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

[1990Domer]

This happens a lot on these forums.
People make a bold blanket statement, believing that everyone will certainly agree, and when called out for exactly what they have written, they cry foul.
If I had a buck for every time someone post “stop twisting my words!” I could build our parish a new education center.

So many times, when one is obsessed with “scandal” it’s because they have lived through one, are afraid of one, and are likely paying some lawyers because of one.
That’s the only thing that causes people to stop acting charitably.
The schools TEACH. They teach the truth, hopefully. Where would a child learn the truth? At school. Where would a child be privy to adult conversation about things that should not be shared with children? Around the dinner table and the carpool line.

I’d rather the child learn the truth, with charity, than play the “what if” game. My daughters know my position on these things, the Church’s position (which is the same, just to beat someone to the punch) and they understand how to charitably disagree with friends who want to push an agenda. Because we parents are the first educators of the faith. The schools exist to help. If one relies on the parish and the school to shield their children from others, then there is always going to be angst, anger, and disappointment. Nothing replaces good instruction by parents who model morality and kindness. They go hand in hand. I never worried. I knew what I taught.
Papers that are signed, make good toilet tissue.
People sign marriage licenses all the time, and void their vows. People sign tax documents that are often a tad false. People sign that they will go to Mass every Sunday. Why? Because they WANT something. One that “thing” has been rewarded? You can toss that paper. There’s a problem with “signing” your morality, It can’t be done.

I didn’t live through scandal. I lived through a school with 100% tolerance for bullying. Don’t believe me, read my other posts.

 

[1990Domer]

I’m out too. Show me a Catholic school that treats all children with compassion–those with visible and invisible disabilities–those with flawed parents, then I might agree. This thread has reinforced that there is a double standard between kids with invisible disabilities (like autism or ADHD) and children of gay parents. Why do they get all the grabs on the attention while my son suffered? Can nobody see that? Catholic schools hardly teach compassion to the least of us. That’s why we cyber school.

Good luck to all.

 

[PhiloMed]

My autistic son was bullied out of his Catholic school and is still suffering the effects. Nice that his classmates called him a pedophile and homosexual when he wanted to be a priest.

Walk in my shoes for a mile. I bet you wouldn’t like it. So obviously, we were not one of the “in” crowd.

Which is why it is even more surprising that you would advocate the removal (or not admitting) of someone whose parents you deem unacceptable.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

Which is why it is even more surprising that you would advocate the removal (or not admitting) of someone whose parents you deem unacceptable.

I think you mistyped. Let me try and fix it for you:

Which is why it is even more surprising that you would advocate the removal (or not admitting) of someone whose caretakers you deem a threat to other children.

Clearly they are not the parents, they aren’t married, and has been repeatedly said over and over, this isn’t an issue of personal preference or even being offended.

You may not agree with posters who believe it may be scandal, or believe it is a threat to young children attitudes and perceptions, and that is fine, but don’t continue to make claims of us that no one is making.

Look, everyone has their limits and standards. I don’t doubt for a second every parent here has a line that goes too far. But if there ARE things you’d deem unacceptable to be exposed to children in a Catholic environment, you can’t then say someone else’s limit is wrong. That’s arbitrary.

If Johnny’s dad picked him up naked every day, most of us would rightly object. But there might be some people in ther world who think that is prudish and non-inclusive, and that it is no fault of Johnny that Dad’s a nudist. For those who think others are just getting their “panties in a bunch” over nothing, or sheltering our children from the realities of life (boy could that be eye-opening for a 5 year old - “Today, we’ll be watching videos of ISIS beheadings. They exist, and we don’t shlter here, sorry.” ), or who simply want to quote scripture about the need for children to come to Jesus, what is the arbitrary line you’d object to you children being exposed to in a Catholic environment? Then tell me what gives that any credence at all, since clearly, others may disagree and think you prudish?

 

[PhiloMed]

I think you mistyped. Let me try and fix it for you:

Which is why it is even more surprising that you would advocate the removal (or not admitting) of someone whose caretakers you deem a threat to other children.

Clearly they are not the parents, they aren’t married, and has been repeatedly said over and over, this isn’t an issue of personal preference or even being offended.

You may not agree with posters who believe it may be scandal, or believe it is a threat to young children attitudes and perceptions, and that is fine, but don’t continue to make claims of us that no one is making.

Look, everyone has their limits and standards. I don’t doubt for a second every parent here has a line that goes too far. But if there ARE things you’d deem unacceptable to be exposed to children in a Catholic environment, you can’t then say someone else’s limit is wrong. That’s arbitrary.

If Johnny’s dad picked him up naked every day, most of us would rightly object. But there might be some people in ther world who think that is prudish and non-inclusive, and that it is no fault of Johnny that Dad’s a nudist. For those who think others are just getting their “panties in a bunch” over nothing, or sheltering our children from the realities of life (boy could that be eye-opening for a 5 year old - “Today, we’ll be watching videos of ISIS beheadings. They exist, and we don’t shlter here, sorry.” ), or who simply want to quote scripture about the need for children to come to Jesus, what is the arbitrary line you’d object to you children being exposed to in a Catholic environment? Then tell me what gives that any credence at all, since clearly, others may disagree and think you prudish?

So people who are unmarried are no longer the parents of a child? Lovely. Marriage, binding by the church or not, does not make parentage. There are step-parents, foster parents, aunts and uncles who might as well be a parent.

And if you go back. This all began over the assumption that in Dormer’s diocese, people who do not live up to the Church’s standards would not have their children admitted to school - which included unmarried and divorced parents-. Or I suppose you would call them “caretakers”. And this is somehow supposed to be a good thing because we are protecting our children from some perceived scandal.

Every day feeling so blessed I don’t live and worship in a community of people like this. Also, that my “caretakers” raised me much better than many of your parents, apparently. Incidentally, I perused the Archdiocese of Philly web site and some catholic schools there. There seems to be no such requirement from the diocese and the schools really take all comers as long as they are willing to pay the tuition and keep up their grades. Imagine that.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Which is why it is even more surprising that you would advocate the removal (or not admitting) of someone whose parents you deem unacceptable.

So would you be this adamant about it if we were discussing a madrassa instead of a Catholic school?

 

[PhiloMed]

So would you be this adamant about it if we were discussing a madrassa instead of a Catholic school?

Since I’m not muslim I don’t care what they do in madrassas. Nor do I understand why that is relevant.

 

[pensmama87]

One thing that I think about with this issue that is very important is that the child has done absolutely nothing wrong, and is in as much need of Christ’s love as anybody (perhaps more so - it’s stressful for a kid to grow up in that environment and there are lots of adults now who did who are finally being open about the harm it did them.)

Do I want to expose my child to every unfortunate or not-right thing there is? No, but I think even at the elementary level there is a way that it can be discussed where you’re planting the seeds for both understanding the importance of truth and moral uprightness, and compassion for those who have to deal with the bad choices of others. Although not completely parallel, I think PhiloMed is on to something when she compares this situation to going to school with kids who have divorced parents. It’s not going to invade every aspect of the school curriculum, but I would expect my sons to come home and say, “You said that mommies and daddies get married and have children in their house, but Susie doesn’t have a daddy at her house [or whatever].” Even though it’s a hard conversation, I think I’d rather start having that conversation at five (or six, or seven) than waiting until high school or after. The conversation is different depending on age, of course.

I’ll admit I probably would not want my child to go over to that child’s house (certainly not without me also being present), but that’s a scenario that only presents itself if the children even become friends, which they might not. And even if they did, that child probably could use a really good Christian influence from someone. If the school is doing their part, I like to think that I’d be happy to do ours. And if that child gets older and gets aggressive about their parents’ lifestyle (which could happen, or it might not), then might be the time to distance.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

So people who are unmarried are no longer the parents of a child? Lovely. Marriage, binding by the church or not, does not make parentage. There are step-parents, foster parents, aunts and uncles who might as well be a parent.

And if you go back. This all began over the assumption that in Dormer’s diocese, people who do not live up to the Church’s standards would not have their children admitted to school - which included unmarried and divorced parents. Or I suppose you would call them “caretakers”.

Ever day feeling so blessed I don’t live and worship in a community of people like this. Also, that my “caretakers” raised me much better than many of your parents, apparently.

You personalize things way too much. I already meantioned I had a poor, non-Catholic father. Not all of us were raised by St. Therese’s parents. That’s fine. Should my dad have been a better dad and Catholic? Of course. Should my mom have married him? Nope. She’ll tell you that too, but then I wouldn’t be here either.

So why the objection here to my words? The two men cannot in anyway be his parents. One may have given his DNA to his mother, or they may have adopted the child, but they cannot both be a parent. That’s a fact - why would bother you? Their dog isn’t his Aunt either - is that hurtful or offensive? That’s just reality.

They can also not married in anyway, shape or form. That’s also just the reality of it. We all know the definition of marriage, and we didn’t come up with it. It is immutable, unchanging, and permament. It was made so by God. And that isn’t “marriage”, nor will it ever be.

Homosexuality IS not in any way, shape, or form the same level of seriousness or gravity as simple divorce or single parentage. It is the reddest of herrings to continue to act as though people have every said “anyone who has imperfections in their marriage is unwelcome.” Why are you SOOOOO hung up on that, when no one has said? Like I said, you’d fail your own standards, because even though you didn’t answer my question, I guarantee there isn’t a single person on this board at least who doesn’t have some minimum set of acceptability for what their child can be exposed to. I hope you are ready to castigate yourself as much as the rest of us anytime to maintain any type of standard for your children, or ever try and protect them. The second you do, you fail to live up to the standard you espouse here.

Why ignore every objection raised, and simply continue to tell us the following:

A) you are glad we aren’t part of your community (that’s a very nice Christian thing to say…)

and

B) we are too sensitive and hyperbolic about the seriousness of the issue.

Yeah, we get it. But it would be more enlightening to actually respond to what is being said and take people at their word than continue to respond to things that haven’t been said. That’s fantasy-land territory.

And while I am responding, what’s with so many people taking so many things personally? Sheesh. I get as fired up and passionate as anyone, especially about the Church and my family, but never take it personally. Why would any of us care what anonymous people on the internet say vis a vis our lives, if we are comfortable in who we are? If I am comfortable with how I am raising my family or the decisions I’ve made, why would I ever care what anyone else thinks beyond my God and my wife?

Admittedly, I respect a lot of the opinions and experience here, and often echo it, but that doesn’t mean I am going to lose sleep over something since I am the one who will have to stand before God and answer for how I raised my children. And I won’t have anyone here with me.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This morning I overheard a conversation in a coffee shop about the Mormon decision to not only refuse same gender couples any recognition as married but to take it one step further and refuse any children within that family the sacrament of baptism (which they perform at age 8). The child/children would have to wait until they are 18, at which time they would denounce their parents and could become full members of the LDS church.

One person said to the other: “Yeah, I think the Catholics do the same thing. They must have gotten the idea from them.”

 

[pensmama87]

This morning I overheard a conversation in a coffee shop about the Mormon decision to not only refuse same gender couples any recognition as married but to take it one step further and refuse any children within that family the sacrament of baptism (which they perform at age 8). The child/children would have to wait until they are 18, at which time they would denounce their parents and could become full members of the LDS church.

One person said to the other: “Yeah, I think the Catholics do the same thing. They must have gotten the idea from them.”

Yeah, Catholics have really bad PR.

To be fair, though, non-religious people have some really, really wacky ideas about religious people of all stripes, and fundamentally misunderstand even the basic beliefs, without knowing that they misunderstand them. I used to be one of them, and even a very simple Google would have cleared up a lot of misconceptions (as long as I could separate the good sites from the bad.) But I didn’t bother.

 

[PhiloMed]

You personalize things way too much.

I’m actually just trying to point out inconsistencies.

So why the objection here to my words? The two men cannot in anyway be his parents. One may have given his DNA to his mother, or they may have adopted the child, but they cannot both be a parent. That’s a fact - why would bother you? Their dog isn’t his Aunt either - is that hurtful or offensive? That’s just reality.

So if a child’s parents are divorced and one parent remarries someone to whom that child is very close and considers to be a parent- they are just simply not a parent? " I’m sorry, Sally, but that man you call your step-father who practically raised you, has loved you since the day he met you, would do anything for you- he’s not your father. The man who donated his sperm 18 years ago is. He’s your father. Let’s make sure that’s on the school admissions form."

They can also not married in anyway, shape or form. That’s also just the reality of it. We all know the definition of marriage, and we didn’t come up with it. It is immutable, unchanging, and permament. It was made so by God. And that isn’t “marriage”, nor will it ever be.

I never said it was.

Homosexuality IS not in any way, shape, or form the same level of seriousness or gravity as simple divorce or single parentage. It is the reddest of herrings to continue to act as though people have every said “anyone who has imperfections in their marriage is unwelcome.” ***Why are you SOOOOO hung up on that, when no one has said? *** Like I said, you’d fail your own standards, because even though you didn’t answer my question, I guarantee there isn’t a single person on this board at least who doesn’t have some minimum set of acceptability for what their child can be exposed to. I hope you are ready to castigate yourself as much as the rest of us anytime to maintain any type of standard for your children, or ever try and protect them. The second you do, you fail to live up to the standard you espouse here.

Actually, that is precisely what was being implied when I began responding in the first place.

Why ignore every objection raised, and simply continue to tell us the following:

A) you are glad we aren’t part of your community (that’s a very nice Christian thing to say…)

Well, I see very little Christianity here

and

B) we are too sensitive and hyperbolic about the seriousness of the issue.

Well, that’s true.

Yeah, we get it. But it would be more enlightening to actually respond to what is being said and take people at their word than continue to respond to things that haven’t been said. That’s fantasy-land territory.

**I have precisely taken people at their word and the attitude is very clear to me. **

And while I am responding, what’s with so many people taking so many things personally? Sheesh. I get as fired up and passionate as anyone, especially about the Church and my family, but never take it personally. Why would any of us care what anonymous people on the internet say vis a vis our lives, if we are comfortable in who we are? If I am comfortable with how I am raising my family or the decisions I’ve made, why would I ever care what anyone else thinks beyond my God and my wife?

**This I agree with, but it comes down to wanting to be welcomed in a community and the perception that maybe that community is really hung up on what you’re doing wrong and just can’t wait to point out your sins, or “Scandals” as they are called around here. **

 

[PhiloMed]

This morning I overheard a conversation in a coffee shop about the Mormon decision to not only refuse same gender couples any recognition as married but to take it one step further and refuse any children within that family the sacrament of baptism (which they perform at age 8). The child/children would have to wait until they are 18, at which time they would denounce their parents and could become full members of the LDS church.

One person said to the other: “Yeah, I think the Catholics do the same thing. They must have gotten the idea from them.”

How sad, but yes, we do have really bad PR since this isn’t the case at all.

In fact, didn’t the Holy Father recently remind priests not to deny baptism to the babies of unmarried mothers? Sad that it even had to be a reminder.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

How sad, but yes, we do have really bad PR since this isn’t the case at all.

In fact, didn’t the Holy Father recently remind priests not to deny baptism to the babies of unmarried mothers? Sad that it even had to be a reminder.

I have just finished reading comments in the Non Catholic Religions area where the Mormon decision is being discussed. It seems some Catholics agree and seem to think the same is true if gay parents want their child to be baptized as an RC.

Interesting.

 

[EasterJoy]

…it comes down to wanting to be welcomed in a community and the perception that maybe that community is really hung up on what you’re doing wrong and just can’t wait to point out your sins, or “Scandals” as they are called around here.

It comes down to whether or not a child’s parents are willing to have their child be told the difficult truth that even in spite of all each parents sterling qualities as a person, a friend, and a parent, the foundational relationship that the parents have made publicly official is objectively disordered and a grave sin.

A Catholic school cannot avoid teaching that truth. It doesn’t have to (and in fact should not) grab the poor kid’s collar when he walks into the door and shake accusations against the people raising him into him, but it also cannot pretend that the impossibility of a marriage between two men is some outdated opinion that modern people do not concern themselves with, out of concern for the feelings of those who don’t want to believe that truth.

 

[Maximilan_Kolbe]

*This I agree with, but it comes down to wanting to be welcomed in a community and the perception that maybe that community is really hung up on what you’re doing wrong and just can’t wait to point out your sins, or “Scandals” as they are called around here. *

You say you take people at their word, people tell you what you just typed isn’t the case, and then you disbelieve them. That’s not taking them at their word, it’s insinuating people taking the time to post on the Family Life board at Catholic Answers are liars. Which is fine, since I am not, but still that doesn’t equate to “taking them at their word.”

You should at least agree that everyone has standards of acceptibility for their children, for schools, and the like, and as soon as you decide something is unacceptable, you undo whatever objections you made here today.

I thought I have nicely summarized the general opinions earlier:

*1) The situation is in fact a big deal in a Catholic environment, but the rights of the child to a loving Catholic environment and our need to promote that as Catholics outweighs the need to remove any scandalous influence from the school.

1. The situation is a big deal in a Catholic environment, but the rights of the other children to not have an unintended confusing or mixed-message conveyed should be the priority.
2. It isn’t a big deal and is not scandalous, as it is the parents responsibility to expose their child to that which they disagree with and teach them accordingly what we believe.*

Why so much anger and hostility? For those on the side of 1990Domer or myself, there is no anger or snark towards anyone who disagrees. It is an unfortunate situation with NO GOOD SOLUTIONS. Generally, when we sin, that is all we are ever left with. I see it all the time in my own life.

This board gets as feisty as the World News board some times. It’s great!

 

[PhiloMed]

It comes down to whether or not a child’s parents are willing to have their child be told the difficult truth that even in spite of all each parents sterling qualities as a person, a friend, and a parent, the foundational relationship that the parents have made publicly official is objectively disordered and a grave sin.

A Catholic school cannot avoid teaching that truth. It doesn’t have to (and in fact should not) grab the poor kid’s collar when he walks into the door and shake accusations against the people raising him into him, but it also cannot pretend that the impossibility of a marriage between two men is some outdated opinion that modern people do not concern themselves with, out of concern for the feelings of those who don’t want to believe that truth.

I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I think our Catholic schools don’t do enough of this. we should teach what we hold as Truth.

 

[1990Domer]

So people who are unmarried are no longer the parents of a child? Lovely. Marriage, binding by the church or not, does not make parentage. There are step-parents, foster parents, aunts and uncles who might as well be a parent.

And if you go back. This all began over the assumption that in Dormer’s diocese, people who do not live up to the Church’s standards would not have their children admitted to school - which included unmarried and divorced parents-. Or I suppose you would call them “caretakers”. And this is somehow supposed to be a good thing because we are protecting our children from some perceived scandal.

Every day feeling so blessed I don’t live and worship in a community of people like this. Also, that my “caretakers” raised me much better than many of your parents, apparently. Incidentally, I perused the Archdiocese of Philly web site and some catholic schools there. There seems to be no such requirement from the diocese and the schools really take all comers as long as they are willing to pay the tuition and keep up their grades. Imagine that.

Then why was my kid not accepted by 2 schools in Lansdale and Hilltown, PA, because he has Aspergers? I did my homework…you did not do yours!

BTW, I am Domer, not Dormer. Yes, big difference.

 

[1990Domer]

You say you take people at their word, people tell you what you just typed isn’t the case, and then you disbelieve them. That’s not taking them at their word, it’s insinuating people taking the time to post on the Family Life board at Catholic Answers are liars. Which is fine, since I am not, but still that doesn’t equate to “taking them at their word.”

You should at least agree that everyone has standards of acceptibility for their children, for schools, and the like, and as soon as you decide something is unacceptable, you undo whatever objections you made here today.

I thought I have nicely summarized the general opinions earlier:

*1) The situation is in fact a big deal in a Catholic environment, but the rights of the child to a loving Catholic environment and our need to promote that as Catholics outweighs the need to remove any scandalous influence from the school.

1. The situation is a big deal in a Catholic environment, but the rights of the other children to not have an unintended confusing or mixed-message conveyed should be the priority.
2. It isn’t a big deal and is not scandalous, as it is the parents responsibility to expose their child to that which they disagree with and teach them accordingly what we believe.*

Why so much anger and hostility? For those on the side of 1990Domer or myself, there is no anger or snark towards anyone who disagrees. It is an unfortunate situation with NO GOOD SOLUTIONS. Generally, when we sin, that is all we are ever left with. I see it all the time in my own life.

This board gets as feisty as the World News board some times. It’s great!

Thank you MK.

 

[1990Domer]

I absolutely agree with this. In fact, I think our Catholic schools don’t do enough of this. we should teach what we hold as Truth.

As Monicad said, Catholic schools are hardly pro-life. They accept the middle-of-the-road student without teaching tolerance, at least in our former school, acceptance of disabilities. And yes, I have gone all the way to the Archdiocese with this issue.

Final ? Parents are invited to the annual science fair. You do not see an issue with the student introducing his friends to his 2 dads, while attending Mass and confessing our faith?