both on these forums and outside them. In my archdiocese, Archbishop Chaput unapologetically maintained his position on not enrolling or re-enrolling children who live with openly homosexual parents/guardians…Archbishop Chaput, however, pointed out that this is not simply an issue of sin, or degree of sin. The issue at the core of this matter whether or not a student’s parents offer “a serious counter-witness” to the mission of the school.

That’s fine and good, so long as the good Bishop Chaput kicks kids out of school whose parents don’t regularly attend weekly Mass and also skip confession.

As far as the rest of your points, you’ve proven once again that secret hidden sins are Ok, but open public sins are worth punishing children for.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, sin =/= scandal. Scandal is something public, and the church is also not concerned with sins which become public but which do not present scandal. Thus, a parent who admitted his or her alcoholism but was not “celebrating” it or recommending it, may be engaged in sin (substance abuse) but is not scandalizing anyone if he is on the path to self-correction. In fact, in that instance, he is a good role-model, because he is acknowledging his propensity to fall and his continuing efforts to self-correct nevertheless.

Priests commit private sins which do not become scandalous (like the rest of us: sins of pride, anger; sins against truth, charity, justice, etc.) When his sins become scandalous because they contradict his public vows (such as practicing homosexuality, which could become public if it has not yet, such as having an affair with a woman, which priests have done in the past, and that has become public) – in those cases it’s the scandal that jeopardizes his standing, not the “state of sin.”

By definition, scandal is something that is not a secret, but not all secret sins are scandalous (vis-a-vis Catholic schools), because many of them do not involve core role-modeling in the functional aspects of the family as it pertains to Catholic education.

 

[Zatzat]

I’m not buying what you’re selling. The children of homosexual parents are clearly being singled out for discriminatory punishment.

When the Catholic Church starts kicking kids out of school for the scandal of their heterosexual parents not taking them to weekly Mass, maybe then I’ll buy what your saying.

 

[JimG]

I see this as similar to the Church’s regulation that a child cannot be baptized without there being a reasonable expectation that he will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

If there is no reasonable expectation that a child will be raised Catholic by the parents, then Baptism should be delayed.

With regard to a homosexual couple parenting children, the child is already being harmed by that very fact. Will a Catholic education be sufficient to guarantee an upbringing in the Catholic faith, or will it further damage the child by the disconnect between his faith and his parent’s practice?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I’m not buying what you’re selling. The children of homosexual parents are clearly being singled out for discriminatory punishment.

When the Catholic Church starts kicking kids out of school for the scandal of their heterosexual parents not taking them to weekly Mass, maybe then I’ll buy what your saying.

I’m not “selling” anything, sir. I’m explaining the philosophy of Catholic education to you, , a philosophy which you (the "Enquirer) reject because you keep changing the subject, preferring to discuss sin in general and comprehensively, which is not the concern of Catholic schools, including those in Colorado and Massachusetts. I’ve explained several times, on this and several other threads, that there are many, many Catholic schools (my children attended one of them) which do in fact observe the overall role-modeling of the parents, taking that into account in the admission of those children, Those who are not “regulars” at Sunday Mass in that particular parish are not admitted (or are low down on the list for admission), because at those schools the whole life of the parish and the leadership of parents as Catholics (or the lack thereof) is obvious.

So it appears that the busy salesman is yourself, ever creating premises by which you try to force Catholics to define Catholic education on yours terms, not on Catholic terms.

Plenty of heterosexual parents who are not faithful to Sunday Mass are not getting their children accepted to that particular parish school. Just because it has not happened in 100% of parishes does not mean that the Church has no authority to refuse the enrollments of homosexual couples whose very lifestyle runs more contrary to the operation of Catholic schools at its root (family life) even then whether parents attend every weekly Mass.

Again, participation in the sacramental life of the parish is, however, a key aspect of admission to many Catholic schools. Avowed lesbian couples, unless they’re committing sacrilege, are by definition not participating in the regular sacramental life of the parish, because by their state they cannot.

You’re out of arguments.

 

[Santi2]

I’m not buying what you’re selling. The children of homosexual parents are clearly being singled out for discriminatory punishment.
.

You failed to take into account Post #32 where a child of a homosexual parent may be admitted to Catholic school where the pastoral solution does not prescind Catholic Catechism on chastity and scandal.

 

[Zatzat]

I see this as similar to the Church’s regulation that a child cannot be baptized without there being a reasonable expectation that he will be raised in the Catholic Faith.

If there is no reasonable expectation that a child will be raised Catholic by the parents, then Baptism should be delayed.

With regard to a homosexual couple parenting children, the child is already being harmed by that very fact. Will a Catholic education be sufficient to guarantee an upbringing in the Catholic faith, or will it further damage the child by the disconnect between his faith and his parent’s practice?

Sinners can’t raise Christians? I wasn’t aware the Catholic Church was for the sinless.

 

[JimG]

Sinners can’t raise Christians? I wasn’t aware the Catholic Church was for the sinless.

That’s not the point. Sinners raise Christians all the time. They have to, because we are all sinners. But there must at least be an intent to raise the children in the Faith.

One reason that the Church allows baptism of infants and children is that the faith of the parents ensures that the child will be taught the Faith and be raised in the Faith. The parents make a promise to do so. What would be the point of presenting a child for Baptism into the Catholic Faith if the parents intended for the child’s faith formation to end there? It’s not just a pretty ceremony; it’s a lifetime commitment.

I had a relative who asked me to go with him to visit the local priest concerning his pre-school children he wished to have baptized. I was dubious. Not only was he not married to the children’s mother and no longer living with her, but he did not regularly attend Church or practice his Faith, and the mother herself did not particularly wish baptism for the children, but nevertheless acceded to it.

After a good deal of discussion the priest allowed the baptism. That surprised me, since the chances of the children being raised in the Faith are not good. Baptism is meant as an initiation into the Faith, not the end of faith formation.

By the same token, Catholic schools exist for the purpose of inculcating the Faith, in all aspects of education. Parents who do not accept the Catholic faith but yet send the children to Catholic schools provide a message by their own life which contradicts the faith being taught.

That does a disservice to the children. And it says to the school: “We want you to provide a Catholic education for our children. But we will do our part to undermine it at home.”

 

[Zatzat]

I’ve got to admit, you’ve sure managed to complicate a simple command;

’ go forth and baptize all nations, in the name of the father, the son and the
holy spirit.’

I didn’t realize the salvation of the souls of children was held in the hands of a church that determines whether or not a babies parents are worthy of having a baptized child.

Here I thought the promises of christ were a free gift…

 

[KathleenElsie]

Why would any parent want to have their child placed in any situation where their home life is preached against. To women or two men that openly declare themselves as married is far different from other sinners that sin behind closed doors. There is not one of us that can say we are sinless.
Yet when the sin is open and those that are teaching the child are obligated (yes obligated) to point out what sin is, the adult that made the decision to send the child into this situation must be placed on notice that the Teaching of the Church will not change just because they have a child in the school, church or youth group.

Holy Mother Church is obligated to teach the TRUTH of the Magesterium. No one practices a kindness by watching another live in sin. End of story.

 

[CDelphine]

That’s fine and good, so long as the good Bishop Chaput kicks kids out of school whose parents don’t regularly attend weekly Mass and also skip confession.

As far as the rest of your points, you’ve proven once again that secret hidden sins are Ok, but open public sins are worth punishing children for.

A) He didn’t kick them out. They were allowed to finish the year, but not allowed to re-enroll unless their family living situation changed.
B) I haven’t proven anything. Nowhere did I state that secret hidden sins are OK. And I’d ask you not to ascribe such positions to me.

The issue here is that to sin openly and publicly, while also claiming that said sin is OK or NOT a sin, or that the Church has no moral authority over this area, constitutes a serious counter-witness to the mission of the school, and (my words) to the Church in general.

BTW, I know of 2 (heterosexual) couples in this area who were NOT allowed to enroll or re-enroll their children in Catholic school because they are Catholics who civilly married outside the Church and they have no intention of convalidating their marriages. Both instances preceded the Boulder case.