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

[redrosetea]

One of the beauties of this country is that there are so many options in education. It may be compulsory, but you can choose any variety of educational solutions, including homeschooling.

I have not chosen a lesbian lifestyle, nor can I even imagine the cruelty of depriving a child of a father, but if I were a member of the “couple,” I would see a private “progressive” secular school such as described earlier (because gay “couples” sometimes enroll in those), or I would choose a public school, or I would homeschool. The most inappropriate environment for the child would be a private Catholic or Christian school.

My guess is the are trying to get the church to educate them for free by also pleading poverty…they don’t want to spend the bucks it costs for a private and feel everyone owes them…

 

[AnotherVoice]

I certainly do not wish to offend you or use you as a scapegoat in any manner; we simply disagree regarding some of the things being said on this thread.

It seems that you are saying that this child would be better off outside of the Catholic church, in fact outside of Christianity; of course I disagree with that.

 

[redrosetea]

No we are not saying that.The child can go to mass and to CCD…

 

[AnotherVoice]

Assuming that she is already baptised, there’s nothing stopping her from going forward to receive all the Sacraments of membership in the Church in due time; she doesn’t require a formal Catholic education for that.
.

In my parish baptized children seeking first communion or confirmation are required to complete religious education classes at the parish school prior to being allowed the sacraments.

 

[rlg94086]

In my parish baptized children seeking first communion or confirmation are required to complete religious education classes at the parish school prior to being allowed the sacraments.

It depends on their age. We do the same for First Communion, but I don’t think the parents are required for Confirmation. My daughter’s boyfriend (age 16) is going to be baptized and confirmed this Easter. He’s been attending Mass with us for two years, and I am his sponsor. His parents drop him off and pick him up from church occasionally, but that is it. Both parents are Catholic, but they rarely attend Mass. They did have to give written permission for him to go through Confirmation, but no attendance required on their part.

 

[redrosetea]

In my parish baptized children seeking first communion or confirmation are required to complete religious education classes at the parish school prior to being allowed the sacraments.

They can attend CCD classes this is not the same thing as a parish school…It is just classes in religious ed…A parish school teaches everything including religious ed…my guess is the parents of this child do not attend mass and have no desire to take the child there either, not to be responsible for taking the to catechism, nor doing their part to teach it …They want the child to elarn to read and write in a Catholic school and to heck with everything else

 

[irishpatrick]

As I have previously stated I don’t know all of the facts here only what has been published but it is pretty clear that the child is the one being rejected. The guardians are gay. The parish is saying – we don’t want any children in our midst who have gay people as guardians. In fact only children from homes that are in compliance with church teachings should be sent here; others may get confused when we discuss moral teachings. (That is the wording used by the dioceses not mine.)

Establishing conditions which are outside of the child’s control seems to be artificial at best. If the parish wishes to make an example of these two gay women; go ahead but don’t use a little child as a tool in setting that example. Throw the two people out, if you wish, but not the child. If the bishops want to raise the moral standards for those in the church, go to it. But please start with some adult Catholics in Washington not with five year olds.

Again, I disagree. The so-called gaurdians matter…their souls matter, as does the soul of the child. The Church is sending a message to those adults that they have to be in-line with the Church. If those gaurdians loved the child, they would end the relationship immediately.

The Church cannot give approval to that illicit relationship by allowing the child to remain in the school. The Church also owes it to those adults to make the Church teachings very clear. If the adults voluntarily ended their illicit relationship, then the child would be welcome into the school.

This scenario is one of the reasons gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.

 

[AnotherVoice]

No we are not saying that.The child can go to mass and to CCD…

Here are two statements from the archdioceses and parish originally posted some 180 plus posts ago when this thread started.

A quote from the archdioceses:

“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.”

A quote from the parish:

“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don’t want to put any child in that tough position - nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

These statements express a reluctance to confuse or conflict the child with church teachings. The catechism is the same so if the child is confused in school or in CCD the teachings should be the same.

 

[irishpatrick]

Here are two statements from the archdioceses and parish originally posted some 180 plus posts ago when this thread started.

A quote from the archdioceses:

“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.”

A quote from the parish:

“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don’t want to put any child in that tough position - nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

These statements express a reluctance to confuse or conflict the child with church teachings. The catechism is the same so if the child is confused in school or in CCD the teachings should be the same.

You are trying to parse those statements like they are the very end of all teachings on this subject…they are not, nor were they meant to be. The teachings are the same, gay relationships are illicit and cannot be approved.

 

[AnotherVoice]

This scenario is one of the reasons gay couples should not be allowed to adopt.

I agree they should not be allowed to adopt, and I am not certain this was an adoption. I am not trying to defend being gay, gay couples or gay anything else; I just hate to see a five year old pay the frieght for actions of adults.

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree they should not be allowed to adopt, and I am not certain this was an adoption. I am not trying to defend being gay, gay couples or gay anything else; I just hate to see a five year old pay the frieght for actions of adults.

I agree completely that it is painful to see a child suffer for the sins of the adults around them. That is also true when a child has alcoholic parents, or abusive parents, or even parents that are never home. Those parents shoould break-up for the sake of the child. If they really love the child, and if they really care about the child’s soul, salvation and formation. Yet, that would take a large sacrifice and change on their part…not very likely to happen.

 

[redrosetea]

Here are two statements from the archdioceses and parish originally posted some 180 plus posts ago when this thread started.

A quote from the archdioceses:

“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.”

A quote from the parish:

“If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don’t want to put any child in that tough position - nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

These statements express a reluctance to confuse or conflict the child with church teachings. The catechism is the same so if the child is confused in school or in CCD the teachings should be the same.

They are talking about attending the school…they are not talking about going to mass…anyone can attend mass…but they might not be able to receive communion…no one is denied going to mass

Catechism is not the same thing as a parochial school…the teaching of right and wrong is the same…but it was never said this child was denied religous instruction at CCD only that they couldn’t attend parochial school

Parents in parochial school pay to see their children are protected from daily contact with people trying to impose non christian values on their children

CCD meets once a week for about 1 hr…I doubt these people wanted the religious training for their child…they just figured they would stick them in a Catholic school, and if others didn’t like it they could lump it

Do they regularly take this child to mass? I doubt it…do they see that the child attends CCD…I doubt it

They only want what they want and to heck with everyone else…

 

[redrosetea]

I agree they should not be allowed to adopt, and I am not certain this was an adoption. I am not trying to defend being gay, gay couples or gay anything else; I just hate to see a five year old pay the frieght for actions of adults.

So all of the rest of the children must be confused and not able to understand there is a difference between sin and obeying God…but it is OK for them to pay the freight I take it?

I am sorry but all through scripture God has told us we must not be a part of the near occasion of sin

We are commanded by God to come out from among them and be ye a separate people

Given a choice between obeying God and enabling a bunch of school kids to see cafeteria Catholics imposing themselves on the will of God…I will choose God every time

 

[Onyx88]

Should we line parents up and ask them if:

1. Have you ever had an affair?
2. Is your marriage valid?
3. Do you believe in the real presence?
4. Do you use contraception?
5. Do you support in any way the choice of abortion?

If you answer yes to any of these questions, please remove your children from school.

And how many schools would close tomorrow?

this is what i wonder about ~ catholic school enrollment is declining and people aren’t joining the church ~ it’s not an ideal Catholic world anymore and it’s so sad

 

[Elizabeth502]

It seems that you are saying that this child would be better off outside of the Catholic church, in fact outside of Christianity; of course I disagree with that.

Thank you for you response. I am trying in this particular thread to limit myself to the incident at hand, but will respond to the more general religious question in a sec. What I did say, and perhaps you misunderstood, is that the child would be better off outside of Catholic schools. and Christian religious schools. (I thought I had made that clear in my previous post.)

Separately, I don’t mind saying that on other threads I have stated publicly that if I felt strongly that the Church were persecuting “gay people” (or people exhibiting gay behavior, vs. SSA people, which the Church specifically does not persecute, and which it condemns), and I myself were in that lifestyle (a stretch to imagine if ever there was one), I would not stay in the Catholic Church, because the RCC is not a positive place for an activist in the gay lifestyle to be. As “activist,” I classify those gays who (1) are self-confirmed in their homosexual behavior with no intention of reform in that, (2) want “equal rights” (i.e., recognition, approval of that behavior) within the RCC, (3) and often, additionally, want to participate fully ministerially, etc., in the church (not to mention in its schools) with such a confirmed gay-behavior lifestyle.

So just to clarify, AV, gays have come onto CAF to declare that the RCC should change, that they’re striving to change it, and they’re going to continue a visible gay lifestyle within the church and hope that changes minds. (Sometimes they say they’re working to change Catholic minds from the outside.)

Maybe when hell freezes over. (Get my drift?)

And I will say that in the very recent past, there have similarly been an occasional ordained Catholic priest with an identical message, replete with websites and all. That was as of a year or two ago, at least. If such a priest feels that a behavior which has been morally condemned by the RCC should be declared acceptable, that priest should choose another religious affiliation as well.

 

[kmdeacon07]

How far should the Church go to identify and take action on those who are out of communion with teaching? Many/most parents of children in our Catholic school do not attend Sunday mass. Could be verified. What if someone had an abortion and it became public knowledge? Should the Church force their children out of school or after a public confession of that sin would they be back in union? What if, as many parishioners I’ve talked to, couples were open about their use of artificial contraception? Should other parishioners, deacons, and priests who hear that report them to the school principal to have their child expelled?

The sad fact is that the action taken in the Denver Catholic community is flawed both because it is arbitrary compared to what else could be enforced and it allows the rules to have more weight than the gospel of Jesus. Our Lord pushed back against the Law when it conflicted with love. We should look in the mirror to make sure we don’t look like Pharisees, Scribes, and Temple officials

It seems to me that the weight that the hierarchy brings to bear on matters of sexual orientation is far out of proportion to the more harmful issues of sexual abuse, gender equality, and ineffective leadership at all levels in the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Again, this poster ^ entirely misses the point. We’re not talking about individual personal fidelity as much as a recognizable family structure. In this case, the two aspects overlap, but in other cases of non-compliance, they would not necessarily overlap, and the degree of Catholicity of the student’s family would not be in itself an excluder. In fact, the degree of Catholicity (in these other cases) may not even be known, except to the parents themselves. Note, however, that, like admissions standards at other schools, Catholic schools have their own priorities. Some of those priorities can include participation in the life of the parish (preceding application to the school); many who are out of compliance are not necessarily the most active, the most visible in the life of the parish. Many Catholic schools, depending on the city/region, have waiting lists. You are not an auto-admit if you merely belong to the parish, contribute to the collection, even had children validly baptized there. I’ve known of many cases in which non-gay households who were controversial in a different way were not admitted to any of our local Catholic schools: it was clear that their commitment to Catholicism and to Catholic education was below the standard expected of the school. Whenever there is a generous pool from which to choose, it will tend to be that those on the fringes are least likely to be accepted.

 

[kmdeacon07]

Elizabeth502

I believe that your legalistic argument fails the most important test: would the inclusive, loving Jesus have made this same decision about this child. The evidence from the gospels is clear to me. I don’t think he would resort to fine line arguments about family structure non communion vs. failure to attend mass non communion, but would rather search the hearts of the people involved and testing them, and all of us, with the only judgement he ever proclaimed…whatsoever you do, to the least of my people…

I don’t believe the Good Shepherd would claim protection for one group of sheep as a reason to abandon others.

 

[markomalley]

How far should the Church go to identify and take action on those who are out of communion with teaching? Many/most parents of children in our Catholic school do not attend Sunday mass. Could be verified.

In fact, at most Catholic schools that I’m familiar with they are very careful about checking a family’s status as “active Catholics.” Active Catholics pay one rate; others pay a significantly higher rate.

What if someone had an abortion and it became public knowledge? Should the Church force their children out of school or after a public confession of that sin would they be back in union?

At all of the Catholic high schools around my area, a female student having an abortion is grounds for expulsion.

What if, as many parishioners I’ve talked to, couples were open about their use of artificial contraception? Should other parishioners, deacons, and priests who hear that report them to the school principal to have their child expelled?

That works for me. Couples who use artificial contraception are in a state of grave sin. If they are open about it, they fall into the category of “notorious sin.”

And, while kicking what children they didn’t manage to prevent out from school may not be the answer, some degree of public penalty should be applied to those who are in a state of “notorious sin” (as opposed to those whose sin is occult…Canon 1340 § 2 prohibits the imposition of a public penance for an occult transgression).

Sin no longer seems to have a stigma associated with it. That is, IMHO, a grievous error.

The sad fact is that the action taken in the Denver Catholic community is flawed both because it is arbitrary compared to what else could be enforced and it allows the rules to have more weight than the gospel of Jesus. Our Lord pushed back against the Law when it conflicted with love. We should look in the mirror to make sure we don’t look like Pharisees, Scribes, and Temple officials

It seems to me that the weight that the hierarchy brings to bear on matters of sexual orientation is far out of proportion to the more harmful issues of sexual abuse, gender equality, and ineffective leadership at all levels in the Church.

Elizabeth502

I believe that your legalistic argument fails the most important test: would the inclusive, loving Jesus have made this same decision about this child. The evidence from the gospels is clear to me. I don’t think he would resort to fine line arguments about family structure non communion vs. failure to attend mass non communion, but would rather search the hearts of the people involved and testing them, and all of us, with the only judgement he ever proclaimed…whatsoever you do, to the least of my people…

I don’t believe the Good Shepherd would claim protection for one group of sheep as a reason to abandon others.

You are not the only one to do this, but people who say that children should never be disallowed in Catholic schools, no matter what their families do, are misapplying the verse Mark 10:14: Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased and says to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. Taking this verse out of context removes its purpose. Looking at it in context reveals the limits of what He is saying:

13 And they brought to him young children, that he might touch them. And the disciples rebuked them that brought them. 14 Whom when Jesus saw, he was much displeased and says to them: Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 15 Amen I say to you, ** whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall not enter into it.* 16 And embracing them and laying his hands upon them, he blessed them.*
​

Note the bolded text above.

You are the one who made the assertion that Jesus would not do what that school did; why don’t you provide some chapter and verse to back up that assertion. Maybe you could cite the verse where Jesus told the adulteress, “go, and keep on sinning, I don’t really care one way or another.”

St. Paul said (1 Cor 5):

6 Your glorying is not good. Know you not that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump? 7 Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed. 8 Therefore, let us feast, not with the old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness: but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. 9 I wrote to you in an epistle not to keep company with fornicators. 10 I mean not with the fornicators of this world or with the covetous or the extortioners or the servers of idols: otherwise you must needs go out of this world. 11 But now I have written to you, not to keep company,** if any man that is named a brother be a fornicator or covetous or a server of idols or a railer or a drunkard or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat. **
​

 

[redrosetea]

Elizabeth502

I believe that your legalistic argument fails the most important test: would the inclusive, loving Jesus have made this same decision about this child. The evidence from the gospels is clear to me. I don’t think he would resort to fine line arguments about family structure non communion vs. failure to attend mass non communion, but would rather search the hearts of the people involved and testing them, and all of us, with the only judgement he ever proclaimed…whatsoever you do, to the least of my people…

I don’t believe the Good Shepherd would claim protection for one group of sheep as a reason to abandon others.

Then you haven’t read scripture…Jesus was very clear saying everyone saying lLord Lord would not enter into the kingdom

He also said Blessed are the pure of heart for tehy shall see God

He withered a Fig Tree for not bearing fruit out of season

He whipped the money changers and drove them from the temple, with a whip he made himselve…He tirned over their tables

Called the rich young man a fool and said his life might be required of him this very night

Jesus can to fulfill biblical prophecy, not so everyone got a vote on how they wanted to behave…ask a priest of what Christ demands of us…He told us to enter from the narrow path because the road to destruction is wide