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

[Melissa66]

My childrens’ school had to address this problem several years ago. I was a small LCMS Lutheran school and one of the lesbian women became president of the PTA, thus she was in a position of representing the school. They tried to accommodate the parents and actually disbanded the PTA for the sake of the child but eventually had to deny enrollment to the child. Unfortunately it becomes necessary sometimes to stand on the values espoused by the school or it ends up standing for nothing. And yes, perhaps parents should be asked if they are living in sin with someone or remarried without being free to do so. The children come to school and talk among themselves about their families and turning a blind eye to these issues only weakens our families and the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Unfortunately it becomes necessary sometimes to stand on the values espoused by the school or it ends up standing for nothing.

Well put. This is the bottom line.

And yes, perhaps parents should be asked if they are living in sin with someone or remarried without being free to do so.

Indeed. As I mentioned here or on another related thread, many Catholic schools consider compliance with the teachings of the Church – as evidenced by lifestyle, concretely – as an element of admissibility for the child-combined-with-parents, as, again, it’s really the family, in many ways, that is being admitted, as it is the family that is being modeled. It’s a matter less of “obedience” or even “sinfulness” as it is with harmony. It is also a matter of scandal, which has been said often.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Here are the facts that we know:

They call themselves a “lesbian couple.”
They call themselves “two Mommies.”
They continue to live that lifestyle.

If they weren’t still lesbians, and no longer a couple, they would have said so and done so. (Separated, and renounced their previous lifestyle.) But it’s a current lifestyle. Get it?

Ergo: child will be confused and contradicted in her upbringing – between the lifestyle her “Mommies,” plural, are living, and the moral teachings she would have been taught in the school.

By those definitions above, the self-described (illegitimate) “parents” are not in line with Catholic church teachings, no matter how much they protest that they are.

No one has brought this up yet, but the priest who used, i.m.o., the poor judgment to baptize the child, has been “reassigned.” Hmmm.
When you as direct guardians agree to have the child baptized, you “stand in” for the child, and assent to baptismal promises which include following the teachings of the church. The baptism should never have been conducted, and could even be considered invalid, if there was never the disposition on the part of the parents to be the model of basic Catholic morality demanded by such baptism of their child. Since clearly they hadn’t renounced their lesbian relationship, and in fact openly continued it, it would be not different, from the viewpoint of sacramental validity, if a non-Catholic partook of the Eucharist prior to membership.
Again, this is not a matter of sin but of fundamental compliance. You’re not spotless when you get married, either, but a Catholic ceremony cannot be held without certain assumptions and agreements.

Congrats on the least sympathetic readings possible, on all fronts.

OK - they’re going against Church teachings. Again I say, so do many Catholics one way or another. I’d suspect there are many atheists who send and have their kids sent to Catholic school, and have them accepted in the blink of an eye. I’d rather have children of otherwise dedicated Catholic Lesbians get their kids into Catholic school than children of atheists. What would you do? And who would be more likely to get their kids thrown out?

And yes, there is always the question - are they otherwise practising Catholic?

And again I say, throw “they’re not Catholic at all if they don’t follow all the rules” unless you’ve got a very clear conscience

 

[Mystic_Banana]

What parable are you talking about? What interpretation? What Dogma? You are all over the map, so it is impossible to understand what you are referring to. I will guess what you are referring to.

If you are saying that Jesus didn’t tell people to “go and sin no more,” then your problem is much greater than interpretation. There is no other way to interpret that.

What my former priest explained regarding Confession is not an interpretation of Dogma or a parable. If you are in a situation of continuous mortal sin (e.g. living together outside of marriage and engaging in sexual acts), then your confession is not contrite. In order to repent, you need to move out and remain chaste. In the case of a homosexual relationship, the same thing would apply. That isn’t “Dogma” - it’s common sense…once you understand what contrition means.

Well, you started it!

Where you would be making a decision to turn your life upside down, in a culture that questions, or rather directly opposes Church teaching to the oppositional degree ours do, and place heavy influence to follow materialist dogmas, and to do so is encouraged, just turning around at the drop of a hat is just not that easy, I should think

 

[Elizabeth502]

Congrats on the least sympathetic readings possible, on all fronts.

Congrats on your refusal to acknowledge where I discuss how I myself accepted my own children’s rejection for admission into their Catholic school, until I myself complied. Good job with those reading comprehension skills.

I’d rather have children of otherwise dedicated Catholic Lesbians get their kids into Catholic school than children of atheists.

That’s a contradiction in terms. A self-described lesbian-lifestyle “couple” is by definition front and center not “dedicated” to Catholicism.

And yes, there is always the question - are they otherwise practising Catholic?

Is a current adulterer or current fornicator “otherwise a practicing Catholic”?

In fact, they’re not practicing.

And again I say, throw “they’re not Catholic at all if they don’t follow all the rules” unless you’ve got a very clear conscience

 

[rlg94086]

Well, you started it!

Where you would be making a decision to turn your life upside down, in a culture that questions, or rather directly opposes Church teaching to the oppositional degree ours do, and place heavy influence to follow materialist dogmas, and to do so is encouraged, just turning around at the drop of a hat is just not that easy, I should think

Thanks for clearing everything up.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Congrats on your refusal to acknowledge where I discuss how I myself accepted my own children’s rejection for admission into their Catholic school, until I myself complied. Good job with those reading comprehension skills.

Hmmmm…upping your rate of insults won’t get you anywhere, missy! :tsktsk:

What you should be criticising is my tendancy to skim read!

That’s a contradiction in terms. A self-described lesbian-lifestyle “couple” is by definition front and center not “dedicated” to Catholicism.

They can be as dedicated to Catholicism as anyone else - inability or even resistence to follow the *all * rules does not neccesarily mean a rejection of teh ules as a whole, or the system in general, which may be enthusiastically otherwise supported

Is a current adulterer or current fornicator “otherwise a practicing Catholic”?

Quite possibly, although I’d say an adulterer is probably the least Catholic of the whole bunch - how big a sin is enough to mean you’re not Catholic at all? If I swear, am I suddenly not a Catholic? In a lesbian relationship, they can’t be having lesbian sex all the time, and the rest of the time, presumably, there’s just love, isn’t there? Do they even consider themselves each others wives?

In fact, they’re not practicing.

Are they not practicising? Do they not go to Church? Do they not pray to God? Do they literally reject the Pope as their spiritual leader? If not, your argument has more strength than you’re demonstrating so far - I apologise, again, if I’ve casually missed another bit

Remember, even the Apostles questioned Jesus, and Paul argued with Peter. Dissent is not the same as rejection

 

[Elizabeth502]

What you should be criticising is my tendancy to skim read!

That will do. Either way, you’re not contributing constructively to debate when there’s a refusal to address the already-addressed questions and answers. Yours have been asked and answered, including those below.

They can be as dedicated to Catholicism as anyone else

Absolutely. They can, and they aren’t. That’s the entire point. They are not practicing Catholicism. Nor are outright adulterers/fornicators (cohabiting, for example). And those are similarly often rejected from family enrollment at Catholic Schools. That’s only been said maybe 12-15 times already, so skim reading is not always a terrific idea when you’re pretending to have an actual conversation with others.

• inability or even resistence to follow the *all * rules does not neccesarily mean a rejection of teh ules as a whole, or the system in general, which may be enthusiastically otherwise supported

Doesn’t matter. As had been said by other clergy on this matter, there are priorities, but particularly when it comes to Catholic schooling, where the role-modeling of family life is front and center. So what one parades around as “family,” or refuses to comply with as “family,” or is misguided enough to re-define as “family” and “parenthood” for an entire institution, is absolutely more important than whether one never misses Mass.{Readers, see her odd list of priorities, below.)

In a lesbian relationship, they can’t be having lesbian sex all the time, and the rest of the time, presumably, there’s just love, isn’t there? Do they even consider themselves each others wives?

Answer to question #1 – answering a quesiton with a question: When were you born? This is a child’s answer. Second answer to question #1: Is disordered behavior engaged in less than 100% of the time make it not fully disordered?

Answer to question #2 - Yes. Gay men call each other “husband.” Lesbians call each other wives.

Do they not go to Church? Do they not pray to God?

They’re ya go: MB’s private definition of a practicing Catholic: someone who goes to Church and prays to God – with no intention of amending sinful ways. And why do I say that? Because they did declare themselves, and continue to declare themselves, “a lesbian couple.” Thus, there is no firm purpose of amendment. Therefore, even if you think they’re reformed/reforming sinners like the rest of us, the continuation of their lifestyle is rank hypocrsy, if they’re trying to fool themselves into believing they’re “practicing Catholics.”

PRIEST WITH MISTRESS, TO BISHOP AND CONGREGATION: “But in every other way I’m a good Catholic, a practicing Catholic. Hey, I even say Mass. The fact that I’m giving scandal to children and their families, daily, pales in comparison to how much I go to (celebrate) Mass and pray to God, because Mystic Banana says that’s the definition of a practicing Catholic.”

Remember, even the Apostles questioned Jesus, and Paul argued with Peter. Dissent is not the same as rejection

Yes, I “remember.” I remember that homosexual acts were forbidden in first-century Judaism, and while Jesus had a more humane view of Sabbath (kind of knocks your but-they-go-to-Church argument right out of the water), he not only did not abolish the Old Law, he carried it forward more intensely and deeply.

I wonder who catechized you. They should be fired, unless they gave you a lot of excellent reading material, and you “skimmed” it.

:tsktsk:

 

[ALLGIRLS]

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?

More likely:
#1 should read “Are you currently involved in an affair?”-if there is some evidence that this may be the case.
#2-in the case of a CATHOLIC divorced and remarried, yes, valid question
#3-not valid-most catholic schools allow noncatholics who don’t believe this
#4-valid question if there is some evidence (i.e., parents heard bragging about “being done and getting fixed”)
#5-valid question

And yes, the parents, if they answer yes, should be told to either stop the behavior or remove their children from school (in the case of a parent “getting fixed”-they should be required to study the churches teaching on this and repent via confession).

Yeah, I’m a hard*ss. Catholicism isn’t a religion for wimps.

This also brings to mind a case a few years ago where a Baptist preschool kicked a kid out b/c her mom refused to stop being a stripper. The woman was warned, but chose to keep her “job” (arguing that she made a lot of money just 2 to 3 days a week, enabling her spend more time w/ her daughter). Of course, the school and pastor were made out to be the bad guys. Same as here. If we don’t kowtow to society’s “morals” were all mean judgemental ogres Oh well, the older I get, the more I don’t care what others think of me.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Mystic_Banana]

That will do. Either way, you’re not contributing constructively to debate when there’s a refusal to address the already-addressed questions and answers. Yours have been asked and answered, including those below.

Absolutely. They can, and they aren’t. That’s the entire point. They are not practicing Catholicism. Nor are outright adulterers/fornicators (cohabiting, for example). And those are similarly often rejected from family enrollment at Catholic Schools. That’s only been said maybe 12-15 times already, so skim reading is not always a terrific idea when you’re pretending to have an actual conversation with others.

Well, they may not demonstrate all the practices you do, but I suspect they probably display the odd vitue I doubt you’re capable of

Doesn’t matter. As had been said by other clergy on this matter, there are priorities, but particularly when it comes to Catholic schooling, where the role-modeling of family life is front and center. So what one parades around as “family,” or refuses to comply with as “family,” or is misguided enough to re-define as “family” and “parenthood” for an entire institution, is absolutely more important than whether one never misses Mass.{Readers, see her odd list of priorities, below.)

Answer to question #1 – answering a quesiton with a question: When were you born? This is a child’s answer. Second answer to question #1: Is disordered behavior engaged in less than 100% of the time make it not fully disordered?

Answer to answer 1: it means they’re not constantly disordering. You haven’t contradicted my point effectively.

Answer to question #2 - Yes. Gay men call each other “husband.” Lesbians call each other wives.

WRONG! *Some * of them do. Do these?

They’re ya go: MB’s private definition of a practicing Catholic: someone who goes to Church and prays to God – with no intention of amending sinful ways. And why do I say that? Because they did declare themselves, and continue to declare themselves, “a lesbian couple.” Thus, there is no firm purpose of amendment. Therefore, even if you think they’re reformed/reforming sinners like the rest of us, the continuation of their lifestyle is rank hypocrsy, if they’re trying to fool themselves into believing they’re “practicing Catholics.”

PRIEST WITH MISTRESS, TO BISHOP AND CONGREGATION: “But in every other way I’m a good Catholic, a practicing Catholic. Hey, I even say Mass. The fact that I’m giving scandal to children and their families, daily, pales in comparison to how much I go to (celebrate) Mass and pray to God, because Mystic Banana says that’s the definition of a practicing Catholic.”

Yes, I “remember.” I remember that homosexual acts were forbidden in first-century Judaism, and while Jesus had a more humane view of Sabbath (kind of knocks your but-they-go-to-Church argument right out of the water), he not only did not abolish the Old Law, he carried it forward more intensely and deeply.

I wonder who catechized you. They should be fired, unless they gave you a lot of excellent reading material, and you “skimmed” it.

:tsktsk:

I can see their are some Christian virtues they missed out of your instruction as well. What did they do, just hand your the rules of the Inquisition? Maybe they just gave you a picture of a bloke with a handbag and told you to stab it for an hour a day

The thing is, your ENTIRE FOCUS seems to be based around their relationship, with little mercy or sympathy. And neither of them are Priests, unless I missed something.
Now THAT would be a scandal!

Nice to know you know exactly the minimum standards required to be Catholic, eh? Except I refute your rather specific focus. Because, even in constant error, they’re at least trying in others (unless that’s not true) - *has *the Church banned homosexuals from practising Catholicism? Praying to God? Not that I noticed…

“Practicing Catholic” doesn’t necessitate being a saint, you know, and insisting on that idea doesn’t make it more true. Would you stop people going to mass because they’re gay? Or adulterers? Saying “they’re not good enough to be Priests, so they’re not good enough to be Catholic” - hang on, they’re women - they could never be Priests. Actually so are you! Aaargh! YOU can’t be CATHOLIC!

Except of course, that’s ridiculous. But I doubt you’ll see my point

 

[sharmin]

You have to wonder what percentage of children in the school system are Catholic, in the first place. My impression is that the number of Catholics in the Catholic private school system has been falling for a while, and that Catholic schools are increasingly becoming a way of ensuring that children, from a variety of backgrounds, receive a quality education. I wonder what percentage of families are sending their kids to Catholic schools to Catholicize their kids (some are obviously, but I wonder if they can continue to operate schools with that expectation and pay their bills at the same time).

I am also curious if they are going to purge their school of children living with unmarried straight-couples. Children living with divorced and remarried couples. Children whose parents volunteer at the local Planned Parenthood. etc. etc. etc.

I think you hit the nail on the head. If I were the lesbian couple, I would opening challenge the enrollment of every child whose parents were living in open sin…divorced and remarried, married in a civil union, living with unmarried straight parents, etc. I would not rest until all of them were kicked out too, or until my child was readmitted.

I know it sounds extreme, but I hate hippocricy.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think you hit the nail on the head. If I were the lesbian couple, I would opening challenge the enrollment of every child whose parents were living in open sin…divorced and remarried, married in a civil union, living with unmarried straight parents, etc. I would not rest until all of them were kicked out too, or until my child was readmitted.

I know it sounds extreme, but I hate hippocricy.

And this is the point. Note my point of “which is worse - straight atheist parents or lesbian (otherwise) Catholic parents”? seems to be ignored - Catholicism is not a single-minded mystic cult based around homophobia.

Although, obviously, there are clear reasons why it’s not in favour of homosexuality, and that should not be forgotten either, or pushed out of practice for political expedience

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well, they may not demonstrate all the practices you do, but I suspect they probably display the odd vitue I doubt you’re capable of

Judging whether I am nor am not “capable of virtue” is hardly a Catholic/Christian vehavior on your part. I didn’t stoop that low when it came to you; I did not accuse of “not being capable of virtue,” for which I’ve reported you to the mods. I will, however, state once again, that you do not read well. There’s nothing mean about that. It’s simply a fact. People tell you what the facts are in the case at hand, and you proceed to argue theories and guesses. I see that in your profile you also describe yourself as Liberal Catholic. Perhaps you’d like to define that for all of us.

We don’t know that the lesbian couple is or is not a model of non-sexual virtues. But we know clearly that the most important thing they are not demonstrating, relative to Catholic education, is Catholic family values. They may believe themselves, and you may believe them, to be living some other definition of family values, but it is not a definition that would ever belong in a Roman Catholic school.

It’s especially the truth part that you were apparently not catechized in. This is not about my virtue/lack of it, nor the other parishioners’ virtues/lack of them. If they’re not compliant with Catholic family values (the only issue for which they were denied enrollment – not whether they “love” everybody (and incidentally hate Catholic moral teaching), not whether they exercise particular virtues which are more important to you personally, then they should not enroll. As I’ve said over and over (but which you “skimmed,” apparently), other couples/families similarly noncompliant in their marriage or family lifestyle should also come under scrutiny. I came under scrutiny at one point, and was denied initially. But unlike you, I didn’t accuse others of not being loving, not having Christian virtue blah blah blah. It’s a matter of basic compliance – not sin, not spotlessness, not virtue or lack of it.

The thing is, your ENTIRE FOCUS seems to be based around their relationship, with little mercy or sympathy.

No. You obviously didn’t read the full commentary by Breslin and other clergy, which further elaborated. The “ENTIRE FOCUS” (is your cap key stuck?) **of the Roman Catholic Church **is the family relationship when it comes to Catholic schooling. Your issue is with the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t stand in for them.

The Church banned homosexuals from practising Catholicism? Praying to God?

It has banned the practice of homosexual behavior from being anything acceptable. They are not in union with Rome, nor are you, if you think it’s perfectly fine to engage in homosexual acts, acquire a child through male sperm donation or fornication, and declare yourself in union with Catholicism. If they were celibate, they would not have declared themselves “a lesbian couple,” but “a former lesbian couple now living as sisters,” etc. They maintain that they are still a lesbian couple, which means that they intend to continue engaging in sexual activity.

You keep bringing up “praying to God” as proof of Catholicism and a legitimate reason to invite them into a Catholic School. No one in Catholic education would agree with you.

And the immature comments about the Inquisition are not worth addressing.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Judging whether I am nor am not “capable of virtue” is hardly a Catholic/Christian vehavior on your part. I didn’t stoop that low when it came to you; I did not accuse of “not being capable of virtue,” for which I’ve reported you to the mods. I will, however, state once again, that you do not read well. There’s nothing mean about that. It’s simply a fact. People tell you what the facts are in the case at hand, and you proceed to argue theories and guesses. I see that in your profile you also describe yourself as Liberal Catholic. Perhaps you’d like to define that for all of us.

We don’t know that the lesbian couple is or is not a model of non-sexual virtues. But we know clearly that the most important thing they are not demonstrating, relative to Catholic education, is Catholic family values. They may believe themselves, and you may believe them, to be living some other definition of family values, but it is not a definition that would ever belong in a Roman Catholic school.

It’s especially the truth part that you were apparently not catechized in. This is not about my virtue/lack of it, nor the other parishioners’ virtues/lack of them. If they’re not compliant with Catholic family values (the only issue for which they were denied enrollment – not whether they “love” everybody (and incidentally hate Catholic moral teaching), not whether they exercise particular virtues which are more important to you personally, then they should not enroll. As I’ve said over and over (but which you “skimmed,” apparently), other couples/families similarly noncompliant in their marriage or family lifestyle should also come under scrutiny. I came under scrutiny at one point, and was denied initially. But unlike you, I didn’t accuse others of not being loving, not having Christian virtue blah blah blah. It’s a matter of basic compliance – not sin, not spotlessness, not virtue or lack of it.

No. You obviously didn’t read the full commentary by Breslin and other clergy, which further elaborated. The “ENTIRE FOCUS” (is your cap key stuck?) **of the Roman Catholic Church **is the family relationship when it comes to Catholic schooling. Your issue is with the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t stand in for them.

It has banned the practice of homosexual behavior from being anything acceptable. They are not in union with Rome, nor are you, if you think it’s perfectly fine to engage in homosexual acts, acquire a child through male sperm donation or fornication, and declare yourself in union with Catholicism. If they were celibate, they would not have declared themselves “a lesbian couple,” but “a former lesbian couple now living as sisters,” etc. They maintain that they are still a lesbian couple, which means that they intend to continue engaging in sexual activity.

You keep bringing up “praying to God” as proof of Catholicism and a legitimate reason to invite them into a Catholic School. No one in Catholic education would agree with you.

And the immature comments about the Inquisition are not worth addressing.

I will address the points in this post after I have contested the warning from the moderators, which in at least 1 case, is about a direct reply to several direct insults from yourself - which you’ve just added to. The other point I believe I’m being warned over, is a point where you are either misunderstanding or distorting what I say, I’m afraid, certainly in this reply

 

[Trv]

Having just finished attending catholic school for the past 12 years, I can not disagree with the school decision any more.

Firstly, you do not need to be catholic to attended catholic school. If the school does not hold protestant or jewish parents(i have know both) of the child to catholic doctrine, why should it hold this couple to that standard.

Secondly, why should the morality of the parents even matter? I have know many parents of former students who have divorced and remarried. These kids were not held accountable for their parents actions, and why should they? I loved my catholic school education. Why should anyone be denied these same experiences only because of a situation the child has no control over?

 

[markomalley]

Having just finished attending catholic school for the past 12 years, I can not disagree with the school decision any more.

First, congratulations on just having completed school.

Put yourself back in kindergarten, first or second grade.

When you were that little, did you even have a vague appreciation of what homosexuality was?

For that matter, did you really have a vague appreciation of what ANY KIND of sexuality was, one way or the other?

Can you imagine in the little pre-first communion religion class when the teacher starts teaching about the ten commandments and gets to #4?

Teacher: “Yes, children, God wants you to respect your mommy and daddy and do everything they tell you to do.”

Child: “But teacher, I don’t have a mommy and daddy. I only have a mommy.”

Teacher: “Well, you need to respect your mommy then. It’s especially important if she’s by herself.”

Other child: “But teacher, I have TWO mommies.”

What does the teacher answer (in a Catholic context) for a six or seven year old little girl in that situation?

Does she say:

• *You’re really lucky (other child)! *
• You can’t have two mommies. One of them is fake.
• Your two mommies are living in sin and are going to hell if they don’t repent.
• Well, some families are like that. You go ahead and obey both mommies in whatever they tell you to do.

Which one. Quick.

What do the other parents answer when their kids come home and talk about how lucky (other child) is that she has two mommies?

And then what do you do when another child comes back the next day and announces, “My daddy says that your two mommies are living in sin and are going to hell”? I can absolutely guarantee that at least one set of parents in that class will tell their kid just that!

Do you tell the second kid that her daddy is wrong, that it’s perfectly OK? (Remember, it’s a Catholic school, not a public school) Or do you tell the first little girl that the second one may have been a little cruel, but, yes dear, it’s true. I’m sorry.

Firstly, you do not need to be catholic to attended catholic school. If the school does not hold protestant or jewish parents(i have know both) of the child to catholic doctrine, why should it hold this couple to that standard.

Secondly, why should the morality of the parents even matter? I have know many parents of former students who have divorced and remarried. These kids were not held accountable for their parents actions, and why should they? I loved my catholic school education. Why should anyone be denied these same experiences only because of a situation the child has no control over?

With the divorced/remarried parents, you can play around with it and pretend that the previous marriage was nullified and the current marriage was convalidated…just to avoid scandal. But it’s sort of hard to do that with two homosexual lovers living as if they were married. Especially if they want to be “in your face” about it.

You are right that a good Catholic education is a blessing.

But what kind of permanent damage would be done to the kid’s psyche when the scene described above plays out? I would lay a lot of money that the scene would play out at some point.

The best alternative is for the two lesbian women to stop living in sin and then to send the kid to Catholic school. But that wasn’t an option given, was it?

 

[Elizabeth502]

The best alternative is for the two lesbian women to stop living in sin and then to send the kid to Catholic school. But that wasn’t an option given, was it?

It certainly wasn’t an option that the lesbians were willing to consider. Rather, you are correct, Mark, in that their decision was instead to be “in your face,” and to “require” the Catholic school, and the Church by extension, to accept their self-defined “parenthood” on their terms, not that of the Church or school.

Again for the umpteenth time, for those continuing to bring up this supposed “argument” about sin/imperfection/virtue, etc., it’s not about sinlessness or perfection (or there would obviously be an empty school). It’s about public witness, and it’s about the operation and symbolism of the family unit in the context of Catholic education.

Yes, the Church is meant for all of us sinners, repenting sinners, not sinners confirmed in their sin, wanting to be further confirmed in their sin, wanting pubic recognition of that, and wanting a radically different moral theology of sexuality and the family than what the Church teachers.

Which is why I said much earlier: the couple, wanting to remain as a couple, should have sought a different (non-Catholic) church affiliation, since they were choosing their lesbian identification over everything else, and that practicing identification is incompatible with Catholicism. Having failed to do that, they should never have exacerbated matters for themselves and their child by the school enrollment attempt. This was an attempt for sympathy, for martyr status, and all at the expense of their child.

I don’t call that loving.

 

[StillWondering]

I think these words form Collin Powell apply here pretty well:
“The commander in the field is always right and the rear echelon is wrong,
unless proved otherwise.”
-Colin Powell

We are not at the school and can make plenty of armchair talks. However, the school was not being evil, mean, deceitful or anything else. I made a decision based on Christian love of the neighbor (as in all the families including that family and that child) on a local level that we as outsiders do not have total privy too.