Compare and Contrast
Another child of lesbian parents, another rejection from a Catholic school. But a different archdiocese — Boston, this time, rather than Denver, where Archbishop Chaput supported the pastor in rejecting the child of a lesbian couple, as discussed here.
In Boston, Cardinal O’Malley and his staff took a different approach, affirming that their schools would welcome any child. The archdiocese did not force the pastor of the Hingham parochial school to reverse himself, though it seems unlikely the parents would have wanted their third-grade son to return there.
I wrote up the saga at PoliticsDaily. An excerpt:
One of the mothers, who spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of concerns about the effect of publicity on her son, said she and her partner had planned to send the boy to third grade at St. Paul Elementary School in the fall.
But she said that in a conference call with the priest, Father James Rafferty, and the school principal, Cynthia Duggan, Rafferty told her that her relationship was “was in discord with the teachings of the Catholic Church.” Duggan told her teachers would be in an awkward position by having to answer student questions about the boy’s two mommies.
“I’m accustomed to discrimination, I suppose, at my age and my experience as a gay woman,” the mother told the AP. “But I didn’t expect it against my child.”
The decision by Rafferty and Duggan also seemed to take the Archdiocese of Boston by surprise. A spokesman for Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley and other church officials said there is no policy barring the children of gay parents from Catholic schools.
“The Archdiocese does not prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools,” Mary Grassa O’Neill, secretary for education and superintendent of schools for the archdiocese, said in a statement on Thursday. “We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future,”
O’Neill added that Catholic schools “welcome children based on their parent’s understanding that the teachings of the Church are an important component of the curriculum and are part of the students’ educational experience.” As long as they understand that, they are free to enroll their children.
On Thursday, O’Neill contacted the student’s parent and “expressed my concern for the welfare of her child” and offered to help her find a place for the youngster in another Catholic school. The mother said she would consider the possibility.
Read the rest here.
Interesting commentary around the Catholic internet on this. Some are saying the child of a same-sex couple shouldn’t be baptized. Others that there is no problem educating such a child in a Catholic school. And the shades in between–this, from the conservative portion of the Church. Fascinating exercise when Catholics don’t have a paragraph in the Catechism or a letter from the pope on the issue.
What the Church does have is a definition of Catholic schools in Gravissimum Educationis. Are the principal players involved in these decisions–including Archbishop Chaput–consulting just what it is Catholic schools are tasked with doing? Or is this a shoot-from-the-hip approach to pastoral ministry: go with one’s fears or worries about what People Might Say?
From GE 8:
“(A Catholic school’s) proper function is to create for the school community a special atmosphere animated by the Gospel spirit of freedom and charity, to help youth grow according to the new creatures they were made through baptism as they develop their own personalities, and finally to order the whole of human culture to the news of salvation so that the knowledge the students gradually acquire of the world, life and (humankind) is illumined by faith.
“So indeed the Catholic school … leads its students to promote efficaciously the good of the earthly city and also prepares them for service in the spread of the Kingdom of God, so that by leading an exemplary apostolic life they become, as it were, a saving leaven in the human community.”
I’m very interested to know though what Archbishop Chaput thinks of the solutions two of his clergy have proposed: that sending a child of gay parents to parish RE is fine, and that the entire family might be better off as Episcopalians.
Episcopalians are very decent, but should they be left carrying the burden of those abused by the Catholic Church because of its brutal attitudes to homosexuality, abortion, etc? It is time for Catholics to speak up boldly on these issues, unpopular as it must make them in Catholic circles.
Talk of the devil: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2010/05/irish-nun-excommunicated-after-abortion.html
Mr. Flowerday, thanks for the interesting quote from GE: The “proper function [of a Catholic school is] to help youth grow according to the new creatures they were made through baptism…”
If the Church of Rome is truly catholic, I think the good AB of Denver has failed his duty to the gay parents of their baptized children. Of course, I think Archbishop Chaput is a jackass (and that’s putting it mildly).
Joseph O’Leary, thanks for the interesting item about the Catholic sister automatically excommunicated from the church because she agreed that the abortion was medically necessary to save the mother’s life. Although I’ve been pro-life all along, I’ve never been prepared to tell a woman that she must carry her pregancy to term if it results from rape or incest or if she’s been told by competent medical authority that she will most certainly die. I leave it to the woman, her doctor(s), and the Good Lord to handle such “hard cases”. As a former sailor, I wonder if there is any moral analytical comparison between such situations and the classic “lifeboat exercise” in which one person must exit the lifeboat in order for the remaining occupants to have any chance of survival. In shark-infested waters, would we require the weakest person — or the strongest one — to enter the water? Who makes the decision?
Rules are fine, except when (a) it’s time to apply them in “hard cases” and/or (b) when they possibly/probably contradict each other (as in the hospital’s medical ethics directives).
Returning to the lesbian parents in the Denver archdiocese, I hear Jesus telling them, “Let your children come to me” and Archbishop Chaput saying, “Not if I can help it!”
I have absolute contempt for Catholic hierarchs like Chaput and ilk.
I note David has over 100 hits so far at Politics Daily and the Globe article drew over 400 hits.
The topic will continue to redound and Cardinal Schonbrun’s notion that lasting gay relationships should be ‘respected” in the Church underscores that views are signioficantly, I think changing -even if slowly in many quarters.
Joseph: in the case of this poor woman with pulmonary hypertension, there is an additional twist: The outcome isn’t “each has an equal chance at life but one must die if the other is to live” it is “only one really has the opportunity to survive — if she dies, so does the other.”
I will never stop thinking that this fact is relevant to what should be viewed as morally permissible under the circumstances.
“because of concern about the effect of publicity on her son.”
If it is true that she was concerned about the effect of publicity on her son, then why did she name the school she was trying to enroll her son in? How exactly does one deny God’s intention for Marriage and retain the teachings of The Church as an important component of the curriculum, simultaneously? To deny God’s intention for Marriage, and the Creative Love through which Men and Woman in communion with God continue Human Life on Earth, is an error From the Beginning. Error begets error. To grow in error, is to remove oneself from The Truth.
Nancy says “How exactly does one deny God’s intention for Marriage and retain the teachings of The Church as an important component of the curriculum, simultaneously?”
I don’t get it.
Where is the school / archdiocese saying this? Is letting the child enroll tantamount to saying so? That is some real convoluted thinking.
Nancy, I’m going to try once again. I don’t mean to step on your toes with the question I would like to ask you.
But please consider, as I ask you this question, that some of us who are gay and Catholic and who listen to you repeatedly inform us that The Truth and God’s Intention for Men and Women militate against our very humanity feel stepped on by your repeated assertion of your Truth.
Which does not seem true to us, particularly when it seems to have no room at all for dialogue. And when it ignores the graced experience of your brothers and sisters who happen to be gay. And the growing consensus of many fields of research that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable.
I have to ask you again, as I have asked you twice before in various threads at Catholic blogs, if you’d be willing to share why it is so very important to you to tell your truth–over and over, without any dialogue–to your gay brothers and sisters. While refusing to talk to us or listen to our experiences.
I’m asking because I really am trying to understand what makes this issue so important for you, and why you seemingly feel you have a ministry to share The Truth and God’s Intention for Males and Females with us.
When I asked you this on a previous thread some years ago, you seemed to indicate that what motivates you and your ministry is a desire to shield your children from exposure to gay folks. Or have I misunderstood?
And, of course, it is your right to refuse to answer this question. But in case you simply reassert The Truth, please note that this constant reassertion of what you consider the truth really does not advance this conversation–and that I would be interested in talking at a meaningful and real level.
Since I am gay and Catholic, it’s obvious why these issues concern me, and where I am coming from as I talk about them. You have asserted before that your repeated assertion of The Truth and God’s Intention is an act of love for those who are gay or lesbian. But I have to tell you, I don’t feel or sense love in these repeated assertions, which continue to reject dialogue altogether.
Sunil, perhaps you can explain how one can support the Catholic mission of a Catholic School and deny The Truth, simultaneously? An example of convoluted thinking would be believing that parents who deny The Truth From The Beginning, support the Catholic Mission of this Catholic School.
William, there is no evidence that sexual orientation is inate and unchangeable. It is clear from your dialogue, that your intention is to compromise The Truth From The Beginning. Let us not pretend that The Truth is a matter of opinion. I want my Children to know The Truth of Love because He is “The Christ, The Son of The Living God.” We are called to Witness to The Truth of Love, not deny The Truth of Love. It became clear to me that The Catholic Church was in deep trouble when my Child, who attended a Catholic University, was struggling with a homosexual inclination and sought the Wisdom of The Church. The counseling my Child received was a denial of The Truth From The Beginning. The fact is homosexual sexual relationships can never be reconciled with God’s intention for Conjugal Love. I will admit that I was not aware of all the dissention in The Church until this incident, but it is now clear to me that one cannot deny The Truth and remain in communion with His Church, simultaneously.
I hope those who struggle with this inclinition will find Peace through His Word. This does not change the fact that I will do everything I can when my Children are confronted with a lie, to point them towards The Truth. Only through Christ, can we know the essence of Love.
Thank you for your reply, Nancy. You say that “[]it is clear from your dialogue, that your intention is to compromise The Truth From The Beginning.”
But dialogue requires two or more people, two or more people talking together. We’re not dialoguing if I’m asking you to talk about these issues with me, and you’re responding by hitting me over the head with your truth. While refusing to listen to me and the pieces of the truth I may see from where I stand.
That’s not dialogue. That’s–well, I don’t know what to call it. Preaching, perhaps?
Maybe if we thought of the truth as something neither you nor I own, but which we’re pursuing together in dialogue–yes, even in Catholic conversations–we’d be better able to find it together, Nancy. But that means opening ourselves to truth that may transcend what we “know” as “the” truth that has existed from the beginning. E.g., opening ourselves to what various scientific disciplines are learning about how sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable . . . .
I certainly respect and value your desire to instruct your children and see them follow paths of virtue. I honor that desire, in fact.
I do wonder, though–without knowing you personally and your children–if engaging in dialogue with those who “struggle with this inclination” is more valuable than hitting them over the head with The Truth. And move loving, especially when their own graced experience tells them that there’s no need at all to struggle with a gift God has graciously given to them.
Sorry–the last line of my most recent posting should begin, “And more loving . . . .”
Just to be clear, William, what gift are you referring to?
P.S., I was not aware that you were having a dialogue only with me, as the very nature of a blog is to dialogue with numerous people. Should I assume that you were preaching to me?
“There is no evidence that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable.”
There is a vast amount of empirical, inductive evidence that a great number of people who are predominantly homosexual are so from earliest consciousness and are most unlikely to change. Freud was among the many psychologists who told parents of gays that they should not expect a change in their child’s orientation.
“My Child, who attended a Catholic University, was struggling with a homosexual inclination and sought the Wisdom of The Church. The counseling my Child received was a denial of The Truth From The Beginning. The fact is homosexual sexual relationships can never be reconciled with God’s intention for Conjugal Love.”
I suppose some heterosexual men has an occasional “homosexual inclination” but if a person is meaningfully described as homosexual then one cannot call their homosexuality an “inclination” but rather an “orientation” as in the case of persons meaningfully described as heterosexual.
A counseling in accord with church teaching would tell the young exclusively homosexual person to live a chaste, celibate life. If the person has some heterosexual inclination as well he might be advised to build on that as seek a heterosexual marriage — which would no doubt be sexually frustrating for him and his future wife.
Many counselors now tell people to seek a stable and creative relationship, in preference to promiscuity etc. Jan Visser, co-author of the CDF document Persona Humana, and now Cardinal Schoenborn, are saying that for gays from whom the celibate life is practically impossible a stable and lasting gay relationship should be provisionally accepted. This is NOT in contradiction with church teaching; it is an application of the venerable pastoral principles of epikeia and equity, as well as an instantiation of Paul VI’s views on freedom of conscience and the distinction between subjective and objective morality.
There is no Scientific evidence that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable, nor did Pope Paul VI ever claim that freedom of conscience allowed one to deny The Word of God.
Nancy said ” An example of convoluted thinking would be believing that parents who deny The Truth From The Beginning, support the Catholic Mission of this Catholic School.”
Why should the parents necessarily support the ‘Catholic Mission of the Catholic School’? As I mentioned before, I sent my children to a Hindu run school (since I am in India) without in any way subscribing to (specifically) Hindu beliefs. I sent them there because that was where they could get a better education than any of the church run or government schools nearby. I have no regrets about it. And today all my 3 children who attended this school are very much Catholic. Doesn’t Christian charity demand that we respect another person’s right to his/her own opinion. Or do you still hold on to the ‘error has no rights’ view which the Church itself has already given up.
Nancy, you say, “I was not aware that you were having a dialogue only with me, as the very nature of a blog is to dialogue with numerous people.”
And yet I wrote that a dialogue requires two or more people. I’m sorry if I have given the impression that I am talking only to you on this blog. I obviously welcome responses from all readers–though I had addressed a specific question to you.
You ask, “Just to be clear, William, what gift are you referring to?”
The gift to which I’m referring is the gift of being gay. That gift is given to some people just as the gift of a heterosexual orientation is given to others. God gives us the gift of ourselves so that, by accepting that gift joyfully, we can come to know, love, and serve God in this world and be happy with God in the next.
Telling people to deny their very humanity–the gift of themselves that God has given to them as the ground by which they know, love, and serve God–is evil. It is evil because 1) it thwarts the ability of those who are told that their nature is not God-given to know, love, and serve God and 2) we are called to be thankful, always, for every gift that comes to us from the hand of God.
“The gift to which I am referring to is the gift of being gay.”
This is what they told my Child when my Child sought the wisdom of The Church at the Catholic School my Child attended, that being “gay” was a gift.
The truth is, however, that they lied from the beginning. Where does Christ say that God created heterosexuals and homosexuals but only homosexuals are not called to abide in His Word? God created Men and Women, and all of us are called to be oriented to The Word of Love.
According to Mary Grassa O’Neill, she met with this student’s parents and expressed her concern for the welfare of her Child. We can no for certain if she was concerned about this Child’s welfare if she spoke to this Child’s Parents about her concern regarding the impact the Parent’s lifestyle would have on this Child since they deny The Truth of The Word of God.
As to why everyone at a Catholic School should support the mission of that Catholic School, Sunil, my Prayer is that every Child who seeks the wisdom of The Church receives The Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but The Truth.
and that they will come to know for certain that tolerance is not charity, for Christ clearly stated to the Woman caught in the act of adultery, “Now go, and sin no more.”
Dear Nancy,
Your most basic problem seems to be that you don’t realize that the Church can change its teaching about *anything* in spite of the fact that you KNOW that it has changed about usury, slavery, Protestants and others going to Hell, the Jews being Christ=killers, etc., etc., etc. You keep talking about The Truth. Well, this is the truth: the Church can and does change. True, God’s revelation does not change, but the Church’s interpretations of God’s revelation sometimes does change, whether you want that to be true or not.
Another truth the Church teaches is that we ought not to judge the consciences of other people. It is a sin to do that. If I’m not mistaken, the Church has always taught that (even as it taught that Protestants are going to hell!!!!). If you could only learn that particular truth, you might not feel so terribly threatened by the changes in teaching that are going on in the Church.
Yes, there are conflicting teachings in the Church right now Even Vatican II taught both that we have to follow our consciences *and* we have to agree with Rome about serious matters, even when we truly think Rome is wrong. (I’m convinced that is why some people HATE Vatican II — it upsets them.) That is an obvious contradiction. This is very hard for many people to accept, unless they realize that the history of the Church is to a large extent an effort to discover just what God’s Word really means exactly. (I know you’ll say that we know THE TRUTH, but only God knows THE TRUTH exactly and completely.) It is hard to face the fact that Rome can contradict itself not merely over the long haul but also in the very same instant — right now, for instance. Nevertheless, if we truly believe that this Church of Christ’s is made up of fallible people, we won’t be surprised at that.
There is another basic thing you have to learn: there is no one “the Truth”, unless you are referring to Jesus Himself. There are many, many lesser truths, and you confuse them all the time. That the Church is one is one truth, that it is holy is another, that it is apostolic is another, that Baptism is a great grace is another, Other, lesser truths are that the Vatican is where the pope lives, and Nancy Danielson desperately cares about what is true. There are billions of truths, Nancy. So to talk about “the Truth” except when referring to Christ is, well, sacriligious. You are not identical with “the Truth”. So, cut it out. We must be humble in the face of our human weakness and our own inclination to error. I’m sure God will bless you if you can just consider the possibility that you can be wrong about some teachings of the Church..
Nancy, for generations–for centuries on centuries–the church taught that women were misbegotten males, malicious daughters of Eve who transmitted sin in a unique way and who are particularly prone to sin.
The church taught, in other words, that the very fact of being made female was problematic, that being made a woman was not a gift but a curse, to some degree–an “inclination” to be borne patiently as a cross, in the hope that if one struggled against one’s sin-prone nature as a woman, one just might be saved in the end.
We have, for the most part, finally stopped thinking or talking that way. We now, for the most part, recognize that thinking and talking this way is malicious. We have begun to recognize that this way of thinking and talking is nonsensical.
Why have we made that turn? Because enough women began to speak out, eventually, noting that their God-given nature as women was a gift to them and to the world, and not a cross to be borne patiently.
The church gradually shifted its perspective on women (and needs to continue to do so) because enough women shared their graced experience with the rest of us, and enough of us listened, that a shift began to occur in how we view women and their place in church and world.
All that the church said for centuries about women as misbegotten males and unruly, sin-prone daughters of Eve claimed to be a faithful reflection of the scriptures–just as you claim that your views regarding those who are gay and lesbian is a faithful reflection of the scriptures.
The scriptures are vast, complex, full of contradictions. You can find almost anything you want to find in them. We read them over and over at each liturgy because none of us has yet fathomed all that they offer us, and none of us will ever fathom all that they offer us.
What the Word of God is saying to us now, vis-a-vis any issue, requires careful, respectful dialogue with each other, and the willingness to listen to graced experiences that may not be precisely like our own.
Particularly when the most essential thing of all–love–is at stake.
I gave up long ago trying to argue/dialogue with Nancy, because she’ll just keep coming at you with her Truth from the begining mantra.
I thought the thread – a worthwhile one -was the happening in Boston and the reactions thereto and how the Cardinal will handle it on return from Portugal.
I must say I was disappointed in the interview he gave John Allen from there that was at NCR.
But in his own back yard, he can’t play it so fine where people are now aroused again, not only about this but the denial by the Signatura of appeals to keep Churches in “vigil” open.
Some of those folks saying they’re waiting to be led out in handcuffs.
I note that because it’s part of the long story of how voices from the bottom up get heard and how decisions taken on high really do touch deepl;y into people’s lives.
Now I’ve said my piece and the rest of you can go back to another (endless) argument with Nancy.
My apologies if I have dominated or derailed the conversation, Bob. That wasn’t my intent.
And I agree with you when you say that the Boston story is “part of the long story of how voices from the bottom up get heard and how decisions taken on high really do touch deeply into people’s lives.”
And that this importantpoint deserves attention and further discussion . . . .
Barbara, thanks. I agree with you in this case.
I find it disturbing that the church absolutely condemns abortion to save the life of the mother. I stress the word ‘absolutely’. As you’ve noted, baby is going to die if mother dies. I really wish the church would nuance its official doctrine in such cases, e.g., Rome could consider teaching that while it cannot condone therapeutic abortion in any situation, it is best to leave moral judgment in such cases to God in his wisdom, mercy, and love, that physicians have two patients. It is at this point that I had the lifeboat illustration in mind: Who decides who lives and who dies? If I were an expectant mother, what would I do? Would I, out of fear, decide on abortion? Or would I, mindful of Jesus’ teaching on giving up one’s life for another, decide to continue my pregnancy even if it is guaranteed to kill me — or even my unborn child?
If bishops were forced to personally confront such “life of the mother” cases, perhaps we might not see the automatic excommunications that hierarchs in certain quarters like to trot out before their flocks?
“Now go, and sin no more.”
Nancy quoting Jesus.
However, the Lord also instructed his disciples to forgive without limit.
The act of forgiveness benefits the person doing the forgiving, not necessarily the person being forgiven. It is in truly forgiving that one achieves some sense of peace, of closure.
Jesus was not merely a physician.
He was also a psychologist.
“There is no Scientific evidence that sexual orientation is innate and unchangeable,”
Freudians would say, rightly or wrongly, that it is constructed in early infancy, but they would also say that basic change in sexual orientation is not to be expected.
“nor did Pope Paul VI ever claim that freedom of conscience allowed one to deny The Word of God.”
Quite, but he nonetheless said that objectively immoral acts can be diminished in guilt, inculpable or subjectively defensible.
Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori preaches that gayness is a vocation to love people of your own sex — which I think Freud and Jung also say. This would be a development of Christian teaching in a more positive direction — as has often happened in the past, for instance in the quite recent revaluation of the unitive aspect of sexuality.
To be clear, let us not pretend that when the Catholic Church refers to God’s Revelation regarding His intention for Marriage and The Sacrament of Marriage, that this is called a “Nancy” truth, when you all know we are referring to a Dogma of His Church.
From The Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Dogma: a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church. (In this case The Catholic Church)
Let us also not pretend that “two can become one flesh” without the unitive aspect of sexuality or that we are not aware that in regards to much of what Freud claimed as true, Freud was found to be a fraud.
Nancy –
Who besides you has ever called Freud a “fraud”? He’s been called wrong, even all wrong. But a fraud? Come on.