Catholic school boots student with gay parents

[Zatzat]

I do not ask to see the marriage licenses of couples I know.

I’m close enough with all of my friends to know whose married and whose living common law…every single one.

No one signs in at Mass. With multiple Masses in multiple parishes, unless one is in a small town, this can not be known, except by gossip.

Or children telling the truth… " I never go to Church".

Few people know of others surgical procedures

Again, I can’t speak of your social circle, but my social circle and even people I barely know at work, won’t hesitate to mention they’ve had a vasectomy, when it comes up in conversation…we are adults afterall and not everyone believes a supernatural God frowns of such a procedure.

Such a sin can be forgiven in confession and a reversal is not required.

As an outsider, I call that a loophole.

If two women lived together and one was the mother, one would not know of the homosexual relationship, again unless the women made it a big deal publicly, demanding their rights to a Catholic education.

If they held hands in public and kissed and were seen to live in the same home, while their child called them both mom, I think most people would figure it out.

Again, it sounds like I’m hearing " keep your sins secret."

I am just so pleased to see a Catholic school take a stand against this evil that is a rot to our society, that I can do nothing but applaud them.

It’s a real shame that the Catholic school is targeting homosexual sin and ignoring all the dirty secret sins that the heterosexuals parents commit every single day!

 

[royal_archer]

Visible sins are bad.

Secret sins aren’t as bad?

What else could I conclude?

Student whose parents sin, by the very nature of the sin, the sin is visible, get booted out of school.

Students whose parents sin, by the very nature of the sin, the sin is secret, they get to stay in school.

It seems that one, if a Catholic, should go to great lengths to keep their sins secret and in the dark. If unmarried Catholic parents are asked, they should just lie and say yes, we were married in a Catholic Church.

If they told the truth, their kid gets booted out of school…it makes sense now…keep your sinning secret and in the dark.

Is that what your God would want? ( serious question)

It isn’t that some sins are less bad in this case, it is a matter of some sins have a greater impact on the community. The openly gay couple is not only sinning but advertising their sin and flaunting it infront of the community and other children.

 

[Zatzat]

It isn’t that some sins are less bad in this case, it is a matter of some sins have a greater impact on the community. The openly gay couple is not only sinning but advertising their sin and flaunting it infront of the community and other children.

I’ve got to be honest, as an outsider, I’m hearing hypocrisy.

Lesbian parents = visible sin = action = kids kicked out of school for the sins of their parents…

Common law parents = secret sin = no-action = kids stay in school and are unaffected by the sins of their parents.

Moral of the story?

Keep your sins in the dark, quiet and secret.

 

[royal_archer]

I’ve got to be honest, as an outsider, I’m hearing hypocrisy.

Lesbian parents = visible sin = action = kids kicked out of school for the sins of their parents…

Common law parents = secret sin = no-action = kids stay in school and are unaffected by the sins of their parents.

Moral of the story?

Keep your sins in the dark, quiet and secret.

No, moral of the story is don’t encourage others to engage in your sins or attempt to pass off your sins as normal and moral.

 

[Zatzat]

No, moral of the story is don’t encourage others to engage in your sins or attempt to pass off your sins as normal and moral.

Last I checked, heterosexuals weren’t in any danger of becoming Lesbians.

I’ll concede your second point, that you believe homosexual sex to be sinful.

However, my point stands firm, Catholics living in common law or who regularly practice artificial birth control, are in no danger of sanctions from Church authorities.

In my world, that’s called hypocrisy.

 

[royal_archer]

Last I checked, heterosexuals weren’t in any danger of becoming Lesbians.

I’ll concede your second point, that you believe homosexual sex to be sinful.

However, my point stands firm, Catholics living in common law or who regularly practice artificial birth control, are in no danger of sanctions from Church authorities.

In my world, that’s called hypocrisy.

sanctions? since when is asking people to act in a moral manner in a church setting a sanction?

 

[PatriceA]

I know where my daughter goes to the parish school, all parents have to sign a memorandum of understanding of the teachings and values of the Catholic Church. We must agree that fidelity to the Catholic identity is the fundamental priority. We also agree that the school has the responsibility to ensure the Catholic values and moral integrity permeate every facet of the school’s life and activity.

Since we don’t know ALL the elements of the original situation, maybe the couple would not sign such a contract. Maybe the school had no choice but to reach the conclusion that they did.

Since there is such a contract, wouldn’t the hypocrisy lie with the parents that sign such an agreement but still sin? The thing is with the “sins that are hidden” one is always hoping the couple with reconcile their lifestyle with the teachings of the Church. And it is a sin to speculate about such situations since they are not common knowledge. An openly gay couple is never going to do that, it is more that their lifestyle is an open challenge for the Church to change to its teachings to fit the couple.

 

[Abu]

He that hath ears to hear let him hear. (Mt 11:15)

fatherbillsblog.com/heart/
“Our school is a Catholic school. The issue is not about our not accepting “sinners.” It is not about punishing the child for the sins of his or her parents.** It is simply that the lesbian couple is saying that their relationship is a good one that should be accepted by everyone; and the Church cannot agree to that. People who are divorced do not say divorce is good. There are no pro-divorce parades. Divorce is a tragedy for everybody. So there’s no comparing other issues to the issue of gay marriage.** Actually, by this decision we really want to protect the child and his or her parents from the necessary conflict that their relationship would bring to a clear-seeing and committed Catholic community.
“The policy of the Catholic school system is also to protect the teachers from being forced – in our own schools – to face huge conflicts within the classroom, so they can teach clearly, and also support the family life of the children they are teaching. According to our Archbishop this policy is good for the lesbian parents, for their child and also for our teachers and our school. If people are living other conflicts with our faith and publicly defend that conflict (for example someone publicly encouraging divorce) we would have the same problem.” [My emphasis].

This is precisely why this prudential decision is right, and all the railing against it is false, because we are dealing with a movement for the destruction of God’s created order here, and none of the other assumed or real evils have the perverse nature of a concerted effort to overturn what is true, right and good in society. It is a bullying attitude and should not be tolerated. The devil is a bully and those in his company act likewise.

We know where the hypocrisy lies.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Punishing one person for the acts of another person is always wrong and is a sin without exception. That includes punishing shildren for the acts of their parents.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Punishing one person for the acts of another person is always wrong and is a sin without exception. That includes punishing shildren for the acts of their parents.

As has been said repeatedly, on the 5+ forum threads opened on this, the responsibility for putting the child in such a risky position lies first of all with the “parents,” given what plenty of other posters have already said, many of them (not necessarily myself ) quite eloquently. The child’s guardians punished the child, first and foremost, and in several ways.

Anyone who does not understand how fundamental the identity of the family unit, and the public display of that family, is within Catholic education – particularly the elementary level – is not well acquainted with the entire dynamic as it actually operates. PatriceA said it way more beautifully.

Secondary responsibility lies with the school (as I said) for making the original error in enrolling the child. However, fortunately they recovered their error long before this became a far more troublesome issue when formal moral teaching was due to begin.

Great post, Abu.

 

[Abu]

Growing a Catholic mind

From historian Dr Jeff Mirus, President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Trinity Communications which produces Catholic Culture articles
catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=433

“A third group argued that, first, we must hate the sin and love the sinner and, second, the sins of the “parents” should not be visited on the children. Therefore, since the admission of the child does not directly bear on the sin of the guardians, the school should have re-enrolled the student. We’ll call this “Solution 3”.

“Turning to Solution 3, which emphasized loving the sinner and the children of sinners, the problem I find is that the principles it invokes are not adequate to resolve the issue. Questions concerning the admission of a student into a school do not revolve solely around our love or hate for the guardians or the student, or even our fairness or unfairness to the student (who clearly is not responsible for the sins of his guardians). Rather such decisions must be taken in the context of the common good of the entire school community. Worse, it is not at all clear that greater love is shown to the parents or the student by admitting or not admitting the student. “Love” and “protecting people from the consequences of their actions” are not the same thing. And despite the obvious benefits of a Catholic education, it is not clear in this case that the greater love is shown by offering that education to this student under these circumstances. Thus the aphorisms cited in Solution 3 invite us to think further about the question of fairness to both the guardians and the student, but they are simply inadequate in themselves for the purpose of generating a wise decision.”

 

[pnewton]

Visible sins are bad.

Secret sins aren’t as bad?

What else could I conclude?

The first statement is true, the second is not. Secret sin may be just as evil, but it is not by nature visible. Thus it does not cause scandal. A scandal is in its literal meaning a block of stumbling for others. It are these stumbling blocks that parents send their kids to Catholic school to avoid. Yes, one can not shield a child completely, but that does not mean a parent should not be afforded the opportunity to shield their child to the greatest possible extent from the taint of sin, specifically in this case, homosexual sin. An open environment to such things already exists in the public schools. As a result, young people are lured by the fruit of the forbidden and even as teens may define themselves as homosexual. What was once a rarity in schools has become commonplace as these homosexual teens will flaunt their deviant choice in the face of all.

Catholic schools offer an alternative to that environment - a healthy choice.

If they told the truth, their kid gets booted out of school…it makes sense now…keep your sinning secret and in the dark.

Is that what your God would want? ( serious question)

God desires that we do not sin at all.

 

[Zoe_Brain]

The only comment the parents have made was that when the children were baptised, they promised to rear them in the Catholic faith.

Rather than seeking publicity, they’ve shunned it. It was only teachers at the school who were so nauseated by the treatment the children had endured that they contacted the press.

So all of those “Christians” who have made accusations that they’re just seeking publicity, I suggest you might have an additional sin or two to confess.

If one was to be casuistic about it, there is no evidence that the parents commit homosexual acts. It’s just assumed. But such an intellectually bankrupt argument is no better than much of what the Church does on a daily basis.

It does prove though that it’s all about appearance, not actual sin. Even if the parents were celibate - and no evidence has been given that they are not - the outcome would have been the same.

Christ was not particularly enamoured of those who made a great show of piety, while remaining sinful in private, and condemning those who only appeared to be sinful.

 

[pnewton]

I’ve got to be honest, as an outsider, I’m hearing hypocrisy.

And what I hear is trying to justify one sin by pointing the finger at others. This is something we learn as children, that we can deflect attention from our own naughtiness by pointing out some sibling or peer that is also naughty.

You may think Catholics as hypocrites for believing some sins more serious than others, but it has been our doctrine since Jesus and St. Paul first mentioned a distinction. This same distinction is found in the Mosaic Law. In addition to the damage sin does to one’s soul, some sins also damage those around us more. You may not see this, but we understand that God does not see as Man sees.

 

[Zatzat]

Well done, especially;

It was only teachers at the school who were so nauseated by the treatment the children had endured that they contacted the press.

It does prove though that it’s all about appearance, not actual sin.

and

there is no evidence that the parents commit homosexual acts. It’s just assumed.

Just as there is no evidence that other parents are committing sins such as using artificial birth control, are divorced re-married without annulment, are living in common law, married in a city hall with a Bishops dispensation, are having an affair, had a vasectomy or are pro-choice.

Which is exactly why it`s clearly about appearances and not the school being serious about sin.

 

[Zatzat]

And what I hear is trying to justify one sin by pointing the finger at others. This is something we learn as children, that we can deflect attention from our own naughtiness by pointing out some sibling or peer that is also naughty.

You may think Catholics as hypocrites for believing some sins more serious than others, but it has been our doctrine since Jesus and St. Paul first mentioned a distinction. This same distinction is found in the Mosaic Law. In addition to the damage sin does to one’s soul, some sins also damage those around us more. You may not see this, but we understand that God does not see as Man sees.

30 kids lined up in a row.

One child is singled out and kicked out of school because her parents are gay.

The other 29 kids, their parents evil sins, well no ones really concerned about the sins of the heterosexuals, at least not enough to kick a child out of school.

 

[pnewton]

Questions concerning the admission of a student into a school do not revolve solely around our love or hate for the guardians or the student, or even our fairness or unfairness to the student (who clearly is not responsible for the sins of his guardians). Rather such decisions must be taken in the context of the common good of the entire school community.

I think this is the point that many who oppose this action are missing. This is not a punishment. Rather the action was taken to preserve an environment where children are raised steeped in Catholic values. The public school system raises children steeped in amoral humanism. The true hypocricy are those who preach tolerance and diversity while intolerant of those who desire a moral, godly environment.

 

[pnewton]

The other 29 kids, their parents evil sins, …

You know this how? If the school was aware of some equally serious* and scandalous* (a point you missed) sin how do you know they would not deny enrollment?

 

[Zatzat]

I think this is the point that many who oppose this action are missing. This is not a punishment. Rather the action was taken to preserve an environment where children are raised steeped in Catholic values. The public school system raises children steeped in amoral humanism. The true hypocricy are those who preach tolerance and diversity while intolerant of those who desire a moral, godly environment.

Then kick all the kids out whose parents sin. Be consistent and fair when kicking kids out for the sins of their parents.

Especially those parents who practice artificial birth control or have sexual relations for other than procreation…their children clearly need to be expelled.

 

[pnewton]

Then kick all the kids out whose parents sin.

Again, in Catholic theology, not all sin is the same. Not all sin is equally scandalous.