Student at Catholic elementary school has his parent's are two gay fathers

[UbiCaritas]

Our Archbishop said it promotes scandal, and he is our spiritual Shepard. I am in full agreement.

Does he say the same thing about children of unmarried parents? Of remarried-outside-the-Church (ie, unmarried) parents? Of single parents where one parent is uninvolved?

If he does, I still disagree with him, but at least he’s consistent. If not, then that’s fairly hypocritical. And how is a child’s presence scandalous? The parents’ behavior may well be, but it’s beyond me how offering a kid a Catholic education can be scandalous.

 

[1990Domer]

1990Domer (who you quoted) didn’t advocate to shun or treat the child badly, she posted to pray for the people to seek God’s way.

Hopefully they do!

First the child is being raised in a disordered household then is being sent to a school that presumably espouses the morals diametrically opposed to their lifestyle. Friendship might also be an issue, as I can see why a family would not send their child to play where they might witness two men giving each other even a quick kiss at dinnertime. The harm being done to this child is 100% by the men involved, so sad. Just my two cents, God bless.

Thank you Monicad. Yes, you summed up my feelings perfectly. God bless all involved!

 

[UbiCaritas]

Our Archbishop said it promotes scandal, and he is our spiritual Shepard. I am in full agreement. Further, I highly doubt in today’s society that a Catholic school can do “due diligence.” When that child attends class Mass and says the Nicene Creed, does that child fully embrace that? I truly feel for the child. He/she needs our prayers.

For the record, I’m not attacking you here: I often appreciate your perspective on the forums! I just strongly disagree with this tactic.

You feel for the child. You’ll pray for the child. But, practically speaking, what will you *do *for the child?

Those actions tell him the Church doesn’t want him because of the sins of his parents. That’s quite as unfair as telling the kids of the previously-mentioned abortionist that they’re unwelcome to attend a Catholic school because their dad does horrible things. The children are innocent in these situations, and should be treated as such.

(As I also mentioned, telling same-sex parents and unmarried parents to behave chastely at Church and school functions is perfectly appropriate; if they can’t handle that, then they can decide not to enroll Junior.)

Another point: if Junior has reached the age of reason, should we also ban him from going to a church and receiving the sacraments? By all means, if the priest knows his–for lack of a better term–dads are engaging in sinful behavior, then he shouldn’t offer them the Eucharist, but should we also not let Junior receive because having him in the church’s sanctuary might cause scandal?

 

[1990Domer]

Does he say the same thing about children of unmarried parents? Of remarried-outside-the-Church (ie, unmarried) parents? Of single parents where one parent is uninvolved?

If he does, I still disagree with him, but at least he’s consistent. If not, then that’s fairly hypocritical. And how is a child’s presence scandalous? The parents’ behavior may well be, but it’s beyond me how offering a kid a Catholic education can be scandalous.

Yes he does! WE had to agree that we would uphold the teachings of the Church and had to sign a vow to do so. We were privledges to do so.

The child’s friends will ultimately tell his/her friend’s parents that he/she has 2 dads. Squishy Catholic can likely assume that they Catholic Church must have changed and are now openly accepting of gay parents (who I assume have sex and are not living as brother and brother).

This is the same reason we did not invite BIL’s lover to our wedding. It would give the appearance we, as faithful Catholics, support gay sexual unions. We did not want to send that message to those in attendance (small wedding).

 

[1990Domer]

But how is that kid going to seek the way of God if Catholics shun him for the sins of his whatever-you’d-call-'ems? (The two guys claiming to be his dad, who, despite the dysfunction, he probably loves very much?)

Understand that I’m not suggesting for a second that the kids at the school be taught that that is a marriage, or that the parents be given communion at school Masses, or anything except that the right thing to do is treat other people with kindness and respect.

The closest equivalent to this that I can think of is single-parent families in the '40s and '50s. Dad went to parochial school back then. There were two kids whose parents were divorced who went there. The other kids all refused to play with them (or were told not to by their parents) because their parents were divorced, which Everyone Knew (back then) was Always Unacceptable. Again, never mind that while the parents may or may not have behaved badly (I haven’t a clue what led to the divorces), the kids were the innocent parties and should have been treated as such. Instead, they had no friends or support systems during what must have been a terribly sad and frightening time in their lives. How is that upholding the institution of marriage? Similarly, how is shunning and generally treating badly the child of two homosexuals leading anyone to God or upholding the institution of marriage?

The child ultimately will have to reject the sexual arrangements of his/her dads in order to see Heaven, because he or she cannot accept both the catechism of the RCC and the sexual relationship of faux parents.

 

[1990Domer]

Thank you for clarifying!

I agree with another poster that said there isn’t always a BEST scenario, sometimes the best you can do is the LEAST-WORST scenario.

While it is admirable and clearly Christ like to want to reach out and include this child, I fear the price of scandal to the other souls might be pretty high, that’s just my opinion though. I wouldn’t put several souls in danger just to potentially make one soul feel welcome. Do I think making this family welcome could be dangerous to children’s souls? The answer is “yes.” As a famous radio personality used to say “Not everything can be fixed.” and that might be the case here. It may not be fair, but I would be suspicious of this couple and what their agenda might be and that would be what would need to be avoided for the sake of the other children. Gay parents enrolling their child in a Catholic school seem to have an agenda to me, I would have doubts about their sincerity given the very public nature of many LGBT communities and their desire to take out Christian people, businesses, charities and churches. Again, maybe not fair but that’s my gut feeling. God bless, always an interesting discussion!

Monicad, just to make things clear, I don’t think the faux parents would agree to sign an affirmation to follow the chatechism of the RCC. So the child not being able to attend is a function of the “parents” denying the cathechism, not the child.

And yes, scandal I believe would be a grave worry in this situation. Sadly, my former in-laws belonged to a scandalous Catholic LGBT organization. I learned a lot about these people’s agendas, and it wasn’t like the organization Courage. Quite the opposite. And they were rejected from setting up a booth at the WMOF. Hard to swallow that my in-laws left so much money to them in their estate. I fear for their souls.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Yes he does! WE had to agree that we would uphold the teachings of the Church and had to sign a vow to do so. We were privledges to do so.

The child’s friends will ultimately tell his/her friend’s parents that he/she has 2 dads. Squishy Catholic can likely assume that they Catholic Church must have changed and are now openly accepting of gay parents (who I assume have sex and are not living as brother and brother).

This is the same reason we did not invite BIL’s lover to our wedding. It would give the appearance we, as faithful Catholics, support gay sexual unions. We did not want to send that message to those in attendance (small wedding).

Well, while I disagree with his actions, I’ll give him that he’s certainly consistent.

Though one does wonder how it’s terribly charitable to tell a mom in a crisis pregnancy “Don’t have an abortion, but your child will never get a Catholic education unless you get married.” Or, for that matter, as did happen to one of my parochial school classmates, “Sally, I’m sorry your dad walked out on you and your mom. I know your life has been turned completely upside down, and you’re angry and hurting. However, we’re going to add to this by expelling you because your dad is acting like a jerk.”

I have no idea at all why her dad left; my parents, quite rightly, only told me that Mr. Smith wasn’t living with Mrs. Smith and Sally anymore, and that I should be extra kind to Sally because she was probably very sad about this. Sally, of course, stayed in the school, and was surrounded by her friends and teachers while she dealt with the fallout from Daddy leaving.

 

[pianistclare]

But you say shunning as though the goal is to exclude the child because he has two dads. (we’ll call them Greg Evigan and Paul Reiser, for the purposes of this topic), when that isn’t it at all. The goal is to protect impressionable young children who have enough pressure from outside the school and faith working against them; now the school and Church can no longer be a sanctuary either?

I suppose it depends I suppose on how infused Greg and Paul are into the school’s culture, or if it just a tidbit someone passed on which is not overtly shared. If the school deems that children with two homosexual parents cannot enroll due to scandal or confusion among their charges, I support them in that. There will always be casualties in the children involved, which is horrible, but that is the result of Greg and Paul’s selfishness, not the school’s actions.

The school has to weigh the needs of the many (apparently, they outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one… Spockkkk) in these cases, and has more than just this child to concern themselves with.

There is never a “good” solution when solving horrific problems. There is generally a “least damaging” solution.

It does seem to me in this case, it could have been avoided during admissions when personal information gets provided.

Did no one notice this:
*
Father’s Name: Greg
Mother’s Name: Paul*

on the enrollment form?

In case you didn’t realize…there are no longer sisters and nun working for a pittance educating our children.
Lay people are teaching in the Catholic schools and they require a living wage. The tuition is outrageous. Many faithful Catholics simply can’t afford it, but the many “others” can. Their checks don’t bounce and they are very welcome there.
Not saying it’s an excuse, but that’s generally what happens. The school has to cover its costs, and they don’t ask hard questions. They DO tell them that the children must be in the religion classes, they must learn the prayers, attend liturgy, and yes, make the sign of the cross.
People of many faiths want a Catholic school education, because it’s a PRIVATE education. Same as the wealthy Catholics.

They notice. If the people have a pastor’s note of participation in their church (whatever that church is) they’re in. Sign on the dotted line.

Children are not penalized for what their parents do.

 

[PhiloMed]

Thank you for clarifying!

I agree with another poster that said there isn’t always a BEST scenario, sometimes the best you can do is the LEAST-WORST scenario.

While it is admirable and clearly Christ like to want to reach out and include this child, I fear the price of scandal to the other souls might be pretty high, that’s just my opinion though. I wouldn’t put several souls in danger just to potentially make one soul feel welcome. Do I think making this family welcome could be dangerous to children’s souls? The answer is “yes.” As a famous radio personality used to say “Not everything can be fixed.” and that might be the case here. It may not be fair, but I would be suspicious of this couple and what their agenda might be and that would be what would need to be avoided for the sake of the other children. Gay parents enrolling their child in a Catholic school seem to have an agenda to me, I would have doubts about their sincerity given the very public nature of many LGBT communities and their desire to take out Christian people, businesses, charities and churches. Again, maybe not fair but that’s my gut feeling. God bless, always an interesting discussion!

Funny because I feel the exact opposite way. I think on the day I am judged I would much rather answer for exposing my children to something we believe is wrong than to answer for teaching them to be hateful and shun an innocent child. Then again, my children aren’t such special snowflakes that they need perpetual sheltering from the world so maybe I just roll differently.

 

[EasterJoy]

Can we all pray for the genuine family? This was the whole basis of The World Meeting of Families. The Devil desires to destroy what is weakest, and that now is the family.

Just to clarify:

You saying that you intended “And every heterosexual catholic family with 2.4 offspring are parfait” to be interpreted to mean “Can we all pray for the genuine family?”

Is that correct?

 

[MomaMary8]

Funny because I feel the exact opposite way. I think on the day I am judged I would much rather answer for exposing my children to something we believe is wrong than to answer for teaching them to be hateful and shun an innocent child. Then again, my children aren’t such special snowflakes that they need perpetual sheltering from the world so maybe I just roll differently.

Monicad is very aware of the ways of the world and fully understands its impact upon children. I think she has a lot of wisdom to pass along to us when it comes to forming children and keeping wolves at bay. She is an inspiration. I would never suggest her children were sheltered snowflakes. Front line warriors? Yes.

 

[on_the_hill]

The child ultimately will have to reject the sexual arrangements of his/her dads in order to see Heaven, because he or she cannot accept both the catechism of the RCC and the sexual relationship of faux parents.

I didn’t know acceptance of the catechism was a requirement for getting into heaven

 

[EasterJoy]

Funny because I feel the exact opposite way. I think on the day I am judged I would much rather answer for exposing my children to something we believe is wrong than to answer for teaching them to be hateful and shun an innocent child. Then again, my children aren’t such special snowflakes that they need perpetual sheltering from the world so maybe I just roll differently.

The question is whether an innocent child being sheltered from the truth is going to be exposed to it, not the other way around. No one has any desire to put someone’s dad in a bad light, especially not the dad of a mere child, but when the light switch is on, the truth is the truth. We can’t walk around with the lights off.

 

[1990Domer]

But you say shunning as though the goal is to exclude the child because he has two dads. (we’ll call them Greg Evigan and Paul Reiser, for the purposes of this topic), when that isn’t it at all. The goal is to protect impressionable young children who have enough pressure from outside the school and faith working against them; now the school and Church can no longer be a sanctuary either?

I suppose it depends I suppose on how infused Greg and Paul are into the school’s culture, or if it just a tidbit someone passed on which is not overtly shared. If the school deems that children with two homosexual parents cannot enroll due to scandal or confusion among their charges, I support them in that. There will always be casualties in the children involved, which is horrible, but that is the result of Greg and Paul’s selfishness, not the school’s actions.

The school has to weigh the needs of the many (apparently, they outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one… Spockkkk) in these cases, and has more than just this child to concern themselves with.

There is never a “good” solution when solving horrific problems. There is generally a “least damaging” solution.

It does seem to me in this case, it could have been avoided during admissions when personal information gets provided.

Did no one notice this:
*
Father’s Name: Greg
Mother’s Name: Paul*

on the enrollment form?

 

[1990Domer]

The question is whether an innocent child being sheltered from the truth is going to be exposed to it, not the other way around. No one has any desire to put someone’s dad in a bad light, especially not the dad of a mere child, but when the light switch is on, the truth is the truth. We can’t walk around with the lights off.

 

[1990Domer]

I didn’t know acceptance of the catechism was a requirement for getting into heaven

Accordion to RCC, we are to follow the Church’s teachings. I am not saying that God will have mercy, but it is our best roadmap to Heaven, and that’s the one I intend to follow. Yes, I will sin because I am fallen, but that is why Confession is readily available to us…for just such graces.

 

[1990Domer]

Just to clarify:

You saying that you intended “And every heterosexual catholic family with 2.4 offspring are parfait” to be interpreted to mean “Can we all pray for the genuine family?”

Is that correct?

I’m saying I have no clue what the original post meant. I am answering in part ignorance.

 

[PhiloMed]

Monicad is very aware of the ways of the world and fully understands its impact upon children. I think she has a lot of wisdom to pass along to us when it comes to forming children and keeping wolves at bay. She is an inspiration. I would never suggest her children were sheltered snowflakes. Front line warriors? Yes.

I wasn’t suggesting any specific individual was doing so, simply that I disagree with the parenting technique.

The “this can bring scandal” argument has really never held any water with me. Perhaps because of the types of things I’m surrounded with daily, perhaps because I was raised in a home that probably would have been considered scandalous (mother- former nun who married a 2x divorced man on a mountain top in Utah and was never successful in getting previous marriages annulled).

 

[1990Domer]

In case you didn’t realize…there are no longer sisters and nun working for a pittance educating our children.
Lay people are teaching in the Catholic schools and they require a living wage. The tuition is outrageous. Many faithful Catholics simply can’t afford it, but the many “others” can. Their checks don’t bounce and they are very welcome there.
Not saying it’s an excuse, but that’s generally what happens. The school has to cover its costs, and they don’t ask hard questions. They DO tell them that the children must be in the religion classes, they must learn the prayers, attend liturgy, and yes, make the sign of the cross.
People of many faiths want a Catholic school education, because it’s a PRIVATE education. Same as the wealthy Catholics.

They notice. If the people have a pastor’s note of participation in their church (whatever that church is) they’re in. Sign on the dotted line.

Children are not penalized for what their parents do.

Most parents sending their kids to Catholic school never see the inside of a Church, especially after confirmation. Sad! They use Catholic schools, with more reasonable tuition than elite private school, as a poorer man’s bragging rite that their kids go to private school. This is local to our are, I have found.

 

[1990Domer]

I wasn’t suggesting any specific individual was doing so, simply that I disagree with the parenting technique.

The “this can bring scandal” argument has really never held any water with me. Perhaps because of the types of things I’m surrounded with daily, perhaps because I was raised in a home that probably would have been considered scandalous (mother- former nun who married a 2x divorced man on a mountain top in Utah and was never successful in getting previous marriages annulled).

For some of us, you need to respect it is very real and very damaging. Take my word on it–my husband is tormented because he does not know the state of his parents’ soul.