Yesterday Ed Peters, Mark Brumley, I, and another had an e-mail conversation about the situation of a Catholic school in Orange County, California that has admitted the children of two homosexual "fathers" to its kindergarten. This prompted outrage parents to demand that the situation be recitifed. The school has refused, and the parents are appealing to the Vatican. School officials, as well as William Donohue of the Catholic League have defended the school’s position, arguing that taking a different one would lead to not allowing children into the school whose parents are divorced or contracepting.
ED HAS NOW BLOGGED HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS ON THE SITUATION.
UPDATE: MARK BRUMLEY HAS ALSO PUT UP HIS EXCELLENT THOUGHTS.
Here are my thoughts (edited from our e-mail conversation):
- Though I have been unable to verify this online, part of my memory is
telling me that the school has allowed one of the "fathers" to have a
role caring for the kindergarten class. I don’t know if that’s the case,
but it’s a situation that may arise in some school, so let’s consider it
for theoretical purposes.
- As Ed points out, there seems to be a spectrum of progressively more
disordered situations here. I would construct the spectrum along the
following lines:
- Children of normal parents living in accord with Church teaching.
- Children of parents who formerly did not live according to Church
teaching but who presently are.
- Children of parents who are divorced and not remarried.
- Children of parents who are secretly contracepting.
- Children of parents who make no secret of the fact that they are
contracepting or that they hold other opinions at variance with Church
teaching.
- Children of parents who are divorced and invalidly remarried.
- Children of parents who are not married.
- Children of parents who are divorced and now cohabiting with another.
- Children of homosexual "parents."
- Children of homosexual "parents" whose "parents" take a public role
in the life of the class.
- The primary purpose of a Catholic school is to provide a quality
Catholic education for all of its students collectively. This means
that there would be rational grounds, even in the absence of a mandate
from the Vatican, for the school to establish policies against anything
that would substantially interfere with the ability of the school to
fulfill its primary purpose.
- A quality Catholic education will involve not only imparting
information to students but also shielding them from certain realities
of life until they are cognitively and morally prepared to come to terms
with them. This includes preserving the sexual innocence of young children and
shielding them from knowledge of same-sex unions.
- Though in no case is the disordered situation of his parents the fault of the child, some of the situations on the spectrum above would clearly seem to
pose a challenge to the school’s ability to provide a quality Catholic
education for all its students. Somewhere between item #1 and item #10
on the spectrum, a line must be drawn.
- Where this line is to be drawn, in the absence of a mandate from the
Vatican, would seem to be a prudential decision best made by those in
charge of the school (including the bishop, especially if it is a
diocesan school) in consultation with the parents whose children will be
affected by the impact of the decision.
- It would seem that there are several places where the line could
rationally be drawn:
a) Since items #1-#3 do not involve situations in which parents are
violating Church teaching, they seem to all be permissible situations in which to admit the children to the school.
b) With item #4, an occult sin is introduced but, since it is occult, it
would not seem to pose any impediment to the school being able to
fulfill its mission.
c) With item #5, a rational case could be made if a school wished to
adopt a strict line to protect the children it serves, as the parents’
open dissent could pose an impediment to the school’s ability to
fulfill its mission. However, prudence makes one wonder the extent to
which the children of the school would even be aware of the parents’
dissent. Unless they are unusually obnoxious public activists, their
dissent is more likely to be known to other parents but not to the
children of the school.
d) Lines also could be drawn with even greater basis anywhere among
items #6-#8, as each of these involves a more obviously disordered
situation. However, the question must still be raised of the extent to
which the children of the school–apart from the children of the parents
in question–would be aware of the situation. The condition of the
parents might not be sufficiently known among the student body to
impeding the school in fulfillings its mission. Especially in schools
with young students, parents in these conditions might be perceived by
the children simply as the mommy and daddy of a student and presumed to
be married in accord with Church teaching.
e) A line most emphatically could be drawn before item #9, as the
introduction of a student who has "two mommies" or "two daddies" is
almost certainly to come to the attention of the children and create a
significant impediment to the school fulfilling its mission.
f) A line absolutely must be drawn before item #10. The introduction of
one or both of the homosexual "parents" into the life of the class is certain to fixate the
attention of the students on the situation and dramatically amplify the
impediment to the school’s mission.
Jimmy – good analysis. I must agree with you, and I think that William Donahue has not sufficiently thought through his own response. The very PUBLIC nature of homosexual ‘parents’ makes it a unique sin, and their affiliation with a Catholic school, even the relatively loose affiliation of simply having children enrolled, would be an obvious source of scandal, particularly to young minds not accustomed to drawing delicate distinctions.
One question that, so far, remains unanswered in this sordid affair: why in the world would said homosexual ‘parent’ want this boy to be educated in a Catholic school? I can think of only three explanations:
1. They know that the school will not teach their children the Church’s moral teachings regarding the intrinsic evil of homosexual relations. In short, the school is heterodox and they know it.
2. They want to challenge the Church on its teachings on homosexuality and are using this young boy (their ‘son’) to do it, well aware of the publicity and fawning by liberal dissenters that will result.
3. They think that the students in the school are too young to receive instruction on the Church’s moral teaching on sexuality, and so it won’t be an issue.
I agree with your analysis of the situation.
Well said.
I completely agree with your analysis, and you are absolutely correct about homeschooling being the way to go. I pulled my kids out of the local Catholic school for many reasons, but when I overheard two of the teachers discussing their shock and dismay over some parents being pregnant “again”, and “don’t they know how to avoid that?” kind of talk made me realize that the culture of death, contraception, and “tolerance” flows too freely, even in the Catholic schools. Parents have to be the ones influencing and educating their kiddos.
This analysis becomes difficult, because society has set up laws for the care of children that are in complete opposition to Church teaching. The perversion is the treatment of children as property.
At this age, I must disagree with the predominant view. There is no way to treat a child of this age independent of his custodian. This child has no free will or independent faculty. He will assume the values and attitudes of his parents. The presense of these values amongst similarily unformed children will be detrimental.
Is this fair to the child? Obviously not, but that injustice lies with society and his parents. There is hope for the child, but not at this age.
To me, this topic brings up the larger question: What is the role of “tolerance” in the Church?
Practically every other Sunday, I hear a homily on tolerance. After three years, I have yet to hear a homily on Humanae Vitae.
As far as excluding children of divorced and invalidly married couples, that would have excluded me. My Catholicism is almost entirely school-learned. You’d have preferred me formed by my lapsed Catholic mother’s superstitions? In point of fact, I was humiliated by the vice-principal over my parents’ situation when registering at a Catholic high school back in the ’50s. I kept the circumstances a tight secret from my classmates but was painfully aware from childhod that the Church considered me damaged goods.
The Church does not consider you “damaged goods” in any way! Your parents’ situation was not your fault in the least.
I also wouldn’t have excluded you from school.
Anon,
I would have been placed in the same situation. I did attend public schools though. At the age of reason (which was when the vice principal chastized your parents’ situation) is an appropriate time to allow youth that will assent to church teachings into Catholic schools.
Now, should schools be able to except children from these norms that I propose? Yes. This would require prudential judgement that institutions seem to lack.
When one parent is Catholic, the child should be allowed, because by baptism, the Church is stating her confidence the child will be raised Catholic.
After three years, I have yet to hear a homily on Humanae Vitae.
Just three? Try thirty!!
I am a long-term catechist at my parish and am about to face this issue directly. A boy adopted by two men will be old enough for catechesis next year and will likely be enrolled in my class…I am really struggling with how to handle the situation. It seems that accomodating it is my only real choice, as the priests are supportive of the family. If I leave in protest, I am neglecting the other children and walking away from years of work that I truly love. If I stay and pretend all is normal, I feel as it I am cooperating with a serious evil…an evil that is harming this boy and other children. Perhaps you could give me some advice, or refer me to an advisor who could help. I am really unsure of the right path.
Will do. Lemme study on this a bit and I’ll put up a post on it in the next couple of days.
The boy is a human person put in front of the school. How do we respond to him?
The parents’ motives may not be pure, but should that change how the school should respond to the child before it?
I say no. Regardless of the parents motives, the school should see it as a moment of grace.
Gay Parents are a Bad Influence…
UPDATE: A big round of thanks to Jeff Miller from The Curt Jester for turning me on to this post on JimmyAkin.org. It deserves a read.
Suffer the little ones
Way to go relapsed catholic! Kathy Shaidle picked up this story in the LA Times (registration required and bug-me-not doesn’t work) With Canada’s gay marriage bill just days away from becoming law, the country’s top Catholic leader has warned that the …
Suffer the little ones
Way to go relapsed catholic! Kathy Shaidle picked up this story in the LA Times (registration required and bug-me-not doesn’t work) With Canada’s gay marriage bill just days away from becoming law, the country’s top Catholic leader has warned that the …