[Denver] Catholic school boots student with gay parents [AP]

[Other_Eric]

It is ludicrous to see the opinions of non- and lapsed-Catholics on the lawful policies of a private Catholic-run insitution, whatever the opinions are.

.

Either you are prepared to defend the Church and her institutions or you are not. It is both intellectually dishonest and an example sheer vanity to believe that in our defense of such, we have the right to pick and choose our opponents. Rather, since challenges to the Church will come from precisely those individuals whose opinions you wish not to see, shouldn’t the principled apologist welcome the participation of such individuals and savor the opportunity it affords to correct the errors of the wayward?

 

[Stylites]

Either you are prepared to defend the Church and her institutions or you are not. It is both intellectually dishonest and an example sheer vanity to believe that in our defense of such, we have the right to pick and choose our opponents. Rather, since challenges to the Church will come from precisely those individuals whose opinions you wish not to see, shouldn’t the principled apologist welcome the participation of such individuals and savor the opportunity it affords to correct the errors of the wayward?

I didn’t say which opinions I wished to see or not, just that they are ludicrous to see. Also, if any non- or lapsed-Catholic seriously wishes to have their wayward errors corrected then they ought to seriously consider visiting an ordained priest or post onto the “Ask an Apologist” forum.

.

 

[rossum]

It is ludicrous to see the opinions of non- and lapsed-Catholics on the lawful policies of a private Catholic-run insitution, whatever the opinions are.

Here is another ludicrous opinion.

1. *]Will the child in question get a better Catholic education from a) a Catholic School or b) a Lesbian couple?
   *]Will a deficient Catholic education a) harm or b) help the child?
   *]What did Jesus say about those whose actions harmed children?
   
   As to the legality of the school’s action, what is lawful is not always moral. The laws on abortion are not moral so the law is not guide to morality.
   
   $0.02
   
   rossum

 

[Other_Eric]

I didn’t say which opinions I wished to see or not, just that they are ludicrous to see. Also, if any non- or lapsed-Catholic seriously wishes to have their wayward errors corrected then they ought to seriously consider visiting an ordained priest or post onto the “Ask an Apologist” forum.

.

I am well aware that you did not say which opinions you wished not to see. You merely restricted your “gag rule” to those individuals whose opinions are most likely to be counter to the Church’s teaching. To slough off answering or even permitting oneself to be exposed to the opinions of any one class of individuals is ultimately to abdicate one’s responsibility as a Christian and to disobey Christ. (1)

In this thread we are discussing the expulsion of a student from a private, Catholic school due to the explicit behavior of his or her caretakers. This is precisely the type of thing that, if not understood and explained properly, will be used by the enemies of the Church as ammunition against her. Since these are exactly the sort of people who are unlikely to seek out the explanations of a priest or professional apologist, every Catholic is obliged to be able to give an answer for the faith. (2)

(1) Cf. New American Bible. Washington D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2002. Matt 28:18-20. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm

(2) Cf. Ibid. 1 Pet 3:15. Available online at: usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/1peter3.htm

 

[Other_Eric]

Permit me to answer each of your questions.

Here is another ludicrous opinion.

Will the child in question get a better Catholic education from a) a Catholic School or b) a Lesbian couple?

A child being raised by a lesbian couple is unlikely to get a good Catholic education either in a Catholic school or outside of it. Since the case of such a child turns out poorly either way, it is best to focus on those students who can be helped; that is, the other students in the school who do not deserve to have their education compromised.

Will a deficient Catholic education a) harm or b) help the child?

This will undoubtably be harmful, but since the child’s education will be deficient in either scenario, and since the Church is powerless to correct the problem that makes is so, there can be no culpability addressed to the Church.

What did Jesus say about those whose actions harmed children?

Indeed, Christ was quite explicit about what happens to those who corrupt children, which makes the “parents’” situation that much more grave.

As to the legality of the school’s action, what is lawful is not always moral. The laws on abortion are not moral so the law is not guide to morality.

$0.02

rossum

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If my parish school disenrolled all the children from single parent or divorcee households, enrollment would drop by about 50%.

If my parish school disenrolled all the children who are not Catholic, enrollment would drop by about 60%.

However, my parish school fosters Catholic values and religion and requires parents to be involved in the school.

Just stating the experience in my neighborhood.

 

[eichenb2]

The archdiocese statement:

"A principal reason parents place their children in Archdiocese of Denver Schools is to reinforce the Catholic beliefs and values that the family seeks to live at home. To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Our admission policy states clearly, “No person shall be admitted as a student in any Catholic school unless that person and his/her parent(s) subscribe to the school’s philosophy and agree to abide by the educational policies and regulations of the school and Archdiocese.”

Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.

We communicated the policy to the couple at Sacred Heart of Jesus Catholic School as soon as we realized the situation. We discussed the reasons with them and have sought to respond in a way that does not abruptly displace the student but at the same time respects the integrity of the Catholic school’s philosophy."

:clapping:

 

[eichenb2]

If my parish school disenrolled all the children from single parent or divorcee households, enrollment would drop by about 50%.

If my parish school disenrolled all the children who are not Catholic, enrollment would drop by about 60%.

However, my parish school fosters Catholic values and religion and requires parents to be involved in the school.

Just stating the experience in my neighborhood.

1. Being a single parent is not, in itself, against the Church’s teaching.
2. Althought the Church disapproves of civil divorce, this, in itself, does not affect the ones’ canonical status. It can be a very complicated situation that is to be handled by pastoral care.
3. Catholic schools, for the most part, do not require students or thier parents to be Catholic. However, for those who are Catholic, the guidance is clear. One is not about to flout the morality of the Church and Christ, in Whose Name the Church speaks.
4. The goal of all Catholic institutions, including schools, is intended to be making Saints. So, whether parents are “involved” (although this is ideal) is no guarantee of thier involvement leading to holiness. The “lesbian” parents likely wanted to be “involved” and scandalize other potential Santos.

The bottom line is that the dominant culture is NOT the criteria for morality and the Church must speak clearly and lovingly on these type of issues.

 

[eichenb2]

Why did the mother send her child to a Catholic school, since this certainly wasn’t the only school available?

Why did she send her daughter to a school that is run by an organization that is so “intolerant” of her lifestyle?

Could she have sent her child there as a method of advocacy?

QUOTE]

These are very good questions. After all, they had the “right to choose”.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

The “lesbian” parents likely wanted to be “involved” and scandalize other potential Santos.

That I consider a leap without foundation. Do ‘organized crime’ kids scandalize others in their Catholic schools? I’ve never heard of them being charged with that.

 

[eichenb2]

Dale, thanks for pointing out the other conversation, to which I also contributed and will paste below my comments (and add some others) in response to #24 on this thread, with which I agree, and to #31, with which I disagree:

-Catholic schools hold that the parents/family of the student is for all practical purposes an extension of the school; they expect parents to be involved (and take responsibility) more intensely, regularly, than is expected (or could be ever be enforced) in publics. The corollary of the that is that the school expects to support the family. There is a kind of two-way accountability. Thus, the school would naturally see the lesbian situation as contrary, problematic to that mutuality.

-Parents or guardians enrolling children must agree to the moral teachings which will be presented, as a condition of enrollment. Those moral teachings include Catholic teachings on sexuality, which is directly opposed to the lifestyle being lived by the lesbians. Now, technically, Catholic heterosexual parents associated with that school could be teaching principles which are also contradictory to what their children are being taught at that school, but with a lesbian couple, the school would know for a fact that there is a lifestyle being “taught” (modeled) which is directly opposed to the school’s curriculum content.

-Catholic institutions (not just schools) are conscious of the possibility of scandal to students and to other parents, and to a contradictory message sent as a religious institution imparting specific precepts. In that sense also, the enrollment in the first place could be considered a cause for scandal. That is on a different plane than the possible situation of divorced/remarried parents in the school, because that contradiction with Catholic teaching may not even be known beyond the couple, and probably wouldn’t be known to all the school.

Catholic institutions other than schools do employ openly gay people (such as in diocesan offices) and do support domestic partner benefits, such as bereavement leave, etc. But those are not institutions witnessing to the cohesion of family life as an institution, which Catholic schools are.

I would not try to seek acceptance for myself or my lifestyle if I were gay, within the confines of a Catholic institution – and certainly not in a school setting. It is problematic on its face. If I wanted acceptance on equal terms, in every way, I would join a different church, or I would renounce any active practice of that lifestyle, should I want to remain a member in good standing in the Church, without controversy. (Thus, it would require one to live as celibate, not to cohabit with a partner of romantic interest, and certainly not to create a formal partnership such as “parenthood”/guardianship of children.) Everything is problematic, in that even the terminology conflicts with Catholic principles. It puts both the couple and the Church in an impossible position given that the institution does not accept dual “motherhood” of one child, while two lesbian guardians of one child maintain that both wish to be called “mother.”

I have taught in Catholic and public schools, attended both kinds, and sent my children to Catholic schools. There is no comparison between the significance and visibility of family units in the Catholic setting vs. the public setting (and the private secular setting). Of course that works in a positive way, also, in a Catholic school, should there be a crisis in the family – even a minor one. Generally the whole community (church and school) is urged to, and does, pull together to assist the family during a time of traumatic news, tragic event, extended illness, physical disaster, financial crisis, etc. So merely the fact that the Church does not recognize two lesbians as being family to the child – whatever the civil authorities recognize or society informally at large recognizes – is an insoluble problem in light of Catholic education’s stated mission and practical operation.

Bottom line: the diocese did the right thing; the lesbian couple did the wrong thing.

Wonderful post. Thnx

 

[millersatthefar]

Wow this one is tough! There is a certain logical consistency in stating that children with parents living in a sinful situation should be expelled. However, there is another angle that needs to be addressed. Perhaps the diocese is drawing a line in the sand as if to say “Here is where permissiveness ends.” Certainly it would be logically consistent to preclude all children who’s parents do not believe Church teaching, but in our age of moral and linguistic relativism many Catholics do not know what to believe. I think that the diocese is doing its best to hold some standards. I think we should all pray that the Bishop and leaders of the diocese find the solution that God wants.

 

[eichenb2]

Here is another ludicrous opinion.

1. *]Will the child in question get a better Catholic education from a) a Catholic School or b) a Lesbian couple?
   *]Will a deficient Catholic education a) harm or b) help the child?
   *]What did Jesus say about those whose actions harmed children?
   
   As to the legality of the school’s action, what is lawful is not always moral. The laws on abortion are not moral so the law is not guide to morality.
   
   $0.02
   
   rossum

1. 
   good points

 

[eichenb2]

That I consider a leap without foundation. Do ‘organized crime’ kids scandalize others in their Catholic schools? I’ve never heard of them being charged with that.

Definition of scandal from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:​

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.”**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.

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."This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger, 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!”​

Also, you propose a good question concerning organized crime. In answer, I would suggest that if parents of a child in Catholic school were openly involved in organized crime and, implicitly, espoused organized crime as morally acceptable, then, yes; the school would be justified in denying admission to the child. The bottom line question is whether there is percieved scandal. (my opinion only)

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Also, you propose a good question concerning organized crime. In answer, I would suggest that if parents of a child in Catholic school were openly involved in organized crime and, implicitly, espoused organized crime as morally acceptable, then, yes; the school would be justified in denying admission to the child. The bottom line question is whether there is percieved scandal. (my opinion only)

Several organized crime figures I know of have been denied the rite of Christian burial.

However, I have never heard of one being barred from any Church event, or a criminal’s children from Catholic school.

 

[Poco]

This is a bit of a tough one. Admittedly, without knowing all the details, it seems the school made a mistake here, IMHO. On the surface it appears the innocent is being punished and/or suffering.

What I find more disturbing is someone who would think…

I think this is good news. If it benefits the majority that one child be denied access to the Gospel or other goods that the Church provides, then so be it.

Therefore, as long as the Church lacks the authority to tear such a child away from “parents” who are so obviously unacceptable, we ought to resign ourselves to the lesser of two evils and deny this child access to the Gospel so as to safeguard the faith of those in the Christian Communion who can at least exhibit a minimum standard of morality.

How can anyone, let alone the majority, benefit from someone being refused the Gospel?

 

[eichenb2]

This is a bit of a tough one. Admittedly, without knowing all the details, it seems the school made a mistake here, IMHO. On the surface it appears the innocent is being punished and/or suffering.

What I find more disturbing is someone who would think…

How can anyone, let alone the majority, benefit from someone being refused the Gospel?

Neither the child nor the parent and friend are being denied the Gospel. The Church will not turn them away, if they want to attend mass, discuss the issue with a Priest, ask for a catechism, attend Bible study, or anything of the sort. The school has decided that ambiguity, as regards a couple who lives as a homosexual couple, is a potential scandal and they took action. The women could have sent the child to public school for free. Why do they wish to have the child educated at an institution that explicitly teachs that homosexual activity is objectively disordered? Is it just another salvo in the “gay rights” agenda, that will eventually seek to change the 2000 (much longer than that if you consider our Jewish heritage) year old, common sense, natural law belief about homosexuality. Catholics are called to speak the Truth in Love. Don’t miss the forest for the trees, though, the Church must SPEAK the Truth. There is a sepearation of the Church and state. Noone is forcing this couple to be Catholic. Sometimes hearing the Truth hurts. That is not the fault of the truth. That would be like finding fault with alcohol for burning when put on an open wound. Those with homosexual tendencies, who desire Christ and true communion with His Church, need to engage with groups like Courage.

 

[Stylites]

How can anyone, let alone the majority, benefit from someone being refused the Gospel?

Keep in mind that the Church will often refuse to baptise infants when there is a doubt that the child will be raised as a Catholic, while the purpose of a Catholic education is not explicitly for the preaching of the Gospel.

.

 

[Hypatia]

The “lesbian” parents likely wanted to be “involved” and scandalize other potential Santos.

That seems an uncharitable read of the situation, to say the least, in the absence of other information.

My first guess would be that the family simply wanted a quality pre-K. I know several Muslim families, for instance, that send their kids to Christian day cares, pre-schools and schools, and it certainly isn’t because they agree with Christians, but neither is it because they want to pick a fight, cause a scandal or otherwise attack Christianity. They simply want an educational setting that is good for their children.

 

[Poco]

Neither the child nor the parent and friend are being denied the Gospel. The Church will not turn them away, if they want to attend mass, discuss the issue with a Priest, ask for a catechism, attend Bible study, or anything of the sort.

I think you may have missed the point I was trying to make. I was being critical of someone who posted earlier who seems to think it is ok to deny someone the Gospel if it “benefits the majority” or is the “lesser of two evils”. That doesn’t seem to be a very charitable position, IMHO.