Mass. Catholic School Won't Admit Lesbians' Son

[Orleans_Attny]

VetA;6634823:

Yeah, but only one sin carries with it a penalty suffered by an 8 year old.

I’m not sure I understand your argument: Are you saying that this child should have been let into school? And, if so, is that because you believe that the mothers’ sexuality is irrelevant?

In most places, sexual orientation is not a protected class. That’s just a lawyer’s way of saying: Yes, you can discriminate against them.

For example, a business could have a giant banner outside that says: “Gays need not ever apply.” And that would be legal - perhaps distasteful - but legal.

Even in those states that have broader protections, Religious entities are exempted from complying with anti-discrimination laws that are against the religion’s faith beliefs.

It’s a rational decision for the diocese to say: “Listen, folks. Within out community we aren’t going to implicitly sanction behavior that normalizes gay marriage or the raising of children by gay couples.” That’s perfectly legal. Perfectly rational.

If Richard Dawkins also tried to enroll his son, I’d not be surprised if the church turned the child away. I also wouldn’t expect a Jewish school to admit a holocaust denier. And I wouldn’t expect a Muslim school to admit Franklin Graham’s child.

This isn’t about what’s right or wrong for that 8-year-old child. It’s about the school’s mission to inculcate Catholic doctrine and practices while also providing a education on secular subjects.

There isn’t a right to attend a private Catholic school. And it’s not illegal to discriminate against someone for homosexuality, or for advocating opinions contrary to the religous institution.

By way of more clear example: A parish is within its rights to fire a teacher if they find out the teacher is gay. Or to refuse to hire a homosexual principal. That shouldn’t shock anyone.

Pax,
OA

 

[Zatzat]

this is where the church’s teaching comes from

Regardless of the Bible quotes, the Child will now be permitted, with the Ok of the Church, to enroll in a Catholic School…Gay parents and all.

 

[Anna2552]

Please post this Church doctrine.

I really don’t understand - this is not difficult to find.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

If Catholicism doesn’t suit you there are 30,000 Christian denominations, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism…

 

[Zatzat]

Zatzat;6634837:

I’m not sure I understand your argument: Are you saying that this child should have been let into school? And, if so, is that because you believe that the mothers’ sexuality is irrelevant?

Yes and obviously the diocese agree’s.

 

[VetA]

Great decision. I knew I wasn’t the only one to feel this way, glad there’s some Catholics in positions of power who can set things right!

the decision was that of the school sir, not the bishop. that being said the bishop DOES NOT support homosexual activities, that i can assure you. he merely thinks that the parents will not be scandalized by the school’s teachings, so he sees it fit to allow the boy to attend one of the schools in his diocese.

 

[Zatzat]

I really don’t understand - this is not difficult to find.

catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=29

If Catholicism doesn’t suit you there are 30,000 Christian denominations, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism…

Like I said, if the couple don’t practice sodomy, you’re crying to heaven point doesn’t apply.

 

[Zatzat]

the decision was that of the school sir, not the bishop. that being said the bishop DOES NOT support homosexual activities, that i can assure you. he merely thinks that the parents will not be scandalized by the school’s teachings, so he sees it fit to allow the boy to attend one of the schools in his diocese.

Of course the Bishop doesn’t condone homosexual relations…this is about a Catholic school denying an 8 year old boy an education because his parents are Gay and very clearly, if you’d read the story, you’d have read;

"The Boston archdiocese said it learned of St. Paul’s decision late Tuesday. In her statement, O’Neill said the archdiocese doesn’t bar children of same-sex parents from attending Catholic schools, and that it will develop a policy in the coming weeks to make that clear.

 

[Monument]

Keep the sins hidden and the Catholic school won’t care…gotcha.

How about be discreet? The Catholic Church does not have a police force but if you announce or do something in front of it, it needs to respond. If a parent showed up wearing a Swasitka should the church ignore it?

 

[lynx]

A lot of that “public money” is from taxes that Catholics pay and I wouldn’t quantify what happened here as gay bashing as the motivation behind this is more likely Catholic bashing.

So, how are you going to quantify how much money only Catholics pay? Or are you saying it’s ok to discriminate against these women because thy haven’t paid enough? Also, I don’t think Catholics can play the victim here, they are the aggressor. Maybe if these women went into the schools office and started beating heads in then I could see your point.

Catholics and Catholic beliefs aren’t motivated by what society accepts, but by what God has decreed. At different times "society has accepted and legalized all kinds of wrongs, i.e., slavery, prostitution, euthenasia, abortion, incarceration without trial, harmful drugs, and ethnic cleansing, etc., . There are already groups lobbying for pedophile rights. The whims of a society trying to legalize everything that might limit their quest for uncontrolled self gratification would be a poor moral guide to live by.

What is your point? That lesbians shouldn’t be allowed to raise a child or send them to a school they help pay for because Catholics don’t think so?

ah, your ignorance on the topic shows even more

Continue to insult me and i’m going to stop talking to you. It’s not very constructive

the inquisitions didn’t happen for another 1000 years after the Roman empire, and the Crusades didn’t happen hundreds of years later. and both had nothing to do about homosexuality

You’re talking about how Christians supposedly won some morality battle over homosexuality. Elaborate.

i’m talking about the 1st century, when the original Apostles went throughout the Roman empire (Greece was part of the Roman empire at this time). homosexuality is a wide practice especially among the Greeks, and was accepted by their society. and yet the people were spiritually starved. how did the First Christians won them over? through the preaching of truth and through their good works. they saw how destructive their practices were, and that the gentle and loving Christians brings a message of love and hope

That might have been the message but politics might be the answer atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_constantine.htm With regards to Roman homosexuality, they regulated and criminalized a fair bit of it on their own en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia While Christians later had some influence around 350AD, before that they couldn’t do much.

if two chaste women living together helping each other raising a child, they won’t be called lesbians in the first place. the fact that they identify themselves as lesbians means they’re not chaste

Acknowledging that you’re gay and acting on those behaviors are two separate things.

if i have a male friend with a kid and asks me to live with them so that it will be a less of a burden for them financially, and perhaps i can look after the kid if he’s not home, does that make us gays? no. that makes us roommates. if you identify youself as gays or lesbians, then there’s something more than just being roommates

If someone you love asks you to help raise a child, but decides for moral reasons, to abstain from an overt physical relationship with you does it matter if you’re gay?

i don’t see why it should. how can detesting an immoral act look bad on an institution that upholds good and true morals? thats only the wish of Church dissenters. the fact is, more people around the world believe in the traditional definition of a marriage and a family, regardless of what the liberal media says

Being gay is not an immoral act even by Catholic standards. How can you cast sin on someone for something outside of their control? Simply, don’t ask don’t tell is willingness to stay stupid, ignorant of truth that gays are good people trying to do the right thing. I know we’re still a young nation but we need to hurry and grow up.

 

[VetA]

Like I said, if the couple don’t practice sodomy, you’re crying to heaven point doesn’t apply.

you’re thinking in limited terms. it means all sexual sin.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Are the children turned away whose father has had a vasectomy or their mothers take birth control pills?

Nope, just the kids with Gay parents.

I guess the Catholic school isn’t too concerned that there aren’t many 10 children families amongst their population…

I just know people will say ’ the school couldn’t possibly know whose had a vasectomy or who takes birth control…

I call that willful blindness.

Eve if they knew (and there’s no way to know for sure if someone’s sterilized/using ABC or using NFP for serious reasons, or suffering from infertility, for that matter), there’s no way of knowing if they repented of that sin. The school would essentially have to interrogate everybody. These women, however, needed no interrogation, they are boldly proclaiming themselves “married” lesbians. Kind of hard to ignore.

And for what it’s worth, at my children’s school, parents have to sign statement promising to live out the teachings of the Church faithfully. Do some parents lie? Of course. But, once again, these women didn’t even try to hide their sinful situation. THAT’S the difference.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Anna2552]

Like I said, if the couple don’t practice sodomy, you’re crying to heaven point doesn’t apply.

The new testament specificallly references women’s sexual deviancy as well.

Unless you are very old fashioned, and believe women shouldn’t vote, have rights, etc, and are something like children, unable to be responsible for their actions. You may then be able to make a case for your point.

 

[Zatzat]

I think people have gotten confused…this matter is settled, the Boston Diocese has waded into the debate and clearly stated that children of gay parents may attend Catholic schools;

"The Boston archdiocese said it learned of St. Paul’s decision late Tuesday. In her statement, O’Neill said the archdiocese doesn’t bar children of same-sex parents from attending Catholic schools, and that it will develop a policy in the coming weeks to make that clear.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

Zatzat;6634837:

I’m not sure I understand your argument: Are you saying that this child should have been let into school? And, if so, is that because you believe that the mothers’ sexuality is irrelevant?

In most places, sexual orientation is not a protected class. That’s just a lawyer’s way of saying: Yes, you can discriminate against them.

For example, a business could have a giant banner outside that says: “Gays need not ever apply.” And that would be legal - perhaps distasteful - but legal.

Even in those states that have broader protections, Religious entities are exempted from complying with anti-discrimination laws that are against the religion’s faith beliefs.

It’s a rational decision for the diocese to say: “Listen, folks. Within out community we aren’t going to implicitly sanction behavior that normalizes gay marriage or the raising of children by gay couples.” That’s perfectly legal. Perfectly rational.

If Richard Dawkins also tried to enroll his son, I’d not be surprised if the church turned the child away. I also wouldn’t expect a Jewish school to admit a holocaust denier. And I wouldn’t expect a Muslim school to admit Franklin Graham’s child.

This isn’t about what’s right or wrong for that 8-year-old child. It’s about the school’s mission to inculcate Catholic doctrine and practices while also providing a education on secular subjects.

There isn’t a right to attend a private Catholic school. And it’s not illegal to discriminate against someone for homosexuality, or for advocating opinions contrary to the religous institution.

By way of more clear example: A parish is within its rights to fire a teacher if they find out the teacher is gay. Or to refuse to hire a homosexual principal. That shouldn’t shock anyone.

Pax,
OA

And yet, it does

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I think people have gotten confused…this matter is settled, the Boston Diocese has waded into the debate and clearly stated that children of gay parents may attend Catholic schools;

"The Boston archdiocese said it learned of St. Paul’s decision late Tuesday. In her statement, O’Neill said the archdiocese doesn’t bar children of same-sex parents from attending Catholic schools, and that it will develop a policy in the coming weeks to make that clear.

Well, hunky dorey then. They won round one. Now let’s see how long it takes a gay couple to sue a Catholic school for emotional damage against their child when a religion teacher (or priest during weekly or daily Mass) states that marriage is between one man and one woman and homosexual activity is a sin. That’ll be round 2.

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Orleans Attny;6634885:

And yet, it does

In Christ,

Ellen

Yeah. And I think that’s probably because it falls into the category of what seems fair. So in that respect it’s very similar to this instance with the 8-year-old boy. It doesn’t seem “fair” to deny him a Catholic education because his parents are open sinners.

But I guess it we applied that standard to it’s natural conclusion, Catholic schools would be a very lonely place.

Pax,
OA

 

[VetA]

Well, hunky dorey then. They won round one. Now let’s see how long it takes a gay couple to sue a Catholic school for emotional damage against their child when a religion teacher (or priest during weekly or daily Mass) states that marriage is between one man and one woman and homosexual activity is a sin. That’ll be round 2.

In Christ,

Ellen

its coming you know it.

 

[Anna2552]

At least homeschooling is still legal in Massachussetts (for now).

 

[ALLGIRLS]

According to who?

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!! (What institution have we been discussing this whole time???).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[lynx]

Good job on the grammar lesson. I have taken the liberty of bolding your mistakes.

my point on this is: this is a conversation on the internet, there is no need of 100% right or correct grammar.

don’t delegitimize someone by attacking the way they speak (to do so is a logical fallacy) delegitimize by breaking down their argument.

Maybe you should have read his post before making this one. I’m being facetious. But, good job continuing the run

plus by correcting one for their mistakes then making mistakes of your (by your i mean anyone doing that, not specifically you Lynx) own makes you look like (for lack of a better term) a jackass.

LOL Thanks for making my point for me.

and i know i do not type the best, use the best grammar, or use the best spelling.

Yet you decided the best thing to do would be to troll? Well done good job keeping this beast alive News flash! I’m being facetious again No but seriously this was pretty funny right?

The school has dealt with it perfectly.

I would disagree. Shunning a child doesn’t seem like the right answer to me, nor does stealing public funds.