Category: +Religion

First, I want to thank everyone who commented in the second of the gay "parents" comment threads. Some of y’all made truly outstanding points while I was at work–so much so that I was tempted not to do a reader roundup, y’all had done such a great job. I’d like to quote and praise you all individually, but then this post would go on for so long that nobody would read it and would miss the praise anyway, so I hope a generic, up-front collective "Kudos!" will do. 🙂

Now . . .

Down yonder, readers write:

READER A: So long as the kids’ parents agree to keep their sexuality out of
the classroom (i.e. only have one of them be seen publicly with the kid
on campus), then I don’t see where they should be penalized.

I think that we agree here that if the homosexuality of the "parents" was something that could be kept out of the classroom, so that the only child being harmed by knowledge of it was the child in question, then this would fall into the area of a covert sin that does not pose a scandal to the other children in the school. Under those (magical) circumstances, I wouldn’t be opposed to letting the kid in the class.

As other readers are about to point out, there are virtually insuperable problems with the idea of keeping this a secret among a class of five year olds. I would add the further point that, so far as I can tell, it seems to be obviously not happening in this school. The homosexuals, so far as I know, are making no secret of their relationship to each other, and the kids are aware of it. (Though if I am wrong on this point, I invite correction from those in a position to know.)

READER B: How could you possibly enforce such a requirement? Would it even be
legal for the school to ask the parents to abide by such a requirement.
I can just see the ACLU jumping on that one.

Even if the parents aren’t seen, as Jimmy points out, the face will
come out as part of the natural interactions between children of this
age during talk about their ‘family’. How do you prevent that? Ask the
child to agree to not talk about it?

I don’t know if this would be illegal or not. Perhaps some of the Southern Appeal lawyer folk who read the blog could tell us that. I totally agree, however, that even if the parents tried to keep their status a secret, it would fail. Five year olds are nowhere near tight lipped enough to reliably keep something like that to themselves, and they’re going to be asking questions about each others mommies that would, even if the kid could keep his second daddy a secret, put him in the proximate occasion of the sin of lying.

READER C: But, the line still has to be drawn somewhere. I mean, is it only
gay and nudist parents that cannot have their children attend Catholic
schooling? What about divorced and remarried Catholics kids…I could
just as easily see one become an apologist for divorce in the classroom
as for homosexual activity? Or how about the child who’s father is
addicted to pornography…couldn’t you see a child say, "My daddy looks
at pictures like that all the time and mommy says it is OK since he is
just looking"? I think I agree with you, Jimmy, but how are we to draw
the line here? Or are we just reacting this way because it is a hot
button issue while divorce and remarriage is now commonplace (although
destructive and scandalous as well)?

I agree that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and the place I would tend to draw it is: any sin that kids of a particular age shouldn’t know about and that would have a high probability of coming to their attention. Homosexual "parents" clearly falls over that line. So does public nudism. So do polygamous relationships (not serial polygamy; I mean the real deal).

I wouldn’t put private use of pornography, as tragic as that is, in the same category, or divorce and remarriage without annulment. Those sins are not nearly as likely to come to the attention of the children in the class. If, however, the parents were of a mind to make these sins known to the children of the class (e.g., by bringing pornography to get-to-know-Billy’s-father day or complaining at parent-child gatherings about the Church’s oppressive annulment requirement that keeps them from really being married in the Church’s eyes) then I would put them over the line.

READER D: The presence of a nudist in front of a class of kindergarten-aged
children necessarily calls attention to itself in a way that the
presence of a homosexual may not. Unless you are prepared to define
some physical characteristics that are endemic to homosexuality I fail
to see how your analogy can be carried much further.

I agree. The analogy was deliberately more extreme than the homosexual "parents" situation in order to show that there are at least some situations in which the child must have his religious education taken care of in another manner. After establishing that point, it could be argued whether homosexuality is one such situation.

MORE D: Let’s consider another analogy. Suppose we have a child that has
been born out of wedlock and is at present only being taken care of by
his mother. The situation of a child having no daddy is just as likely
to become apparent to the rest of the student body as the case of a
child having two. So should this child also be denied admission?

No. The "no daddy" situation is common throughout history. Often fathers get killed or die of an illness or vanish for other reasons that are incomprehensible to young children. It’s sad, but it doesn’t pose a moral scandal to the kids under most circumstances. The odds of young kids becoming aware that Billy’s parents weren’t married at the time he was born are low.

READER E (RESPONDING TO READER C): Unfortunately divorce is commonplace and children will likely be
exposed to it no matter what the school policy is. Kids likeley can
simply no longer be shielded form this (with a 50% divorce rates even
among Catholics, it’s likely 1/2 the kids in the school have divorced
parents). Fortunately, Homosexual Unions are not yet so widespread that
this is the case. Children still can be shielded from this and should
be. Under what you seem to be saying, because we can’t shield the from
everything, we shouldn’t shield them from anything. Does that seem
right? We (and the school in question) should do what we can, all the
time realizing that we live in an imperfect world were our ability to
do so will be limited by the sinful nature of all and that the lines we
attempt to draw won’t be perfect.

Excellent point. We cannot allow the facts that we (a) can’t shield kids from all dangers and (b) can’t draw lines perfectly to deter us from drawing reasonable lines to shield kids from what we can protect them from. Put it another way: Just because I can’t keep all dangerous objects away from Billy all the time, that’s no reason I shouldn’t keep the gun cabinet locked.

READER F: You are going to run across many, many situations you have not
already considered here that is going to occur in a school situation
with various kids who have various backgrounds. And I am speaking as an
educator who has taught in the public school system for 6 years and
taught and volunteered in a Catholic school for 3 years. All I can say
is homeschooling is now the only option for us.

Reader F, you deserve an "A"! Both the public and Catholic school systems are so problematic that (barring special circumstances) I view homeschooling as the strongly preferred option for my family, should I have one.

READER G: Also, don’t leave the "parents" out in the cold. Remember that, "God
scourges everyone whom he loves". Use this as a point of instruction to
bring *all* of the parents into line with the gospel rather than
singling out a parent that lives at the cultural fringe.

Yes, and preaching the gospel to individuals can involve excluding them from the society of the Church in order to awaken them to the dimensions of their sins. This is the point of the penalty of excommunication, for example, and St. Paul is very firm on this in 1 Corinthians. It’s a "tough love" approach, but sometimes it is necessary. One harms not only the children in the school but the homosexual "parents" as well if one communicates to them that their behavior is acceptable, or even tolerable, in the Catholic community.

MORE G: Remember that we all have absolute moral freedom. Nothing is
preventing these parents, all of them, from changing; nothing but
themselves.

I’d be a little careful, here. The homosexual "parents" can certainly split up and lead chaste lives, though they may or may not be able to get shed of their same-sex attractions.

READER D AGAIN: The thing about this case that I find especially galling is the
attempt to establish homosexuality as a special sin deserving of unique
consequences in a way that other sexual sins are not.

This is not about the sexual activity of the same-sex couple. It
can’t be because they have declined to make any public comment and
their personal situation is not known. Their apologetical moment came
and they declined it. Nevertheless their reticence is still not good
enough. After all, they are homosexuals. It’s not about what they do,
it’s about what they are.

It isn’t about what they are. It isn’t even about their private sinful behavior. It’s about what they are doing publicly, which is to present themselves to the world as "parents" and try to inject themselves into the life of a school at an age-level where children should not know about these matters and will inevitably learn about them.
Also, as the above indicates, there are other sexual sins that have a similar public dimension (full-time nudity, simultaneous polygamy) that would be similarly problematic, so this isn’t singling out homosexuality. Any sin that would pose a scandal to the kids would fall on the other side of the line to my mind.

A reader writes:

Dear Mr. AikinAkin (spell it "Aikin" and you won’t be able to get to the blog 😉 –

With the greatest respect and appreciation for everything that you do for the Catholic Faith and evangelization,

Thanks! I appreciate the compliment!

I respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding the Orange County school that has children with homosexual "parents." 

Okay. I operate on the principle that not everybody has to agree with me.

Please keep in mind that I can’t remember a time where I have ever previously disagreed with you.  Also keep in mind that I am a "conservative" Catholic that attempts to follow the Magisterium teaching completely without exception.   I am in avid opposition to same-sex unions or marriage and I have been active in my diocese prodding pastors to speak out against such unions.

Good for you!

Here are my thoughts on what you posted on your blog:

I don’t believe you should  draw a line on the children because of the sins of their parents – ever. It is not right. It is not just. It sets terrible precedent. It appears exclusive and unwelcoming. It is in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

For example, what if one of the children had a parent that had committed murder? That would certainly be number 20 or so on the scale. We could not visit the murderer in prison but refuse to  educate his child.  You can’t compromise the Gospel.

But – you can oppose the compromising of the Gospel by priests, sisters, and Bishops – that is where the problem is – go after the true problem.

I do understand that this situation is different in light of the promotion of the lifestyle by the homosexual couple and that they may be in teaching situations.  That is a problem – but it is a separate problem – it has to do with what is being taught, by whom, and how.  To me, it is the same problem that liberal, dissenting pastors provide.   In both cases, scandal is present and it must be remedied.  When I was faced with a severely dissenting pastor, I did not demand alll parishoners that agree with him vehemently leave.  I went to the Diocese and strongly made the case for truth being taught.

Once again, good for you.

I also believe in dealing with the problem where it is, but I think that in this case there is a problem not only with those in the Church who do not speak out against homosexuality but also a problem created in the classroom by the situation of having two homosexual "parents" putting a kid in a class of sexual innocents who shouldn’t be confronted with the existence of homosexuality at their age.

Let’s set the issue of homoexual parents aside and do a thought experiment involving a different and more extreme situation:

Suppose that there are two parents (male and female) who are nudists and who insist on walking around all day long–in public–buck nekkid. Suppose also that they live in Southern California and that the crazy laws of the state permit them to do so (as well as its warm climate). Is it their child’s fault that he has parents who are nudists? No. But, whenever he interacts with other children, he’s going to have a lot of them asking him about the fact that his parents are nudists.

As a result, he’s going to go back to his parents and ask them what to tell the other kids. They’ll tell him that being a nudist is an okay thing and that he should tell the other kids that. He thus, little by little, is going to become an apologist for public nudity, even though he may or may not be a nudist himself.

Now this family decides to put their kid in a Catholic school’s kindergarten class. What is the school to do? The other kids are going to become aware of the fact that the kid’s parents are nudists. They’re going to see it when they pick him up from school. They’re going to ask questions about his family and, kindergartners being terrible at keeping secrets, this fact is going to come out. The kid will then (a) be picked on and (b) be questioned and (c) respond by launching into nudism apologist mode.

Kids at this age level should not be faced with a knowledge of nudism, much less see people who insist on picking up kids from school while nude (or playing a role taking care of the class while nude). They should not have to deal with a nudist apologist in their midst at this age. They shouldn’t at this age even be aware of nudism.

It therefore seems to me that the school would not only be reasonable but required not to admit this kid under these circumstances. The basis for doing this is the fact that the school has to take into account the interests of all its students. It cannot allow the interest of a single student (having a Catholic education) to outweight the interests of all the other students (having a Catholic education and not being exposed to the reality of nudism and nudist apologists).

The thing to do would be to not admit the kid and to arrange for him to get instruction in the Catholic faith through some other means (e.g., private tutoring).

I think that if a school did make the mistake of admitting such a child then the parents who have kids there would be (a) entirely justified in protesting and (b) entirely justified in yanking their kids out of class to prevent them from being exposed to nudists and nudist apologists.

If you’re willing to go with me this far (leaving the above described conditions of the thought experiment in place) then it seems you should be willing to admit that there are at least some circumstances (and we can make the above conditions even more extreme  if needed; say, nudists who insist on engaging in the marital act in public when they are picking up their kid from school and who are allowed by the state to do this) in which the most prudent thing to do is to not admit the kid to school and to take care of his religious education in another way.

That’s not compromising the gospel. It’s upholding the gospel by not
allowing its message to be watered down for a whole class (or a whole
school) by the flagrant scandal of people living in open defiance of
basic gospel values.

If you agree to that principle it could be seen as a judgment call as to whether having two homosexual parents fall into that category.

In my opinion, it does.

The Pertinacious Papist and patriarch of the Magnificent Blossers, Dr. Phil Blosser, has noted the kind of headlines that the pope is getting these days. He gives some examples:

• Pope urges protection of envirnoment (Nov. 10, 2002, Associated Press)
• Pope’s Christmas Message: End global violence (from 1998, CNN)
• Pope urges more human rights for Cubans (Dec. 3, 1999, Miami Herald)
• Pope praises continued efforts to eliminate land mines (Dec. 10, 2004, The Catholic News & Herald, Diocese of Charlotte, NC)

While all press is good press, are these really the kinds of headlines that we should be having about the pope, he wonders?

Why not headlines like these?

• Pope: Catholic fornicators playing Russian Roulette with Satan
• Pope to youth: live chastely or risk going to hell
• Pope’s Christmas message: repentance key to God’s mercy for even most wretched sinners
• Pope: Georgetown University no longer Catholic

READ THE WHOLE PERTINACIOUS POST.

Sometimes when I tell people that purgatory is not a doctrine Catholics invented but one that predates Christianity (cf., 2 Maccabees 12:44-45) and thus finds a place in historic Judaism they disbelieve me .

THEY SHOULDN’T.

I’VE EVEN POINTED OUT THAT THE MOURNER’S KADDISH IS THE JEWISH EQUIVALENT TO THE CHRISTIAN PRACTICE OF PRAYING FOR THOSE IN PURGATORY.

Down yonder a reader points us to a map of where the Catholics are by county. Here ’tis:

Click the image to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Down yonder a reader points us to a map of where the Catholics are by county. Here ’tis:

Click the image to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

Since we’ve been looking at maps of the U.S. with different data on them, let’s look at where Catholics live.

Click the map to enlarge.

SOURCE.

Incidentally, don’t forget that population density doesn’t tell you overall population. For example, my home state of Texas is less Catholic-dense than neighboring states Louisiana and New Mexico, but its population is so much larger that it has more total Catholics. Rhode Island, by contrast, is the most Catholic-dense state in the nation, but its population is so tiny that most states have more Catholics than it does.

You know the biblical story of Moses needing to keep his arms up in order to help the Israelites keep winning a battle?

Well, Moses’ arms got tired.

So his brother Aaron and another guy named Hur held them up so that the Israelites would keep winning.

Flash forward 3300 years to today.

John Paul II has a horrible, degenerative disease.

Yet he is a pillar of the Church.

Question: How does he do it alone?

Answer: He doesn’t.

He has a couple of Aarons and Hurs holding up his arms (figuratively) to help him.

SANDRO MAGISTER HAS THE STORY.

The following exchange took place on August 5 on Fox News between host Stewart Varney and Disney president Robert Iger. The conversation concerned Disney’s new Dream Desk computer for children:

IGER: It’s easy to set up, easy to use, compact, it doesn’t take much room, and most importantly it has what’s called ContentWatch built in.

VARNEY: Well, you know, I — exactly. I mean, in June you have “Gay Days” at your theme parks. You got any ‘Gay Days’ on the Mickey computer?

IGER: Well, this has built into it all kinds of protective devices that protects the kid, or the child from internet sites that a parent wouldn’t deem appropriate. Also, the fact —

VARNEY: Well, you don’t protect the kids from “Gay Days” at the theme parks, do you? Why do you have to protect them in the computer?

Fight the Power, Stu!