Child of Lesbian Couple Can't Attend Catholic School

This story about a child being kept out of a Catholic preschool in Colorado because her "parents" are two lesbians will elicit opposing responses from those who oppose "gay marriage," because of the child's situation, into which she was placed by a society that cares little for justice done to children. When bad choices are made to begin with, choices that appear further down the road often have no good outcomes. The child, I assume, will be told about the injustice of church teaching.

However, the Archdiocese of Denver did issue this statement:

"To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching. Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment."

Comments

[BC]

And yet Catholic schools accept non-Catholic students. They accept non-Christian students. They will accept students who are practicing Buddhists and Muslims and Hindus. Indeed, they rely financially on being able to attract well-heeled non-Catholics. So that proves the second statement to be false.

Catholic schools claim to be part of the evangelizing mission of the church. They are a place for teaching and imparting the Catholic faith. So they are saying to this child, we will not teach you the faith, we will not teach you to practice the faith, because your parents are not practicing the faith. But isn't that exactly the kind of student who should be evangelized, and taught, and formed?

The parents know the Catholic school will teach Catholic morality. They know the Catholic school will teach their child that their practice is immoral. Why do the parents want this to happen? Does their conscience, perhaps, realize their life is not ideal, and they want their child to be taught something different? And the Church is saying, "No." We won't teach the Catholic faith to your child.

[Margaret]

Come, come. Allowing open and notorious scandal is not the same as admitting a Protestant.

From motives of compassion and delicacy, it's unlikely the child will be told she lives in a fundamentally haywire, disordered home. This issue will be played down in the classroom. And the rest of the students and parents will assume it's okay.

[Kamilla]

BC,

I don't think the second statement is false at all -- it is qualified by the word, "open" and I think that depends on how open and public the disagreement becomes. Having two Mommies is fairly public. There's no way around that one.

Kamilla

[smf]

The Church teaches that the primary educator of a child is the parent. However, in this case, the educational goals of the "parents" and of the Church are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable. Thus it is illogical for the child to be in a Catholic school.

[John FB]

SMF writes: "The Church teaches that the primary educator of a child is the parent. However, in this case, the educational goals of the "parents" and of the Church are diametrically opposed and irreconcilable. Thus it is illogical for the child to be in a Catholic school."

The problem is that the application of this principle is (most likely) inconsistent and thus appears capricious and petty. Forget checking for the Catholic beliefs of the parents: do they even check for them being Christians? Do they require parents, if they are remarried, to have received an annulment of any prior marriage? Do they ask the parents if they're using contraception (also a big no-no)?

Moral clarity requires that principles be applied without prejudice, and this is why Catholic and non-Catholics are less and less relying on the Catholic hierarchy for that clarity.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>The problem is that the application of this principle is (most likely) inconsistent and thus appears capricious and petty. Forget checking for the Catholic beliefs of the parents: do they even check for them being Christians? Do they require parents, if they are remarried, to have received an annulment of any prior marriage? Do they ask the parents if they're using contraception (also a big no-no)?

This presupposes all sin to be equal in import. Not only is gross sexual deviance a highly serious matter but as they are continuing in their rebellion there is absolutely no sign of repentance.

[John FB]

Gorilla writes: "This presupposes all sin to be equal in import."

If you're going to end up in Hell, does it really matter why you're there?

Is adultery a sin or not? Are those people who are in remarriages after having divorced for nonscriptural reasons (anything other than the sexual infidelity of their partner) living in sin or not? Have they provided any indication of repentance by remaining in that remarriage? According to your faith, these people are going to end up in the same fiery Hell as the two lesbian mothers.

All you're saying is that you don't mind cavorting with some kinds of devils, so long as they're heterosexual devils.

The inadmissibility of absolute divorce was ordained by Christ Himself according to the testimony of the Apostles and Evangelists: "Whoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" (Mark 10:11, 12 — Cf. Matthew 19:9; Luke 16:18). In like manner, St. Paul: "To them that are married, not I but the Lord commandeth, that the wife depart not from her husband. And if she depart, she remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And let not the husband put away his wife" (1 Corinthians 7:10, 11).

Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14).

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral ... nor adulterers ... will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6)

[Karen]

Does the church believe that remarriage after a divorce and without an annulment is less serious than being lesbians?

[Bananas Gorilla]

>If you're going to end up in Hell, does it really matter why you're there?

So if the lad walking down the street calls you a name would it matter if he slit your throat instead?

[Bananas Gorilla]

>Does the church believe that remarriage after a divorce and without an annulment is less serious than being lesbians?

Are they repentant? Clearly the sexual pervert is not.

[John FB]

Bananas writes: "Are they repentant? Clearly the sexual pervert is not."

If you divorce your spouse for any other reason than their sexual unfaithfulness and you remarry, you are committing adultery. So long as you remain in that unscriptural marriage, you are an unrepentant adulterer. Adulterers go to Hell.

This is why I honestly appreciate the Westboro Baptist Church. At least they are completely and entirely consistent in their moral theology.

Karen asks: "Does the church believe that remarriage after a divorce and without an annulment is less serious than being lesbians?"

Maybe, but consider this:
"Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo"."

"Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church"

[Bananas Gorilla]

>If you divorce your spouse for any other reason than their sexual unfaithfulness and you remarry, you are committing adultery. So long as you remain in that unscriptural marriage, you are an unrepentant adulterer.

So you believe a repentant Christian in that circumstance should initiate a second divorce?

[John FB]

Bananas asks: "So you believe a repentant Christian in that circumstance should initiate a second divorce?"

Not me personally, but I'm not a fundamentalist or someone who's demanding total submission to the Church's moral standards.

Read John 4:16-18.

Christ acknowledges that the woman has had five husbands and that technically, the man she's currently with is not really her "husband". It's just a man she's carrying on an illicit relationship with.

If a person is remarried and their former spouse is living, their current marriage, though recognized by civil authorities, is not valid in the eyes of God. Repentance requires more than just an apology, it requires a change of behavior, a turning away from sin. A murderer who apologizes for killing people but continues it the next day hasn't really repented, have they?

Hebrews 10:26 "If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God"

So yes, that person must end their civilly-sanctioned (but sinful) relationship with their current partner, at least if you're going to attempt to abide by Scriptural mandates.

[Lisa]

There is a difference between a lesbian couple and other sexual sins such as adultery and contraception. You wouldn't necessarily know if a couple is using contraception or if there is an affair going on unless you were rude enough to ask. However, when the lesbian couple shows up together for parent orientation and lists both of them as "parents" on the registration form, it's pretty obvious what is going on. Exactly how should teachers and parents explain it to their children that "Heather has 2 mommies"? If they condemn it, they risk hurting the child of the lesbians. If they say it's OK, they are misleading their children into thinking it's OK. The lesbian parents should have known what the Church believes and picked another school. They put the school in a very awkward situation. They are responsible for causing their child pain, not the school or the Church.

[Margaret]

Lisa has nailed the point.

[Ethan C.]

I agree with Lisa, but I'm not sure that invalidates John FB's point. It's true that having to confront the phenomenon of a lesbian parental relationship will present a different and more problematic educational crisis for the school than the child of divorced and re-married parents. It will be an unavoidable controversy and quite likely a severe impediment to the school's mission.

However, if that is the reasoning behind the school's decision, they should be forthright about it. The statement from the Archdiocese of Denver quoted in the article instead asserts that the decision is based on a higher expectation for "all families who enroll students to live in accord with Catholic teaching".

As John FB rightly points out, if this is indeed the true reasoning, it would require a fairly strict adherence of the Catholic doctrine of marriage.

My assumption is that the school made its decision on (what seem to me to be fairly reasonable) pragmatic grounds, but then decided to appeal to higher principles in its public statement (as pretty much all organizations and people usually try to do), and it ended up rather clumsily presenting an incoherent chain of reasoning.

What the school ought to have done is to very specifically point out that admitting the child would embroil the school in an inescapable dilemma, which would likely cause more harm to the child than simply refusing to admit her. It would place her at all times in the position of pariah or figurehead, or else force the school to compromise its educational mission by refusing to be forthright about Catholic moral teaching. Thus the school would be unable to meet both its obligation to care for this particular student and its obligation to care for its whole student body, and therefore the best solution is to simply avoid the dilemma by refusing to admit the child.

In fairness, for all I know the school and the Archbishop actually have made this nuanced argument, and the press has instead seized upon a sloppily-written statement to construct a simpler narrative.

[Bananas Gorilla]

>As John FB rightly points out, if this is indeed the true reasoning, it would require a fairly strict adherence of the Catholic doctrine of marriage.

But does Catholic doctrine demand people who have inappropriately remarried divorce when they repent of their error? It certainly does demand that they end the practice of sexual perversion.

[John FB]

Bananas asks: "But does Catholic doctrine demand people who have inappropriately remarried divorce when they repent of their error? "

From the Catholic Catechism (referenced on EWTN's website):

Divorce is a grave offense against the natural law. It claims to break the contract, to which the spouses freely consented, to live with each other till death. Divorce does injury to the covenant of salvation, of which sacramental marriage is the sign. Contracting a new union, even if it is recognized by civil law, adds to the gravity of the rupture: the remarried spouse is then in a situation of public and permanent adultery:

Further ..

The mistaken conviction of a divorced-and-remarried person that he may receive holy communion normally presupposes that personal conscience is considered in the final analysis to be able, on the basis of one's own convictions, to come to a decision about the existence or absence of a previous marriage and the value of the new union. However, such a position is inadmissible. Marriage, in fact, both because it is the image of the spousal relationship between Christ and his church as well as the fundamental core and an important factor in the life of civil society, is essentially a public reality.

Of course, the Church has allowed the faithful to bend the rules a bit by granting annulments, but they've received much criticism that these have been granted too liberally and without good cause.

[Annika]

Forgive me, but I think that Lisa, and others (and on many occasions, myself) has fallen into the trap of confusing appearing "good" with actually being "good", moralism with holiness?

Just because your sins aren't visible doesn't make you somehow "better" or more "righteous" than the next person.

Have we lost sight of our own need for grace, so shortsighted, and over-confident that we possess such an over-abundance of those qualities, that aroma of Christ that we can hardens our hearts against those who appear more immoral than others, AND cater to what might be "white washed sepulchers" because they will not cause as much scandal?

I am sure that one could tell by LOOKING at them the difference between a pharisee and a publican-but today, which would be allowed to enroll their child in this school?

As liberals have been ACCUSED many times (right here on this blog) of hijacking Christianity, using the the language, the same "god-speak" (but defining the words differently), and proclaiming a "different gospel."

I think it's time the "conservatives", the "right", the "moral majority", "culture of life" or whatever banner ''true and orthodox Christians" are mustering themselves under- would do well to examine their own twisting of words, language, and "god-speak" to examine if they, too, are guilty of using God's name in vain to prop up their own pet agendas.

God has been merciful to all, and I pray I am not stingy with HIS Grace and Mercy showered so extravagantly on all....

Signed,
A sinner whose Only Hope lies in God's Great Mercy
I leave the judgment of what label He applies to me up to Him

[csr]

This is a huge mistake. The Denver Catholic schools have a chance to teach this child about Jesus, and they are passing it up. What a missed opportunity.

[Alexis]

Annika,

The case could be made that this /is/ a merciful decision. Could you imagine being the teacher in Moral Theology 101, explaining the Catholic position on homosexuality--while this child is in the room?

Let's leave the whole "white-washed sepulcher" thing to Christ, mmmkay? It requires a level of discernment most people don't have.

[Christopher Hathaway]

Why would a lesbian couple want their child to go to a Catholic school which teaches that what they are doing is unnatural and a sin? They are putting the school and their child in an impossible position, forcing the school to either violate the supposed parental authority of this couple by condemning their immorality before the child (and thus also causing the child great discomfort for which she is incapable of handling at that early age, and it is most inappropriate to evangelize a child against the wishes of the parents) OR the school will compromise its teachings to avoid the unpleasantness.

Either way, no good can come from such a dishonest situation. I say dishonest because it is clear that these parents do not honestly want a Catholic education for their child. They want to use the child as a weapon against the church which still stands against their sin.

That itself is a sin deserving all the condemnation we can bring.

[Rob G]

"I say dishonest because it is clear that these parents do not honestly want a Catholic education for their child. They want to use the child as a weapon against the church which still stands against their sin."

Precisely. It is like the feminists back in the 60s & 70s who wanted to join all-male clubs, not because they truly desired to be part of those clubs, but because they wanted to make a statement and/or shut them down.

[Kamilla]

CSR,

What about their responsibility to all the other children (and their families) enrolled in the school?

Kamilla

[John FB]

Christopher writes: "They want to use the child as a weapon against the church which still stands against their sin."

How do you know?

Have you met this couple and spoken to them about this? Have you even seen them?

[dhorn]

The lesbian women know that what they’re doing isn’t normal or generally accepted. Certainly, they know that the Catholic Church and the Old Testament stand against homosexual behavior. Despite this, they chose to live together and raise a child and have that child attend a Catholic pre-school.

The Church recognized the inconsistent behavior of the parents and chose to act. All the reasons for acting have already been discussed, not the least of which is the undermining of the true nature of marriage and the Church’s witness to that truth.

Of course the child is an unfortunate in the middle of this, but the lesbian parents put her there. They knew or should’ve known what was going to happen. Some suggest that the couple can do whatever it wants, and the Church has nothing to say about it, which is pure baloney. Certainly, it’s not the child’s fault, but the child will suffer like other children who suffer because of their parents’ actions. Will the child will have a normal life?

Christ and his Church invite people (sinners) to repentance and conversion. When that sin is denied, the Church calls the people to the truth, which the Church insists to be the basis of all relationships, intimate or estranged.

The homosexual and lesbian community is witnessing to their version of marriage not to exist along side the Christian view of marriage but to destroy the Christian view of everything. I know this because the attacks have already started – they’re no secret. It’s time to wake up.

[csr]

I wrote;
This is a huge mistake. The Denver Catholic schools have a chance to teach this child about Jesus, and they are passing it up. What a missed opportunity.

Kamila asks:
CSR, What about their responsibility to all the other children (and their families) enrolled in the school?

My response:
The school should fulfill its responsibility to those children and their families by teaching the faith, as well as all of the other subjects, the best it can. This is true whether a child's parents are homosexuals or heteros, married or divorced, honest or dishonest, practicing Catholics or not, religious believers or not. Indeed, children from "imperfect" homes particularly need a solid school

I don't think the mere presence of this girl will harm the other kids. And I'm not concerned about "giving scandal." The fact that a kid is in your classroom does not imply that the school endorses everything the kid's parents do. The need to help this child (and perhaps through the child, her parents) outweighs that.

One way the Church can spread the Gospel is through its schools. And the Gospel is for sinners (and children of sinners). This little girl NEEDS Jesus, just like you and I do. What a wonderful thing it would be if this school led her to Him.

[Margaret]

CSR, this is not reasoning, it's emoting. Every child needs Jesus. But not every child needs to go to a Denver Catholic school to find Him. And not every child that goes to a Catholic school does find him. And in any case, this school can't contain all the children who might find Jesus there.

Take comfort, perhaps the place she won't be occupying will be given to another child who WILL find salvation and who otherwise wouldn't have. We can't know these things, and thus can't fling them at each other.

[csr]

Margaret,
Actually, it is reasoning. You just disagree with my reasons.

I think the possible benefits of having this kid in this school outweigh the possible negative effects on fellow students and their families. You think other-wise.

The reasons I gave may have some emotional appeal, but that does not mean they aren't reasons.

You're right that we have no idea how this would work out in the end. Maybe some other kid will take the seat and be blessed by the experience. But the fact that we cannot predict the future does not tell us whether or not this girl should be admitted. That said, it does serve as a reminder that this particular decision, however it comes out, is not the end of the world.

[Kamilla]

CSR, I have to say Margaret has a point - your "argument" is closer to mere assertion than it is genuine reasoning. No one's disputing that, "This little girl NEEDS Jesus" but you haven't told us why the school should violate its principles in order to achieve that end - or why this is the best way to achieve that.

Kamilla

[LED]

The argument that everybody is overlooking is the fact that the Catholic school in Colorado is a PRIVATE school and not a public school and therefor has the right to accept or refuse whom ever they want. It is not the right of the gov. or any one else dictate whom is acceptable and who isn't. If that is comprimised then the so called "seperation of church and state" is no longer relevant if you are not politicaly correct.

[Alexis]

LED,

No one is overlooking that. It's assumed. No one is talking about what the school /has/ to do, but what it /should/ or /should have/ done.

[Matt]

I don't think excluding this child is "what Jesus would have done," but I also don't think her family and this school belong together. People need to find a church they can stand and that can stand them. There are other options that would probably work out better for everyone involved.

[Juli]

I assume Mafia bosses have never been permitted to send their children to Catholic schools - what kind of message would *that* send?

In terms of the parents' motivation, it's not that unusual for non-Catholic parents to send their children to Catholic schools entirely for academic reasons.

[Christopher Hathaway]

How do you know?

Have you met this couple and spoken to them about this? Have you even seen them?

One does not need to meet and speak with these people to know what is the only logical motivation for their actions since there is no other reasonable explanation for why they should want their child educated in a school which teaches that their very existence as parents is a sin an unnatural.

Are you trying to say that you think it possible that they could really want their child to receive a good Catholic education and to come home and tell Mommy and Mommy that they are sinning? Pull the other one.

[Christopher Hathaway]

CSR, I would not advocate kidnapping the children of nonChristians because they "need Jesus" because that is both wrong and the likely Gospel received by the children will be tainted by such actions.

In a similar, though lesser way, the school cannot effectively introduce this child to Jesus if it comes alongside an implicit condemnation of her parents AS parents. The child is simply too young to be forced to make the choice whether to accept her parents authority or God's. Granted, I do not think she has two legitimate parents, but our society says she does and she knows no other, so unless she is to be "rescued" from her unnatural parents (kidnapping for the Gospel) her situation must be accepted as a fact of her life. Better for her to hear a stunted Gospel from a church that knows no better than for the church that does know better to trim it, for no Gospel taught so falsly can bear good fruit.

Let her be sent to an Episcopal school until she is old enough to think for herself.

[Charles R. Williams]

This is a stunt designed to embarrass the Church. No lesbian couple would want a child they are raising to be taught that their lesbian relationship is evil. Questions will be raised by other children and they will have to be addressed. The issue of divorced and remarried couples is different because the issue does not stare you in the face. Questions are unlikely to be raised by other children. Also, the status of the second marriage may be unclear for one reason or another. Non-Catholics are not inclined to seek a declaration of nullity, for example, even if an annulment would be granted.

[Juli]

"This is a stunt designed to embarrass the Church. No lesbian couple would want a child they are raising to be taught that their lesbian relationship is evil."

This is preschool. How would "your family is evil" fit into any preschool curriculum?

[Margaret]

Not in the curriculum, in the social reality. "Mommy, why does Suzy have TWO mommies?"

[John FB]

Christopher writes: "Are you trying to say that you think it possible that they could really want their child to receive a good Catholic education and to come home and tell Mommy and Mommy that they are sinning? Pull the other one"

What you're saying is that the school will go out of its way to teach about gay marriage and why the participants are going to Hell, but they'll happily exclude every other Church teaching which also makes it clear that apostates, heretics and schismatics (Protestants) and nonbelievers (Jews) are also going to Hell as are adulterers (couples remarried without benefit of annulment).

Why do you suppose that is?

Is it because the educators in question no longer believe these things or they're simply too embarrassed to have to admit that these teachings exist?

[A Mere Observer]

Folks here might wish to read Archbp. Chaput's own explanation, and that of the school:

http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3517/Archbishop%27s-Column/

http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3559

http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3513

[Paul Williamson]

The church is right to not allow the child to enroll in the preschool. The values of the lesbian couple are at variance with the core values of the church. You do a child no favor by placing the child in a setting where the caretakers are fundamentally at odds with the institution. It eventually comes out in the wash.

[Christopher Hathaway]

John, teaching the normativeness of marriage in a disordered society is hardly "going out of its way". And I never mentioned Hell. But if it worries you perhaps you should put some thought into avoiding it yourself.

I do not suppose that the church will fail to teach that Jesus is the only way to salvation, and non-Christians who send their children there should expect their children to learn these truths.

[CC]

Mk:9:40: For he that is not against us is on our part.

Lk:9:50: And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

By corollary, then, "he (or she) that is against us is against us".

It is rather simple, is it not? How could anyone become a member of a body that is incompatible? Like any healthy body, it should reject "foreign tissue".