THE CAFETERIA IS CLOSED at St. John the Baptist School, Cost Mesa CA

[catholicwife]

Catholic School in O.C. Limits Gay Parents’ Role
St. John the Baptist memo says same-sex couples can’t act as a family unit at its events.

By Seema Mehta, Times Staff Writer

An Orange County Catholic school that angered some parents by allowing a gay couple to enroll their two boys last year has drafted a policy that would forbid the men to appear as a couple at school functions, according to a memo distributed to teachers.

In January, officials at Costa Mesa’s St. John the Baptist School adopted new admission guidelines that require parents to display “appropriate conduct, in order to support the school’s mission and provide positive role models to our students.”

The May 6 memo, obtained by The Times from a parent at the school, states: “Practically speaking this means: The children adopted by a same-sex couple” may enroll “on the condition that the same-sex couple agree not to present themselves as a couple at school functions.”

Calls to school officials and to the conservative Norbertine order that runs it for the diocese were not returned.

Some parents say Sister Mary Vianney, the school’s principal for 31 years, has not had her contract renewed after she objected to the new attendance requirements. The parents held a candlelight vigil Saturday and have asked Orange County Diocese Bishop Tod D. Brown to intervene.

“The ball is in the court of the St. John the Baptist parish and the Norbertine community,” said Father Joe Fenton, a spokesman for the Diocese of Orange, which has declined in the past to get involved in the controversy at its 550-student school.

Vianney couldn’t be reached for comment.

“She has basically dedicated her entire adult life to St. John the Baptist School and the children and families there,” said Suzi Brown, the incoming president of the parents auxiliary. “To think that her tenure with the school is coming to an end in this fashion is devastating.”

Tensions have flared since the two boys, who just finished kindergarten, enrolled at the school last fall.

Some parents feared that the boys were pawns in a larger campaign by gay and lesbian Catholics to gain acceptance within the church and worried that other children’s religious education would suffer if teachers avoided certain teachings to avoid making the boys uncomfortable.

Some parents accused school leaders of defying the teachings of the late Pope John Paul II, who in 2003 condemned marriage and adoption by same-sex couples and urged school officials to require parents to sign a pledge to live by Catholic doctrine, which regards homosexual acts as sinful.

The two boys are the adopted, baptized sons of two Costa Mesa men.

One of the fathers declined to comment Monday, and attempts to reach the other father were unsuccessful.

Lawyer Michael J. Sundstedt, who represented more than 30 parents who questioned the boys’ enrollment, said Vianney ought to step down immediately.

“It’s sad the nun is leaving, but I also think that it may be the best thing in the long run if she is impeding the teachings of the church,” he said.

Instead of praying for Brown’s intervention to save Vianney’s job, “this parish would be better served if they would have a prayer vigil in support of the teachings of the church,” Sundstedt said

 

[Thekla]

catholicwife:

The May 6 memo, obtained by The Times from a parent at the school, states: “Practically speaking this means: The children adopted by a same-sex couple” may enroll “on the condition that the same-sex couple agree not to present themselves as a couple at school functions.”

What does that mean “present themselves as a couple?” They can’t both be there? They can’t stand next to one another? They can’t hold hands? They can’t make out in the back row? What does it mean?

This is not about the “cafeteria” but about the children. We have the children of gay couples at my school and no one pays much attention to them. This school has painted a sign on their foreheads and is now rubbing salt in the wound; they already know they are different. I just find this intolerance unacceptable and morally wrong.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

A nun represents the Church in a way that is more visible than laity, especially to children. For a child to know that their teacher is a nun is to place trust that what she is teaching is of the Church. For a nun to step away from this expectation and still teach is a betrayal of the Church, of the children, and of their parents.

Nobody said it would be easy.

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Our pastor is simply trying to follow the teachings of the church by implementing these policies. It’s such a shame that so many people are unclear and many times clueless as to what the church teachings really are. It is especially sad that many people in influential positions are challenging his authority and the church’s.

Below are two mass e-mails that were sent to most if not all the parents and many parishioners at St. John’s on Monday May 9, 2005. The first e-mail was sent by the St. John’s School Auxiliary (PTA) President and Vice President of the St. John the Baptist School Auxiliary (PTA). The second e-mail was sent to by a much respected parishioner /parent at St. John’s.
Understand that these three women did not attend the meeting which is mentioned below. The meeting was only for the school faculty.

We were informed by people who did attend the meeting that Father Martin at no time showed any disrespect to Sister nor to any of the other staff member as is stated in the first e-mail. We were told if anything the disrespect was directed towards Father Martin.

First e-mail

from mass e-mail sent by St. John the Baptist School Auxiliary President and Vice President

On May 6th, Fr. Martin announced to the entire faculty and staff during the WASC meeting being conducted by Sr. Vianney at SJB, that he was instituting a firm new policy statement concerning the two dads. For those of you who are unaware, Fr. Martin unilaterally has excluded these two dads from helping in the Kindergarten classrooms since the beginning of January 2005—strictly because of their lifestyle. The SJB staff would not participate in this prejudicial behavior, and thus for months no parents have been able to help in those classrooms. Fr. Martin’s NEW policy, bluntly stated, is that these men will not be allowed on the SJB campus together-- for ANY reason. The teachers, staff, and Sr. Vianney immediately tried to voice their disapproval-- and were firmly rebuked by the pastor. Fr. Martin’s blatant disrespect for Sister was evident, and Sister then offered her resignation—effective immediately following the completion of the WASC accreditation process, at the end of 2005/2006 school year. The rest of the staff indicated they would be leaving with Sister-- as well.

continue reading on next post

 

[GloriaPatri4]

Continued

from St. John the Baptist School Auxiliary President and Vice President

Please understand that there have been several face to face meetings with Fr. Martin regarding this subject. Letters and emails offering Christian resolutions were also sent to Father by SJB families-- and were totally ignored. Father indicated to a number of parents during an April 23rd meeting that he would respond back to us after he had time to consider the options. We have never heard back from him. Apparently the way he has chosen to respond, is to issue an edict to Sr. Vianney, her faculty and staff. This intolerant decision rendered by Fr. Martin apparently was made without consultation or approval from the Diocese of Orange.

---

****We are writing to request that you email the Offices of the Diocese listed below to ask for their immediate intervention and reversal of this prejudicial and unjust policy. This explosive decision by Fr. Martin must be immediately challenged; Control over policy must remain with the Diocese of Orange, not the pastor of St. John the BaptistChurch. ****

Listed below are the appropriate email addresses to reach the Offices of the Diocese of Orange. Simply hold your curser on the “email link” and press ctrl & click the mouse. This will immediately link you to an email addressed to the person listed.

Thank you for your support,

You can view also view this e-mail by clicking here click on recent e-mail notices.
or by clicking on the link below
Update on Homosexual Activists Continue Participating at St. John the Baptist

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Thekla, my sister attends that parish. The gay parents are in-your-face activists. They gave an interview promoting their lifestyle in the New York Times (“Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home,” January 12, 2004). They’ve used this issue and their son to try to force acceptance of their lifestyle. The school must avoid formally cooperating in the sin of scandal.

You can see the kind of letters her supporters put out (see GloriPatri4’s post).

Sister Vianney doesn’t agree with most Catholic teachings; she shouldn’t be a principal in a Catholic school.

 

[HagiaSophia]

** and Sister then offered her resignation—effective immediately following the completion of the WASC accreditation process, at the end of 2005/2006 school year. The rest of the staff indicated they would be leaving with Sister-- as well. **​

Hasta luego, and don’t let the door slam on the way out. We all gotta do what we gotta do and Sister should back up her words.

 

[Thekla]

Promotor Fidei:

Thekla, my sister attends that parish. The gay parents are in-your-face activists. They gave an interview promoting their lifestyle in the New York Times (“Two Fathers, With One Happy to Stay at Home,” January 12, 2004). They’ve used this issue and their son to try to force acceptance of their lifestyle. The school must avoid formally cooperating in the sin of scandal.

You can see the kind of letters her supporters put out (see GloriPatri4’s post).

Sister Vianney doesn’t agree with most Catholic teachings; she shouldn’t be a principal in a Catholic school.

How can scandal be a sin? Causing one, perhaps. So the kids have activist parents. They have enough problems to deal with being adopted and having gay parents. How much is enough for these kids? Where does it say in Catholic teaching that we are to ostracize children or to make them feel unwanted because of their parents?

 

[gilliam]

Thekla:

How can scandal be a sin? Causing one, perhaps. So the kids have activist parents. They have enough problems to deal with being adopted and having gay parents. How much is enough for these kids? Where does it say in Catholic teaching that we are to ostracize children or to make them feel unwanted because of their parents?

If you advocate sin, you are sinning. If you lead children into temptation you are sinning. If you teach that Church dogma is wrong and you are right, you are sinning. It is all in the Catechism.

 

[Thekla]

gilliam:

If you advocate sin, you are sinning. If you lead children into temptation you are sinning. If you teach that Church dogma is wrong and you are right, you are sinning. It is all in the Catechism.

Please explain how any of this contradicts what I said. How it affects the policy on appearing at functions?

 

[gilliam]

Thekla:

What does that mean “present themselves as a couple?” They can’t both be there? They can’t stand next to one another? They can’t hold hands? They can’t make out in the back row? What does it mean?

This is not about the “cafeteria” but about the children. We have the children of gay couples at my school and no one pays much attention to them. This school has painted a sign on their foreheads and is now rubbing salt in the wound; they already know they are different. I just find this intolerance unacceptable and morally wrong.

Let’s see, they are sinners parading themselves at a Catholic school as sinners in defiance of Church dogma, in front of Catholic children. To me they are teaching that the Church dogma is wrong, and that they are right (a sin against religion). Since they insist on doing it in front of children, they are trying to teach by example. In other words, they are leading children astray (a sin against rightful parenting). It all is in the Catechism.

 

[Thekla]

gilliam:

Let’s see, they are sinners parading themselves at a Catholic school as sinners in defiance of Church dogma, in front of Catholic children. To me they are teaching that the Church dogma is wrong, and that they are right (a sin against religion). Since they insist on doing it in front of children, they are trying to teach by example. In other words, they are leading children astray (a sin against rightful parenting). It all is in the Catechism.

What do you mean by “parading?” Showing up? They can’t control who their parents are, so why are they the ones to be punished? I understand that the issue is the parents, but you can’t punish them without punishing the children.

I had a pair of twins in my classes this year who are truly amazing children. Their father is a transvestite and the parents live together (Don’t ask). I can’t imagine our school doing anything to make those kids feel unwanted or unloved or any more different than they already must feel.

 

[gilliam]

Thekla:

What do you mean by “parading?” Showing up? They can’t control who their parents are, so why are they the ones to be punished? I understand that the issue is the parents, but you can’t punish them without punishing the children.

I had a pair of twins in my classes this year who are truly amazing children. Their father is a transvestite and the parents live together (Don’t ask). I can’t imagine our school doing anything to make those kids feel unwanted or unloved or any more different than they already must feel.

I don’t see any reason to allow known terrorist parents to attend a school function, even if it might hurt the children’s feelings. I see no reason to allow transvestites to attend a school function even if it might hurt the children’s feelings. And I see no reason to allow anyone who is obviously sinning to flaunt the fact that they are sinning in oposition to Church teaching in front of other children. Leading children to sin is one of the gravest of all sins an adult can commit. It is time we become senistive to that.

But this really is beside the point. The real issue here is that people want to sin, they don’t care what the Church teaches, and they don’t care what other parents think. Many of them probably don’t care what their own children think. They want what they want when they want it, and they will force everyone else to accept it. Well, that has to stop, within the Church or we will no longer have a Church. Our moral theology will mean nothing (not that it means that much to most cafeteria Catholics today anyway).

We have killed too many children as it is, and led too many to lives of sin.

We need to remember that eternal damnation will hurt more than their feelings.

 

[Stu]

Thekla:

What do you mean by “parading?” Showing up? They can’t control who their parents are, so why are they the ones to be punished? I understand that the issue is the parents, but you can’t punish them without punishing the children.

The parents, not the Church, are the one’s punishing the children by putting them in the middle of this. One of the “dads” should stand up like a real father and fight his own battles without using his children as the weapon.

 

[Thekla]

gilliam:

I don’t see any reason to allow known terrorist parents to attend a school function, even if it might hurt the children’s feelings.

We’re done.

 

[gilliam]

Thekla:

We’re done.

Mortal sin is mortal sin, Thekla. Whether it is murder or homosexual sexual behavior. You end up in the same place. You need to realize that. I think you don’t believe homosexual behavior is a mortal sin.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Why is it that nobody is angry with the activist parents using the kids to promote their agenda I can tell you now they put their children in a Catholic School to push their agenda and their kids are being abused and used

 

[Thekla]

gilliam:

Mortal sin is mortal sin, Thekla. Whether it is murder or homosexual sexual behavior. You end up in the same place. You need to realize that. I think you don’t believe homosexual behavior is a mortal sin.

I think you don’t know what you are talking about. While I consider homosexuality to be a mortal sin, I haven’t reached your level of judgmentalism. I pray to God that I never do. Now you and I are done.

 

[gilliam]

Thekla:

I think you don’t know what you are talking about. While I consider homosexuality to be a mortal sin, I haven’t reached your level of judgmentalism. I pray to God that I never do. Now you and I are done.

By the way, I don’t consider homosexuality to be a moral sin. I consider homosexual behavor to be grave behavor and if you engage in it knowing that it is against what God wants, or have been taught this by your Church, you are engaging in a mortal sin.

Just curious, what is your definition of mortal sin?

 

[stumbler]

Thekla:

How can scandal be a sin? Causing one, perhaps. So the kids have activist parents. They have enough problems to deal with being adopted and having gay parents. How much is enough for these kids? Where does it say in Catholic teaching that we are to ostracize children or to make them feel unwanted because of their parents?

Whoa. Slow down there.

To understand scandal, start with the Catechism, specifically paragraphs 2284 through 2287. (about half way down this page)

How can scandal be a sin?
Well, for starters: “The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. (ccc 2284)”

So the kids have activist parents.
You appear to be confusing the focus here. The scandal is caused by the 2 gay men, not the children. School policy is focused on the gay men, not the children.

Where does it say in Catholic teaching that we are to ostracize children or to make them feel unwanted because of their parents?
Again, the policy is focused on the parents.

The situation is caused by the gay men. The scandal is the public and unrepentant (this is key!) lifestyle they engage in. The dilemma is how to protect the other children and even the young adults and older adults of the parish from the scandal. Should a parish priest follow the gay men around with a sign proclaiming CC teachings whenever they are on campus? Should a teacher always change her class plan to point out the error that the 2 men represent if they are in class? Basically, the pastor has said that the 2 men are welcome as long as they don’t publicly act out their sin. I would expect no less if the parent involved was a porn star or a drug dealer.

Should the children of the gay men be harmed in some way by this policy, the fault lies not with the pastor, but the two gay men. All they have to do to prevent harm to their children is not act out their gay impulses in public. All the pastor has asked is that the 2 gay men not cause scandal on church property. This is pretty basic stuff here.