dotCommonweal

A blog by the magazine's editors and contributors

.

Lesbian couple's child barred from Catholic school

It is the teaching of the church to "avoid every kind of unjust discrimination" against those who are gay or lesbian. "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity," according to The Catechism of the Catholic Church.So I don't see how the Archdiocese of Denver or the pastor of Sacred Heart Church in Boulder, Colorado can justify their decision to bar a pre-schooler from re-enrolling in the parish school because the child has two moms.But defend it, they do. You can read their justifications here and here.Call it what they may, I don't think their decision to discriminate against this child reflects Catholic values.

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

AnnAs for non-Catholic children being accepted in Catholic schools, my experience has been that the parents must sign a document stating that they understand that Catholic practices and values are taught in the school, and they can't complain about it. At least that's how my kid's school handled it.

As an old logic teacher who had to deal constantly with necessary relationships, I suddenly feel the urge to do something creative. I want to name a very common new fallacy, one which appears here quite often. I'll call it "the fallacy of supposing x". To commit this fallacy is to invent possible explanations of historical facts and then assert that the inventions are actually true. First the fallacious thinker makes such assertions as "what if they really meant x", "doesn't it makes sense to suppose that y", and "you'd be naive not to think that z", and then the inventor/ thinker asserts all these pure suppositions are true. Or maybe the fallacy should be called "the fallacy of imagined evidence". In some cases it might also be called "the sin of making things up about somebody".

"If you look through all the news coverage"David--My point exactly.

Sean -- Your kids school sounds like it has a wise administration. Would that this applied to the lesbian couple in Denver.I must admit that given the narrative so far, it is possible that the Denver child was being subjected to bullying. If this was so (I said IF, Ken), then the problem is the bullying (a very common one these days), and not the lesbian parents. But we don't know the whole situation, so we can't judge fairly. If it is a problem with bullying, then why doesn't the pastor say so?

"Now I know youre not arguing in good faith, Mark, unless you were kidding when you said this." Mark, there was a question attached to item 1.--can you answer it?

"there was a question attached to item 1.can you answer it?"My family recently moved to a new town. My daughter had previously been in a very good public school. When we got here, we toured all the school options: public, private, parochial. We were impressed by the way everyone treated each other with respect in the Catholic school, we liked the fact they prayed for each other in the morning, said grace before meals, talked about faith. We liked everything about the place better than the others, even apart from specifically religious education. One would not have to be 100% in agreement with every aspect of Roman Catholic doctrine to believe that was the best school option for our daughter, even if one were not Roman Catholic oneself.As I said in a previous comment, my daughter's school does not downplay its commitment to Roman Catholic teaching, but the teachers are, as far as I can tell, humane and loving -- non-Catholics are not reminded constantly of their differences and, if the issue comes up, I'm sure they deal with it in a pastorally caring way. I assume the same would be true if the issue of gay parents came up. The real subtext of all of this conversation has been that the diocese in Colorado is treating homosexuality differently from other issues because they want to make a political point; they seem to have a higher commitment to being culture warriors than Christian educators.But the upshot of my comment here is that it's not hard for me to imagine parents who are not Roman Catholics choosing in good faith a parochial school for their child because of the other values parochial schools sometimes embody. Maybe they're *not* activists, and they love their child more than they love this debate.

"The real subtext of all of this conversation has been that the diocese in Colorado is treating homosexuality differently from other issues because they want to make a political point; they seem to have a higher commitment to being culture warriors than Christian educators."So, remind me again, who is divining nefarious motives in others?

The Catholic Tea Party scores a hundred posts again with another 'action'. What was the timing of the child's dismissal? Where does A/B Chaput give his next talk? What's next?

There have been many interesting comments here so far, and I want to thank David Nickol for updating with new developments. In starting the thread, I noted that The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls for compassion and sensitivity toward homosexuals. This passage in the Catechism isn't an isolated remark, either, for a similar approach is urged at greater length in a pastoral letter of the U.S. Catholic bishops, by individual bishops and elsewhere in authoritative church teachings. In other words, it doesn't undermine the church teaching on the sanctity of marriage or the objective wrong of sex outside marriage to offer respect and compassion to those who are lesbian or gay. It doesn't undermine these teachings to treat the young child of a lesbian couple with dignity and sensitivity. I don't see that the pastor of Sacred Heart or his boss at the Archdiocese of Denver have come to grips with this aspect of church teaching. How should these different sides of church teaching be weighed?

I don't see any evidence that the pastor or Cardinal treated anyone in an undignified or insensitive manner. Unless, of course, they went to the press with this as part of a cheap publicity stunt. But who here believes that?

Fun fact: the blogroll on the website of the the Boulder pastor lists as its very first link dotCommonweal.http://www.fatherbillsblog.com/heart/

Is there some public and ongoing behavior by a parent that the Church could consider scandalous enough to not permit a child to attend a Catholic school? Anything at all?Sean,Unless I have missed it, the parish and the archdiocese have not approached this as a matter of scandal. The archdiocese does say

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.

However, Catholic schools in the archdiocese accept non-Catholic students, so I am baffled by that statement. The argument they keep coming back to is that it would confuse a student with same-sex parents to be taught in Catholic school that the Church disapproves of homosexual relationships. The child might think the Church is teaching that the parents are "bad." But that is the position of the Church, and they certainly don't hesitate to hammer away at it in the media, where children of same-sex parents can hear it. It simply doesn't make sense to me for the Church, which claims to have the truth, to say that these parents are in error, so the child should be put in a school that accepts same-sex marriage. By the way, speaking of confusion, my mother was Catholic but my father was not. He had been in some obscure Protestant sect, but he never went to church. I remember asking my mother if my father would go to hell. My father didn't "live in accord with Catholic teachings." Perhaps I should not have been allowed to attend Catholic school.Regarding your question about scandal, which I don't think is relevant here, I am having a difficult time imagining a scenario in which the behavior of parents, no matter how notorious, should result in a 5-year-old child not being permitted to attend a Catholic school. If the parents were notorious neo-Nazis (to use your example), and the 5-year-old came to school spewing racist remarks and talking about white supremacy, I would have no problem expelling the child. But as long as the child is well behaved, I don't see why it should be rejected because of the bad behavior of its parents. Suppose the father is a convicted serial killer and is in prison for life. Should his children not be allowed to go to Catholic school? I don't want to give anyone any ideas, but has a bishop ever forbidden a Catholic pro-choice politician to send his or her children to Catholic school?

According to one local paper, the women have been members of the parish for several years; maybe that's why they want to send their son to the school. From the quotes in the local papers, many in their school community actually seem to be pretty supportive of the family. Though other parents in the school must know this family, nowhere in the press have I seen them named, so a lot of people must be protecting the family's privacy. I think these were just two women minding their own business, going to church and raising their child, who have been thrown into a huge public controversy that they neither sought nor desired. People talk a lot about whether this action hurts the child; I find myself feeling really sorry for the mothers. This rejection by their Church has to hurt them deeply.

Mark asks, "So, remind me again, who is divining nefarious motives in others?"A fair cop. You're right. Thanks. But I did answer your question, which was "why would the women voluntarily subject the little girl to a teaching the women were fundamentally opposed to?" To summarize: maybe "Lesbian" isn't all there is to say about them, either as people or as parents, and they love their child and trust the teachers in this school to act lovingly themselves.

PaulI believe you are taking the commitment to treat homosexual people with respect and dignity and expanding it in a way that makes it the equivalent of absolute acceptance of the bahavior. Treating someone with respect and dignity does not always involve accepting his or her behavior has no consequences. In fact, I would argue that ignoring what you believe is objectively sinful is disrespectful. Would it be more respectful and dignified to wait 5 or 6 years and have the child sit through a lecture on the sinfulness of her "parents" behavior? Or is the answer that the Church should just dummy up about that teaching lest they offend someone?

Sean,Let's say there is a married couple in the parish with children in the school. The husband beats his wife. She divorces him, much to the relief of everyone who knows her, and remarries outside the Church. She stops attending Mass, but she wants her children to be raised Catholic, so she leaves them in the school, drops them off at church every Sunday, and so on. Should the children be expelled from school?

In the 80 or so intervening messages since I visited last someone may have mentioned this, but I don't recall anything in the Catechism requiring Catholics to shun children for their parents' sins, however egregious others might perceive them to be (no, not even the sins of famous Nazis, mass murderers, or people who let their dogs bark all night).Nor do I see anything that says an innocent child's presence in the school would bring any sort of scandal on the Church. If this was a publicty stunt, then the policy played directly into its hands. The image of a bishop slamming the door on a small child because her parents are considered sinners and would bring scandal onto the Church is somewhat cringe-making, especially given the way some bishops gave passes to pedophiles in the past.

"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."-------------------------------In the 19th century, when congregations of nuns from Europe were establishing themselves in this country, they supported themselves and their free schools by charging tuition at their "select" schools. They advertized in newspapers for students, assuring non-Catholic parents that their daughters would not be required to attend religion classes or religious services.They were successful at drawing girls from liberal Protestant and Jewish families. (This was one of the reasons Nativists "investigated" and burned convents and poisoned nuns' wells.)Even in the mid-20th century, there were Protestant and Jewish students in schools conducted by women religious. Apparently this has changed, and children from families who do not "live in accord with Catholic teaching" are no longer welcome.

"Treating someone with respect and dignity does not always involve accepting his or her behavior has no consequences. In fact, I would argue that ignoring what you believe is objectively sinful is disrespectful."I strongly agree with this. In that regard, I thought the pastor's dichotomy "loving/obedient" was unfortunate; the archdiocese's policy *is* the loving response to what it is confronted with." Would it be more respectful and dignified to wait 5 or 6 years and have the child sit through a lecture on the sinfulness of her parents behavior? Or is the answer that the Church should just dummy up about that teaching lest they offend someone?"Folks here who are critical of the archdiocese really need to answer these questions.

Catholic schools are usually part of a parish and are ultimately under the direction of the local bishop.Rather than sitting around second-guessing this bishop, I am confident that he properly reviewed the matter and gave it the sort of thoughtful consideration it warranted.Catholic schools are not going to start having Gay Pride days and the Catholic Church is not going to start marrying same-sex couples anytime soon. In fact Catholic schools are not going to even begin hiring same-sex couples anytime soon.And so while Monday morning quarterbacking, second guessing and sneering or looking down sophisticated noses at the bishop and others involved with this decision might make some of us feel superior, in reality it is not productive; a waste of everyone's time.

As Gerelyn mentions Catholic nuns in 'select' schools educated non Catholics in the good old days when Catholic hierarchs stretched themselves so as not to offend in the dominent culture. No one kicked Senator Diane Feinstein [Jewish] out of the Convent of the Sacred Heart [RSCJs]in San Francisco. [paying big tuition helped too]

Re: Catholics and non-Catholics who attend Catholic schools: recall that the line between Catholics and non-Catholics isn't bright. Vatican II taught us that non-Catholic Christians are still in a positive relationship with the church of Christ - they are our brothers and sisters in the faith, even if our communion isn't perfect. The same is true, perhaps to different exents, with Jews, Muslims, and people of other faiths.In that respect, I would expect that the Archdiocese would have the same standards for Catholic parents and non-Catholic parents of children in its schools. The question that is at the core of this dispute isn't denominational affiliation; it is the nature of marriage. And the church bases its understanding of the nature of marriage (e.g. that it is between a man and a woman) on natural law.

Thanks for posting the pastor's blog. Tho, there is not direct bio information, he appears older and experienced. Which means that he was trained by Vincentians at St. Thomas Seminary and has spent his career in the Denver Archdiocese. Keep in mind - Boulder is the home of hi tech, Univ. of Colorado, and very liberal.The two links on his blog may suggest why this has become such an issue - parish and organizational priorities:a) Developmental (or Organizational) PrioritiesHarmonize parish processes with Archdiocesan processes. Identify Archdiocese processes relevant to SHJ and determine where SHJ is not in compliance. Determine required changes in order to bring SHJ into compliance. b) Problem Solving PrioritiesCreate competent and confident Catholics. Identify doubts and questions that separate Catholics from Christ and His Church. Determine and use what motivates people to be confident and competent Catholics to answer the identified doubts and questions. One SHJ parish: English-Spanish-Church-School Review successful examples of integrated communities; assess existing barriers to unity and parish efforts to promote unity. Prioritize next steps in order to celebrate our unity in Christ.These priorities are interesting - they appear to place the highest energy on making sure that the parish/school is in compliance with diocesan rules. No mention of the usual mission of a catholic parish.....gospel values; outreach initiatives; building up sacramental/liturgical experiences; etc.The second bullet, in fact, states that the parish will build up competent and confident catholics able to answer identified doubts/questions. Would suggest that imposing external, administrative laws has nothing to do with building up competent and confident catholics - it is harking back to a triumphalist and child-like structure. In fact, this very situation could have been an excellent experience that showed catholics how to respond to current cultural differences without judgment; living with ambiguity, living with mercy and kindness.The third bullet highlights an excellent priority - how to integrate differences, build up unity, etc. (example - Hispanic) Why can't the cultural gay issue be included in this overall effort?Finally, some of you have mentioned "obedience"; the catechism, etc. Here is a quote that strongly resonates with me and applies to this situation and what a "wise" pastor would have done: The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the ordinariate. This simply makes no sense. The Catechism is a useful if uneven compendium of Catholic teaching. It has little or no authority in itself (as does, for example, a dogmatic constitution of a general council, such as Lumen Gentium or Dei Verbum), but only in the sources or authorities to which it makes reference. It is not a confession of faith, and should not be used as such.

Mark--Yes, you did answer my question and I think you make a plausible case. Nevertheless, I think it's more likely that there was more at work here. I wonder how the press became aware of the story.

Catholic marriages in Church have declined almost 50% in the last two decades. If it wasn't for recent Latino marriages the decline would look even worse. School enrollments are in steep decline. It seems like the 'small remanent' advocates are increasingly noisey and are winning. The silent bishops are the real problem. They are like Toyota managers but without any desire to fix the problem.

DavidLet me ask you this first. Will the mother have cause to object if her children are taught the Church's teaching on marriage?

Let me ask you this first. Will the mother have cause to object if her children are taught the Churchs teaching on marriage?Not unless the school uses the teaching as an excuse to harass or humilate the kid in some way. In any event, let's not forget that we're speaking about a five-year old here. I don't recall being taught about this sort of thing in kindergarden. Of course, now I suppose it will now be a mandatory part of the curriculum.

Catholic schools are not going to start having Gay Pride days and the Catholic Church is not going to start marrying same-sex couples anytime soon. In fact Catholic schools are not going to even begin hiring same-sex couples anytime soon.How can this have any relevance? We're talking about a *five year old child* in kindergarden, for heaven's sake! To drag Church doctrine on marriage and sexuality into this is nothing more than a red herring.

FYI. Reported today that it is actually 2 children in the family- 1 in kindergarten, 1 in preschool; they will be allowed to finish out the year, but can't go back in the Fall.

AntonioKindergarteners grow up. Are you saying it would be OK to make this decision if they were sixth graders? I doubt that. Five year olds can be confused evn if something's not in the curricullum. Even the fact that the children will talk about having two mothers begins a process that confuses a young child if that child's parents are trying to bring him or her up in the faith.Let's be honest. Almost everyone here objecting to the school's action does not believe that the Church should teach that homosexual behavior is sinful. You say the school is fine teach Catholic moral values so long as it doesn't use that as an opportunity to harrass. Unfortunately, I can tell you from personal experience that if you teach a child in religious education certain teachings of the Church whether they are 6 or 16 that will be treated as harrassment.The list is endlessHow dare you teach my son that homosexual behavior is intrinsically disordered, his cousin is gay.How dare you teach my daughter that baptism is necessary for salvation, her favorite aunt is Jewish.How dare you say that a valid marriage cannot be dissolved, my parents are divorced.I walked out of mass when the priest started with all that abortion stuff. How dare he impose his beliefs on me.

I agree Sean.Here is one all-too plausible scenario:1 The school allows the child to enroll.2 The school touches on Church doctrine regarding homosexuality.3 The parents (the lesbian couple in the story) object.4 The school explains its policy and Church doctrine.5 The parents lawyer up and sue for millions.6 The school lawyers up and defends.7 The school looses the first round, and legal costs begin to soar.8 The diocese decides it is simply not worth pursuing appeal, settles with the parents.9 Now strapped for cash and still refusing to bend on Church doctrine regarding homosexuality, the diocese decides it is best to simply close the school, and sell the property to cover debts.10 - Some folks are happy with the result; diversity reigns kingThankfully, this bishop did the right thing by simply declining to engage this couple.

In fact something similar happened with Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts when the MA supreme court mandated the state legislature legalize gay marriage.Soon gay couples wanetd to adopt from the Catholic adotion service.Yada Yada Yada; Now there is no Catholic adoption agency in that state.The adults did not suffer; the orphan children did.Some are happy about that, many are not.

Ken;You forgot to put in death panels.

Ken, it wasn't a big gay conspiracy. Catholic Charities Boston placed several kids with same-sex couples well before the law went into effect. You might want to read up on it:http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/abandoned-children-0

EdKen is absolutely right about adoption here in Massachusetts. It belies the claim that progressives want to live and let live. Catholic Charities has been placing children successfully for generations. Notwithstanding the availability of several non-Catholic agencies, gay rights advocates pressed the issue and drove the Catholic Church out of the adoption business.Why? Are the children better off? Is society some how better off? Are gay people better off? They certainly have no more options than they did before. The point f the exercise was not about any of that, it was about getting what they see as the biggest obstacle to their agenda to knuckle under, pure and simple.That's why stories like this are so frustrating. Is it about children getting an education in a Catholic school, or getting a Catholic school to compromise the Church's moral teaching on marriage? I know I would not enroll my children in a fundamentalist school, so why do people with such a profound disagreement with the church want to do this? Is their goal to get a Catholic education or to change a Catholic education?

GrantYes, of the thousands of adoptions, a handful involved gay parents. I know from people who are involved with the archdiocese that many, indeed most of them, were made by social workers who knew they were doing so against archdiocese policy, and that some were permitted because of extraordinary circumstances. It was never the policy of the archdiocese to treat them as routine.The law which was pushed by gay rights advocates brought this to light, and when the archbishop sought a religious conscience exception it was gay rights advocates who fought tooth and nail to prevent it. So, you are right. It was no conspiracy, it was open hostility.

Ken et whomever:If Catholic adoption agencies can't abide by legally defined non-discrimination rules, then, in the a paraphrase of the words from Blazing Saddles, Catholic adoption agencies? Catholic adoption agencies! We don't need no stinkin' Catholic adoption agencies! **** The quote from The Treasure of The Sierra Madre was actually this: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"

Sean, in all reality, children are unaffected, unless Massachusetts faced a shortage of secular or non-Catholic adoption agencies. Urban Catholic schools have hundreds of thousands of students who are taught at some level that their unwed birth was not consistent with Catholic norms, that their mothers' personal lives are disordered and aberrant, and yet, I have never heard public complaints from parents who send their kids to those schools, although I assume that is one reason why they avail themselves of reasonable alternatives (charter schools) when they become available. You are engaging in rank speculation of what might happen in a worst case scenario, apparently forgetting that most non-Catholics are pretty well aware of distinctive Catholic positions when they send their children to Catholic school, and are ready to adjust or make the necessary trade offs. In so many ways, gays are made the scapegoat for what is seen as erosion in moral norms because they are visible and not well-protected. When Abp. Chaput orders schools to investigate the annulment status of remarried parents of schoolchildren and throw out those whose parents are living in sin, I will give him credit for standing on principle.

"I know I would not enroll my children in a fundamentalist school, so why do people with such a profound disagreement with the church want to do this? Is their goal to get a Catholic education or to change a Catholic education?" That's a good question. But the issue isn't about the parents not choosing a school run by a Church that considers their lifestyle a sin. It's about throwing out a child, presumeably not in a state of sin, because of the sin of the parents involved.As an administrator, my first move would be to take the parents aside, provide information about Church teaching re homosexuality, explain when sexual morality might be discussed in the school curriculum, and ask them to consider whether the school is right for their child.Perhaps this step was already taken. Should it follow, though, that the diocese should kick out the child for the sins of its parents? For me, that's still the essential question in this incident. And the larger question is what is the purpose of a Catholic education? Do we want to keep our children separate from the corrupting influences of secular society in their formative years? Or do we want to welcome all children and see whether the kindness they are shown in school might bring them to the Church door one day? Perhaps it's not a case of either/or and someone could make that case.

So, Sean, you have sources, do you? What do you mean, they are "involved with the archdiocese"? In what way? As employees? In what department do they work? How long have they worked for the archdiocese? Did they at the time of the controversy? Can you provide any more information to help the reader evaluate the motives of your sources? Read the editorial, Sean.

Sean leads us down the slippery slope: "The list is endless... How dare you teach my daughter that baptism is necessary for salvation, her favorite aunt is Jewish." But non-Catholics have been in Catholic schools for years without being hobbled by this argument, so why must we assume they'd fly down this slippery slope with gay parents? This own argument makes the case against itself.

We live in a Time when the definition of Person has become so manipulated that we deny that a Human Fetus is in fact a Human Individual endowed by our Creator with the fundamental Right to Life, and claim that "homosexuality" refers to Personhood rather than sexual relationship or sexual preference, in order to make it appear that we are discriminating against a Person rather than a sexual relationship that does not respect the Dignity of the Human Person. Only through Christ, can we know the essence of Love.

Let me ask you this first. Will the mother have cause to object if her children are taught the Churchs teaching on marriage?Sean,Of course not.

This thread is truly depressing.I remember watching Ted Olson on Bil Moyers trying to get an answer as to how civil gay unions undermine the Church's understanding of marriage to its members.I think the Boulder issue to most minds is just a hardball attempt to buttress in civil law a theological understanding of our Church and I think that works back against us.Especially the use of children.I especially find the views of Sean and Mark to be problematic in that they want everyone to be living examples of their view of what catholicism is - the smaller purer Church supported by hardball.That's not far from the name of the game in some quartersMuscular Christiainity?I can understand the reaction of Joe J. earleir and of those who walk away from that kind of pretense.My last thought: people are drawn to and remain faithful to the gospel if they see the loving hand of Jesus as He acted in this old imperfect world.The likes of the Boulder pastor and his Archbishop are not in tune with that..

Sean Hannaway: Treating someone with respect and dignity does not always involve accepting his or her behavior has no consequences. In fact, I would argue that ignoring what you believe is objectively sinful is disrespectful.Jim Pauwels: Folks here who are critical of the archdiocese really need to answer these questions.Jim,I don't call it treating someone with respect and dignity for the pastor or the archdiocese to tell the parents Catholic school will teach their children something that they (the parents) aren't going to like, so in order to protect the children, they can't return to the school. Treating the parents with respect and dignity would be saying -- if anything needs to be said at all -- "We just want you to be aware that as a Catholic school, we cannot avoid issues in the classroom that might conflict with what your children are taught at home and might be uncomfortable for them." Then let the parents make the decision whether their children will be "confused." As I have said before, I am utterly bewildered by the Catholic Church saying, "If your children are in our school, we will teach them the truth, so in order to protect them, we are not letting them back in the school."

"I especially find the views of Sean and Mark to be problematic in that they want everyone to be living examples of their view of what catholicism is"Bob--Assuming I'm the Mark you're referring to, I find that statements like this have no real meaning. Don't you have your own view of true Catholic teaching, and don't you want to convince others of the rightness of your view?

"As I have said before, I am utterly bewildered by the Catholic Church saying, If your children are in our school, we will teach them the truth, so in order to protect them, we are not letting them back in the school."Ok; but I don't suppose that is the primary reason that these parents have run afoul of the archdiocese's policy.Click on the link in the original post to the archdiocese's statement (the first "here"). The first two sentences explain, briefly, why these children can't be permitted to attend the school. It says nothing about confusing the children. What it does say is that a Catholic school constitutes a community of faith; and the families who belong to that school are expected to abide by the norms of that community. For a public school, that might seem an unreasonable expectation, but for a private school it seems very much par for the course. I'm certain that the Catholic high school I attended had similar expectations. That is usually why private schools exist - to reinforce values and norms that are important to the community that supports it.

Archbishop Chaput's piece, which Nancy Danielson links to, does nothing but repeat the same arguments.

Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply cant be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents. That isnt fair to anyoneincluding the wider school community. Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will. They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.

My father was not a Catholic, and no one in the Catholic schools I went to ever seemed concerned about teaching me the Catholic Church was the "One True Church." I remember asking my mother, when I was in early grade school, if my father was going to hell when he died.I don't understand why Archbishop Chaput is so deeply concerned that children of same-sex parents might hear things at school that "confuse" them. The Catholic Church certainly doesn't hesitate to condemn same-sex marriage in the strongest terms, call homosexual acts "depraved" and "intrinsically disordered," and campaign against same-sex marriage in the public forum. Why are these people so squeamish about teaching the same thing in Catholic schools?

The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves.

The pretense that the Church's policies are to protect the delicate sensibilities of homosexual couples and their children is nonsense. The Church with it's harsh language and anti-homosexual campaigns wounds gay people, their families, and their friends continuously. If they believe they are right and doing God's work, then of course they have no choice but to continue. But the Church that tells same-sex couples and their families that homosexual acts are acts of "grave depravity" and are "intrinsically disordered" shouldn't turn around and claim they don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or give children the idea that they are saying their gay parents are "bad."

The Church does not claim that people with a homosexual orientation are bad, or that their children are less loved by God. Quite the opposite.

This would seem to mean that the children of same-sex couples are more loved by God, if I understand the concept of opposite.

The first two sentences explain, briefly, why these children cant be permitted to attend the school. It says nothing about confusing the children.Jim,The sentences you refer me to say

A principal reason parents place their children in Archdiocese of Denver Schools is to reinforce the Catholic beliefs and values that the family seeks to live at home. 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.

So why do the Catholic schools admit non-Catholics? Are the non-Catholics expected to live in accord with Catholic teachings? No one has answered the question about the divorced and remarried, either Catholic or non-Catholic. If a non-Catholic parent with children in a Catholic school gets divorced and remarries, are the kids asked not to come back to the school?

Pages