Children denied Catholic schooling, lesbian couple speaks out

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ahimsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ahimsa

Guest
Was this somehow about making a point on gay issues?

“People have suggested that we put our children in the school to make a political point or that we are fighting this battle and making our children political footballs. This is not the case,” Martha insisted. “You are the first person we have talked to.
Click to expand...
We haven’t spoken to any of the reporters who have wanted to speak with us. We value our privacy.”

Both of the moms were born and raised Catholics. Mary went to Catholic schools from pre-school through 12th grade. Martha went to Notre Dame. Mary’s mother taught in a Catholic school system for 25 years. Martha’s aunt was a Catholic school teacher for decades. “We have a lot of history with the Catholic school system. It is what we are familiar with. It is what we are comfortable with. We value what a Catholic education can do for our kids,” Martha said.
…
Mary and Martha each gave birth to one of the children. Legally each has joint custody of both children. The women are not legally married. They have lived in Colorado for nearly a decade and Colorado does not allow gay marriages.
…
They say they are also troubled because behind the decision to forbid their children from going to the elementary school is a presumption about their personal lives and that no one ever asked them about what it means for them to live as a couple.

“No one has every asked us if we are celibates. How do they know we are not upholding official church teachings?” Mary asked…
Click to expand...
Said Martha: “The frustrating argument for me is that our priest and archbishop are saying we are openly living in disagreement with the doctrine of the church. They are saying people who are divorced are not as open, but everyone knows they are divorced. They imply that we are flaunting our relationship. That is the last thing we do. We go to church as family. We never show any affection for each other in church. We are very private. But that’s how the archdiocese is seeing it.”
…
One point that the women wanted me to know and report is that they are not part of any gay movement. They are not activists. “You have never seen us at protests or marching in parades. We never intended to pave the way for gays in the Catholic church. We just wanted to be a normal family.”
Click to expand...
 
yes sadly their self-professed Catholic parent denied them Catholic schooling when she rejected CAtholic faith and practice
 
Lesbian/homosexual actions are intrinsically disordered.

A Catholic woman who ‘marries’ another woman and engages in homosexual actions in that ‘union’ is living in constant mortal sin.

A Catholic woman who then sends her child to a Catholic school is going to be in an awkward position when the child is taught Catholic truth. The child is going to know that ‘mommies’ are living in constant mortal sin and have no intention of stopping that sin.

The child will be extremely upset, don’t you think?

And then the mother(s) have only two choices: Either they acknowledge the teaching as true, or they say, “No, honey, the church is wrong.”

If they say, “The Church is wrong”, don’t you think the kid will say, “Well, geez, why are you sending me here to learn if they’re wrong?”

If they say, "the Church is right’, then the kid will say, “But if it’s right, why are you sinning?”

Now, there are other sins out there (i’m sure children living in situations where parents are unmarried, fornicating, divorced and not annulled and remarried, etc.) But in those cases, there is ALWAYS the possibility that the situation may be regularized. Unmarried parents can marry or stop fornicating. Divorced parents can seek a decree of nullity and have their marriage convalidated. There is hope.

With the situation of homosexual ‘couples’ it can **never be regularized. EVER.

If you’re going to ignore the Church teaching, why on EARTH would you insist that your child be taught as truth that you are sinning mortally?

**If the “Catholic” mother is so concerned that her child learn about Catholic teaching, why isn’t she observing the teaching herself? Remember, there is no chance that her situation can be ‘restored’ whereas children with unmarried, fornicating or divorced parents can have the parents ‘restore’ and live in states of grace. If the persons in a homosexual ‘union’ remain IN that union there is no chance of them being restored to a state of grace.
 
This is entirely political. There is no “right” to a private school education. As long as the school knows that it risks federal aid money and is fine with that, they can let in whoever they want for whatever reason. There are other schools these women could have chosen for their kids that accept the gay lifestyle. They are going after the church to make a political point and to try to force their viewpoints on the church. This lawsuit is just one of the many frivolous lawsuits in America and is a waste of everyone’s time and money.
 
On the one hand, the school has the right to decide whom to let in.
On the other hand, the sins of the parents should not weigh against the Church’s catechizing the child.
 
I may be in the minority here, but I was not in the Church spiritually or with my heart when my son started Catholic school. Plus, I am remarried.

I am now a reverted Catholic. I have come back to the Faith. I am working on an annulment of my first “marriage” and the priest I spoke with back home says I have very good grounds.

If I can come back and see the Light, the same thing can happen with these women—through the kids.

“And a child shall lead them…”

Just my two cents.
 
losh14 said:
On the one hand, the school has the right to decide whom to let in.
On the other hand, the sins of the parents should not weigh against the Church’s catechizing the child.
Click to expand...
majority of Catholic children are not catechized in Catholic school. this action prevents nothing in the way of the child’s religious education. the two mother’s raising their daughter as if it is normal, and good, certainly does though.

I’m going to go deeper here. I think these women did this on purpose. They’re using their child as a political pawn.
 
Anyone else find it strange that these women are named Mary and Martha?
 
Let’s see now; in our parochial school we have:
  1. Catholic kids who seldom come to Sunday Mass because their parents seldom do.
  2. Kids whose parents are in an invalid marriage.
  3. Kids whose parents aren’t married.
  4. Kids who are not Catholic
What’s the big deal here? Perhaps it wouldn’t be an issue if the 2 women didn’t show themselves at Mass.
 
Ahimsa said:
How did they reject Catholic faith and practice?
Click to expand...
they persisted in living in a manner inconsistent with Catholic morality, made an issue of it at school and refused to cooperate with the school in their efforts to do their job, hand on authentic teaching in partnership with the parents. If the parents have rejected the teaching, and they have made a point of going public with their declaration that this is true, this school cannot partner with them. read the bishop’s statement.

I only wish the policy were enforced uniformly with parents who are cohabiting, divorced and remarried w/o annulment or otherwise flagrantly and publicly flaunting Catholic moral teaching. That would give the school and the bishop a much firmer stand when an issue is forced as it is being in this case.
 
I’m trying to figure out what changed. If this was fine for three years, what happened to change things?

Also, is the couple trying to say that they are celibate? Or just that the Church doesn’t really know?
 
gmarie21 said:
Anyone else find it strange that these women are named Mary and Martha?
Click to expand...
If you read the beginning of the article (in the link), you will find that the reporter chose these names. Their real names have been kept confidential.
 
shannyk said:
majority of Catholic children are not catechized in Catholic school. this action prevents nothing in the way of the child’s religious education. the two mother’s raising their daughter as if it is normal, and good, certainly does though.

I’m going to go deeper here. I think these women did this on purpose. They’re using their child as a political pawn.
Click to expand...
👍👍
 
baylee said:
If you read the beginning of the article (in the link), you will find that the reporter chose these names. Their real names have been kept confidential.
Click to expand...
Oh, yes: now I remember. (I too, am guilty as charged; I remember they were fictional names.)
 
“People have suggested that we put our children in the school to make a political point or that we are fighting this battle and making our children political footballs. This is not the case,” Martha insisted. “You are the first person we have talked to.
Click to expand...
We haven’t spoken to any of the reporters who have wanted to speak with us. We value our privacy.”
Click to expand...
Both of the moms were born and raised Catholics. Mary went to Catholic schools from pre-school through 12th grade. Martha went to Notre Dame. Mary’s mother taught in a Catholic school system for 25 years. Martha’s aunt was a Catholic school teacher for decades. “We have a lot of history with the Catholic school system. It is what we are familiar with. It is what we are comfortable with. We value what a Catholic education can do for our kids,” Martha said.
…
Mary and Martha each gave birth to one of the children. Legally each has joint custody of both children. The women are not legally married. They have lived in Colorado for nearly a decade and Colorado does not allow gay marriages.
…
They say they are also troubled because behind the decision to forbid their children from going to the elementary school is a presumption about their personal lives and that** no one ever asked them about what it means for them to live as a couple.**
Click to expand...
“No one has every asked us if we are celibates. How do they know we are not upholding official church teachings?” Mary asked…
Click to expand...
Said Martha: “The frustrating argument for me is that our priest and archbishop are saying we are openly living in disagreement with the doctrine of the church. They are saying people who are divorced are not as open, but everyone knows they are divorced. They imply that we are flaunting our relationship. That is the last thing we do.** We go to church as family.** We never show any affection for each other in church. We are very private. But that’s how the archdiocese is seeing it.”
…
One point that the women wanted me to know and report is that they are not part of any gay movement. They are not activists. “You have never seen us at protests or marching in parades. We never intended to pave the way for gays in the Catholic church. We just wanted to be a normal family.”
Click to expand...
These women are being very disingenuous. If a heterosexual couple were knowingly living together without being married and “just wanted to be a family,” people would rightly consider it a scandal. No one would first ask them if they are living as celibates. Similarly, a lesbian couple who wants “to be a normal family” and claim to be good Catholics are bringing scandal to the Church. Of course showing up to Church as “a family” is “flaunting their relationship!”
 
rlg’s bolded quotes (I also read the article, but I do think it’s helpful to highlight the anomalies) are a study in modern linguistic assumptions:

There is no common reference point, you see: In 2010, the individual publishes his or her own private dictionary (“What it means **for us **to live as a couple”; “we go to church as family”). All truth is subjective and personal; it’s whatever I want it to be. I may even decide that it’s legitimate to consider that the relationship with the man I’m (hypothetically) committing adultery with, or cohabitating with, should be recognized by the church, because after all, “no one has asked us yet” **what it means to us to live as a couple. What’s important, what should be accepted by the rest of the universe, is our private definition and subjective experience: that should be the basis for morality, not a common moral code of a society, a locality, or an institution like a church or school.

If you think I’m exaggerating for effect, being manipulative myself, this is not fantasy or exaggeration. Check out the comments to this story by Catholics, including priests, in the *National Catholic Reporter *online. So far, it appears that about 95% of the responses use equally subjective assumptions to support the women. I know that there is a range of disgreement in the Church, over various moral positions and policy decisions, but the extreme oppositional and dismissive flavor of those was alarming even to someone as widely read as myself. It shows how the distintegration of language has infected the moral code, and vice-versa, even within a Catholic environment.

Every institution, including religious ones, has or has had morally corrupt individuals within it. The Catholic Church is no exception. But the illogical leap from there to a moral philosophy which establishes the individual as the author of all moral boundaries is a chasm that cannot be closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top