A Cardinal, a child of gay parents, and the power of narrative
Cardinal Sean O’Malley, having returned stateside from a trip to Fatima with the pope, on Wednesday wrote a blog post reaffirming the decision by his Boston archdiocese to welcome to a Catholic school the 8-year-old son of lesbian parents. The pastor of a Hingham parish and parochial school, Father James Rafferty, last week had rescinded the boy’s enrollment for the third grade in September, citing the status of his mothers’ relationship, the good of the child, and the difficulty his presence would have created for the school — as detailed in our earlier post.
School and archdiocesan officials, with O’Malley’s long-distance blessing, said the pastor’s decision was not in accord with archdiocesan policy and said they would find another school for the child.
Now back in Boston, O’Malley in his follow-up blog post praised Father Rafferty, saying he was doing what he thought best for the child and that he is “one of our finest pastors.” And he noted that Archbishop Chaput of Denver made a quite different decision of his own under similar circumstances last March, and that the “positions and rationale [of Chaput and the Denver archdiocese] must be seriously considered.”
But he also seemed clear on his own view, which is markedly different:
“Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that,” he wrote. “We have never had categories of people who were excluded.”
What struck me, however, was the story O’Malley recounted at the top of his column to illustrate his view of the situation — the kind of episode that I have heard him tell on the handful of occasions I have heard him preach:
As a young bishop in the West Indies I once celebrated a memorial Mass for a local “madame” who ran a brothel near my Cathedral. It was said she smuggled women in from other islands in oil barrels for her business. Some women suffocated in the crossing. She herself was murdered by her lover.
At the Mass I met the woman’s daughter, a lovely little girl. I asked her what grade she was in. She replied that she didn’t go to school. I sent a stern glance to her grandmother, who said: “Her name is the same as that of the brothel. The other children were so cruel to her, she left the public school.” I told her grandmother, “Take her to the Catholic school tomorrow.”
Nothing like the power of a story, and a willingness to let such human experience inform one’s decisions.
Thanks for retelling that. Powerful.
Thanks David, it is a story which stands in stark contrast to Lisa Fullam’s previous post “And Here We Go Again”. We are a Church of such contrasts.
Jesus did not think in terms of abstractions but in terms of human welfare — he healed on the sabbath, consorted with prostitutes, etc. The best bishops reflect this primacy, even though it is likely to get them into trouble with church and civil law.
Great story by Cardinal O’Malley. Well said, well handled.
Thanks for sharing
Since it’s late, I’m just going to quote my own post in a similar thread over on America rather than writing something new:
David Nickol, well spotted. The whole discourse paints lesbian couples into the category of “sinners”, and the cardinal has not shown the humility or honesty of suggesting that this couple have made moral choices as distinguished as his own.
FWIW, I took the story to refer generically to any parental behavior not sanctioned by the Church.
The pastor put O’Malley in a tough spot. (Wonder where he got the idea…) By not seeking permission before enacting his own personal Chaput Policy, he forced O’Malley either to throw him under a bus, possibly earning the ire of other priests, or to compromise. Still, as others have pointed out, one would think that in a hierarchical church a bishop could order a priest not to violate the policies of the diocese.
How sad that no one who knew about the young girl and the lifestyle she was subjected to by her mother’s behavior intervened on her behalf and removed her from the situation before her mother’s death.
“It just doesn’t make any sense to me that the Church would baptize children and then deny them a Catholic education?”
It doesn’t make any sense to me that a parent would claim that they desire a Catholic education for their child and then refuse to support the Catholic mission of the Catholic School.
I continue to grow more and more unhappy with the phrase “throw under the bus.” for at times substantive criticism.
The beginning of the Cardinals’ post shows some insight into pastoral considerations (he should share that with Bishop Olmstead et al.) but he doesn’t want to tread on anyone’s toes in the Church establishment either.
In my view, that’s called having it both ways.
I mentioned previously that the Allen interview with the Cardinal in Portugal disappointed me. particulalry troubling was his commentray on the vistatio nof American nuns – another put a best face on and don’t criticize the establishment approach.
While I think he’s genuinely well intentioned and has real concern for his flock, he’s also trapped by the loyalty/obedience system that generates many problems within the Church
What’s your problem with “throw him under a bus,” exactly? “Publicly rebuke” better? What’s the difference? What do you think I’ve elided?
Sorry – agree with Mr. Gallicho. Tired of the continued old boys network and Romanita – let’s not step on any toes even if those toes are blackened by bad decisions, ignorance, arrogance, etc. That is why we are facing the sex abuse crisis….need more adult conversation from our bishops; disagreements happen; the Sodano’s, Chaput’s, Olmsted’s, Morlino’s of this world need to be publicly questionned. Need more of Diarmuind Martin and Cardinal Schonborn.
Secrey; never breaking the clerical bonds, defensiveness – games for little boys.
Without hoping top be tedious, I think “throw under the bus” means “dump” “get rid of” and is often used facilely today..
I’ve heard from several friends in the Boston area who know Fr. Rafferty, have great respect for him, but think he was dead wrong and deserved to be criticized publicly, not have his actions glossed over. I thought that was a good read.
If you want to call that “public rebuke,” OK.
I’m glad the Cardinal weighed in on the side of the child rather than the priest. We need more of that.
Again, the Church is called to be “inclusive”, not “exclusive” – it is all about acting charitably – teach, preach, and then let God’s grace go to work.
Mark Silk’s post on this is well worth reading:
http://www.spiritual-politics.org/2010/05/oil_of_omalley.html
Is the Pastor of St. Paul, Hingham, also planning to refuse the children of parents in irregular marriages? Of non-Catholic Christians who, one imagines, do not follow Catholic teachings in their lives? Of non-Christian parents whose religious practices are, perhaps, opposed to the teaching of the Church? Of unmarried parents?
That the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston equates the madam of a brothel and a couple in a committed and lovling relationship is problematic for this “senior” Catholic. If the Pastor of St. Paul’s is one of the best, most compassionate, etc., etc., etc. of the priests of the Archdiocese of Boston, may God help the Faithful of the Church of Boston.
This evening I saw Mr. Doyle (of some pro-Catholic group) on NECN. I do not know his age. He suggested that non-Catholic children were routinely enrolled in parochial schools “back in the day”. Well, in my day in Boston parochial schools (1954-1966) there were not enough seats for children who were members of the parish – even with 50 children in each classroom, there was not enough room for every Catholic child to attend the parish school.
God help us.
Is the child actually registered in another Archdiocesan school. I don’t detect that from the O’Malley post; it is a statement in principle about the good of the child, but where does it say another school has accepted the child and the family will place the child there? Am I missing something?
Couple of points:
I haven’t read anything about the child being enrolled in another Catholic school, only that the parents were open to the idea and archdiocesan officials would work to make that happen. If anyone has other information, do pass it along.
Re David Nickol’s comment early on about O’Malley’s statement: “Are we to see some moral equivalence here between that woman and the same-sex parents of child attending St. Paul School?”
I didn’t take him to mean that at all, though I can see how some, esp gays and lesbians, might not take it that way. Rather than making an analogy I think he was using the extreme to point up the daily failures of us all. Much as if someone would say to me, “Let he who is without guilt cast the first stone,” I don’t take them to be accusing me of serial adultery.
I think it a bit much to demand that the cardinal sanction same-sex unions, or approve of divorce or cohabitation or out of wedlock births or any of the other things that parents of schoolchildren may have done. I think he was trying to make the point — and effectively addressing a homophobic element that indeed can see same-sex marriage as equivalent to the most heinous crimes — that it doesn’t matter what you think of parents or what their real or perceived sins are. The kids don’t get punished for it.
As for his approach to Father Rafferty, that seems like an effort to be generous and charitable. From what I’ve heard, the pastor is well-respected and it seems he made a mistake, if only from the point of view of not following company policy. I don’t see a need to cast him into outer darkness. The blowback against his decision from church officials has been pretty strong and clear.
And O’Malley didn’t seem to pick a fight with Chaput; he just said Chaput did what he did, I’m doing what I’m doing. It doesn;t get much clearer than that in my book. I think O’Malley’s style, as a Capuchin, is to stress pastoral action rather than dogfights. Besides, not every bishop can be a flamethrower, nor should they be. That kind of thing can be self-indulgent, in my view — you satisfy your own ego but you effect no change whatsoever on behalf of those who need care, like the boy in this case and his parents.
I read O’Malley’s statement as David did. But there’s a head of steam building over at Catholic Democrats that takes the view that O’Malley caved to the Chaput view. That’s why I asked my question.
I hadn’t seen that debate, thanks. I’ll check it out. I was told O’Malley signed off on the initial statements from the schools superintendent, for example, but perhaps there is a rowback going on. Stay tuned. Alas.
Fyi: http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/05/20/omalley_post_cites_good_of_the_child/
http://www.thebostonpilot.com/article2.asp?ID=11825&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
A lot of cross winds apparently!!!!
It is weird. If O’Malley reverses himself I have to believe he’ll have and even bigger problem on his hands.
Perhaps symptomatic of a lot of confusion on these emerging issues — baptizing children of gay parents is a similar one. And of course they’ll let pastors on the ground take the first rounds of incoming fire…
To wit: From the Pilot story:
Father Frank Daley, pastor of Sts. Martha and Mary Parish in Lakeville and a close friend of Father Rafferty, said that the Hingham priest has received numerous phone calls both supporting and criticizing his decision. Since the incident occurred, Father Rafferty has declined media interviews and referred all inquiries to the archdiocese.
“He is very upset by the whole situation. It’s been a tough week and a half,” Father Daley said.
“I think it is a very unfortunate situation,” he also said. “He is trying to run a Catholic school and uphold the teachings of the Church and the morality of the Church.”
We all know pastors who would take the boy in the parish school, but would that cause a fire storm too? Father ABC defies church teaching!! by accepting child of same-sex parents. The church has usually been pretty good at articulating its principles while modifying or ignoring them for pastoral purposes. The blog-o-sphere and the media make that much more difficult.
Have the parents made any statement about their intentions? And/or do we know what the immediate cause of Fr. Rafferty’s decision? I’m traveling and haven’t seen anything, but Commonweal.org seems to be everywhere on the penumbra!!!!
This thread seems to have died, but there’s lots of chatter on the internet today that cardinal O’Malley will shortly make a statement on it.
Meanwhile, what does one make of the USCCB letter to Congress on ENDA (Employment Non-dicrimination Act?)