Inkmann said she isn't sure she wants to send her daughter to O'Hara now, but wants to ensure other families have the right to do so.
Translation: This isn't really about the child's education, but about creating an opening for advocacy of the gay agenda.
"I feel called to respond to my parish and the local parish school because of my developed Catholicism."
"Developed" Catholicism? I suppose that means "more developed" than Scripture, the Church Fathers, and the whole moral Tradition of the Church?
The arrogance is astounding.
Let's all keep an eye out for incidents of vandalism against the school.
Agreed, some parishioners, or perhaps the parish's Knights Of Columbus council, should guard the church at night. Maybe someone in the parish owns a sporting goods store and will donate a a large supply of baseball bats.
"....because of my developed Catholicism."
This does come across as arrogant, then again we have heard homosexual acts refered as a sacrament, we have heard some gay men state that they can have a closer relationship with Jesus because they can truly love him as a man.
It is unfortunate the school could not work this out....after all there is a 4-year old child involved and paying the consequences of her mother's decisions.
Mark Shea writes:
"The difference is that wearing a scarf and trying to observe one's cultural proprieties is an utterly innocous thing that does nobody any harm..."
Sez you. Why don't you do it your way at your school and refrain from screeching "stupid and offensive!" at the top of your lungs in public when others enforce the dress code at theirs?
Duane, not baseball bats. Paintball equipment. And never at close range, please. I know you're being facetious but I can't advocate anything other than a guard, or at least a presence to dissuade any sort of vandalism. Frankly, the fact that we acknowledge that there could be vandalism is quite sad. But then the whole situation boggles my pea little brain! "I want my kid to attend a school which I know, based on the traditional moral values of the institution that runs said school, will teach him/her specific moral principles; but I also want that school to change to represent my view of those same principles simply because it's where I choose to send my child to school."
Well, put that way . . . it makes perfect sense!
Zippy:
Deep cleansing breaths. Remarkably, my blog will have no impact at all on the policies of either school.
Mark Shea wrote:
"Remarkably, my blog will have no impact at all on the policies of either school."
It is true that if you are a failure you will have no impact on anyone, but then that excuse could be used in the case of saying anything whatsoever, couldn't it? We could call it the "I'm so insignificant I can say anything I want" plea, I suppose.
No. We call it the "I live in a free country and can express my opinion about a couple of prudential judgments in the news without being part of some Grand Conspiracy that Exists Only in the Mind of a Hysteric" defense.
Amazingly, one can also dash off a blog that does not alter the course of human history and yet not be a "failure".
Have you had your eyes checked? They seem to see only blacks and whites.
No matter how many ways one rephrases "I don't have to take responsibility for what I say", it still comes down to "I don't have to take responsibility for what I say".
More of that marvelous ability to hear what mortals can't.
I take full responsibility for what I say. Howzat?
I also highly doubt that what I say here will have much impact on either school.
"The Catholic religion I was brought up in was about forgiveness and acceptance."
Wow, I wish I had been brought up in this "Catholic religion" too. I'd feel so much better about myself. Why don't we just start a movement to do away with sin altogether? We could call it the "I'm OK, You're OK Apostolate." Tolerance! Acceptance! And best of all, you don't have to bother with those big, heavy crosses any more!
It is truly a tragedy that the compassion of our Lord has been twisted to promote that which He came to Earth to abolish - the casual acceptance of sin and mankind's sense of powerlessness to overcome it.
Face it Mark, there are two ideologies that are both quite dangerous to souls here: modern homosexualism and Islam. You are in fact treating them inconsistently, even though you ridicule anyone who might think so with the gnats and camels nonsense. The last part is the important bit: it isn't just that you are of the opinion, respectful of other opinions, that the one is more significant and the other is less so. Oh no. It is that anyone who disagrees with you is being "stupid and offensive".
If you were really taking responsibility for your words you wouldn't say things like that, or if you did dash that off in a moment of heat you would say "hey, I said that in a moment of heat, it was disrespectful and I apologize".
I haven't been a part of your readership -- which I understand to be comparable to the circulation of a niche magazine -- for all that long, but I have NEVER seen you do that.
The real comparable here would be if an older daughter of a lesbian woman suddenly insisted on wearing a "Gay Pride" T-shirt to school against the school dress code, of course. The fact that the shool may have been tolerant up to now is used as a weapon against it, it the typical fashion of the ruthless anti-Catholic shuffle.
So if anything the scarf issue is more significant than this one. The child's clothing and its symbolism are a far more overt middle finger toward Catholic values than simple admission to the school.
I said I though the action of the administration was "stupid and offensive". It is you who insist on extrapolating all sorts of meanings from this comment, ranging from my Grand Plan for the Destruction of Dress Codes to my Indifferentist Theology Regarding the Interchangability of Jesus and Mohammed to my Giant NeoCon Conspiracy for the Eradication of True Catholics.
Again, it's only complicated if you want it to be. A girl wants to wear a scarf and observe a rather minor propriety of her culture. Fine. Whatever. She seems to be a good girl. She's got good grades. She's not buttonholing classmate and trying to convert them. She's trying to be a nice girl the best she knows how. I say, "Don't major in minors."
Somebody else wants to ram homosexuality right down the throats of a school full of kids. I think this is majoring in majors.
This is called "having an opinion."
One can have an opinion without preemtively ridiculing all possible opposing opinions. You ought to try it out; it would leave an entirely different sort of impression, I assure you.
My own opinion is that a student demanding an exemption from the dress code in order to wear something symbolically blasphemous is a more serious matter than whether or not to admit an innocent child who happens to have a practicing lesbian mother. Admitting either child seems reasonable depending on circumstances, and allowing either child to wear symbolically blasphemous clothing against the dress code seems far more serious (although again it depends on circumstances).
I said I though a bureaucratic policy was needlessly stupid and offensive. You declare me a "fascistic Dalek".
Since my crystal ball is on the fritz, I am unable to see into the girl's heart and so unable to know with your certainty that she wanted to wear the scarf in order to blaspheme. To me, it looks like a teenager trying to be pious and modest according to her best lights. Hence, my disapproval of the school's foolish and alienating rules for rule's sake rigidity.
EXTERMINATE!!!!! EXTERMINATE!!!!!
(sorry i couldn't resist)
If I might offer a comment, I'd have no problem taking the child in our school (I'm the Director of Education of our school, and as such I'm involved in the Administration decisions).
We have a number of children who aren't Catholics (very few, but I expect there will be more in years to come). We have children from "broken families" as well. And I'm sure we have children from families who have effectively lapsed years ago.
Personally, I think we can accept the children of the 'gay family.' They need to know we're teaching the Faith, and that we expect that that's why they're here.
The article blogged here does provide some potentially eye-opening insight into the legal quagmire that the other school could have gotten itself into by giving in on the dress code for the Muslim girl. I have a pretty acute appreciation of that sort of thing from time spent on finance council and working with school administrators. Based on the article it seems that this school believes that it can in fact discriminate in admissions based on religion and sexual orientation, for example, based on the law that applies locally. I could easily see a judge deciding in a lawsuit that because members of these groups are admitted, if exceptions are made to the dress code for one then exceptions have to be made equally for all. So the net result of allowing the Muslim scarf at the other school is a legal mandate to allow "Gay Pride" T-shirts as well.
These are the sorts of things one ought to have at least some small clue about with respect to the local situation before pontificating about how stupid, offensive, un-Christian, uncharitable, etc a particular decision happens to be, though.
"Whether a private school falls under the mantle of "public accommodation" is open to interpretation, but Dave Fidanque, executive director of the Oregon American Civil Liberties Union, says it should."
Translation: The ACLU is trying to wipe out Catholic Schools.
When it comes time to hand out government dollars, Catholic Schools are "religious institutions" and undeserving of public largesse.
When it comes time to force acceptance of the radical gay agenda, they are now "public accomadations" susceptible to all sorts of government interference and strong arm tactics.
Is it just me or does the news of the past few months feel like a fist that is beginning to close?
Fr. Wilson:
Somehow I think these women are dying for the school to actually teach what the Church teaches so they can scream about "hate speech". I think the school is wise not to touch them with a barge pole. However, I would respect a school that took the little girl and made it crystal clear in writing from the outset that this kid will get Catholic teaching, not "developed" Catholic teaching and that if the parents don't like it they can lump it.
Not that I said symbolically blasphemous, referring to the public meaning of the symbol. It doesn't matter to me what the girl's intent happens to be. A girl could presumably wear a "Gay Pride" t-shirt with the same internal pious intent.
Mark,
The thing I worry about, and try to guard against, is assuming the worst motivation of people like this. If their motives are bad, I have to deal with that later, which is my job as Administrator. But if not -- in an age when all kinds of folks present their kids for enrollment in a Catholic school -- well, I do not want to turn away anyone well-motivated.
Reminds me of the day I baptized a child presented by a lesbian couple. Interesting story, that...
Fr Wilson
Fr. Wilson:
Okay. I can buy that.
Perhaps they could sign a waiver stating that they fully agree with and will allow this child to be taught in compliance with the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that all the statutes contained therein are non negotiable?
Father, somehow I get the feeling that this lesbian couple doesn't want their daughter taught the Catholic faith but instead something in keeping with their idea of "developed Catholicism":
Ms. Inkmann: "I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home."
Sounds like they want a Catholicism that will affirm them and their daughter in their okayness to me.
To be clear, I can't see that the opportunity or need would arise to teach a 4-yr.-old the Church's teachings on homosexuality, but Ms. Inkmann's statement is an indication that she may well want her idea of Catholicism taught, not Catholicism itself.
It's always about two things:
1. "Feelings, whoa, whoa, whoa, feelings..." and
2. A plan to push the envelope to prevent the Church from being the Church in full according to tradition.
I think the Catholic schools should get off the federal/state dole for everything so as to avoid any obligation to the piper. I understand that, as a matter of charity, we take in non-Catholic kids. Should we take in non-charity cases who are not there for the faith, but the discipline or rigorous learning standards, or status of private school? Maybe it is charity for the kids regardless of the level of wealth of parents. How do we do that w/o being subject to others' beliefs?
Also, this is a misuse/ misundertanding of the concept of forgiveness. We won't have mercy on those who seek it, but we want forgiveness and acceptance as we CONTINUE TO SIN.
"Father, somehow I get the feeling that this lesbian couple doesn't want their daughter taught the Catholic faith but instead something in keeping with their idea of "developed Catholicism":
Ms. Inkmann: "I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home."
______________
Michelle,
You don't have to be a Lesbian couple to want that. That's why I tell all of our parents about "spiritual inoculation:"
'You know how, when you're inoculated aagainst a disease, it means that they inject you with just enough of the disease so you don't get the Real Thing?? Well, that's what we do with our kids and the Catholic Faith: inject them with just enough Catholicism so they're never in danger of catching the real thing.
"And if, in this world where folks worry abouit teaching values to their kids, you're sending your child here to learn a Faith that you're not practicing at home, you're a fool. You're inoculating your kids against us. And against Jesus."
Mark and all,
This woman has an agenda:
See link:
http://www.exceptionalmarriages....ail.asp?
ID=9118
Given that she has only been coming back to Mass since January and "Paid her dues" (what a moron, it's called tithing) and now demands privileges from the Church, indicates to me this is a big set-up.
Oh, and please cut Zippy off, it has made it's point and doesn't know when to zip-it.
It boils down to MOTIVE.
In the case of the muslim girl, why did she suddenly find that she needed to display her increase in faith at a school where she must have known it would contravene the dress code ? Did she seek a dispensation from the code or did she just start wearing it.
Did Ms.Inkman want to enrol her daughter as a statement (as going by her language) I suspect she did, or out of a genuine desire to give her child a Catholic education?
Without all the facts here, as maybe the schools did,we have to leave it to the schools to discren.
For me on the available material, I would have let the muslim girl stay, but regrettably see Ms.Inkmann's daughter an innocent pawn in a wider agenda.
But its only my opinion.
Discren? sorry, DISCERN
And maybe Zippy may not feel so agressive now.
Quote: But homosexuality is anything but an easy topic for the Catholic church, (Anselmo Villanueva) said.
"The church is really wrestling with this stuff now," he said.
It is? I thought it was pretty much settled. Oops.
For those advocating the acceptance of the child of these lesbians- their was a turn of phrase in teh article where the "mother" wished that the Catholic education the child received by consistent with her education at home. I think that by letting this child into the school- you provide a foothold for the parents to demand that the child not be taught the Church teaching on sexuality. you also raise the possibility of having to exclude the child's "parents" from all parental functions- because of their sexual prediliction. I think the school knows best in now wanting to such a large can of worms.
Don, thanks for the concern but I'm not (and haven't been) feeling aggressive. I thought you expressed your opinion well, and respectfully. I do think that one of the key issues in both cases is whether the (enrollment|dress code violation) is a deliberate statement -- a middle finger toward the Catholicism of the institution, if you will -- or is innocent. Also your point about whether it was a preemptive transgression or if a dispensation was sought and denied is also worth considering.
Those aren't the ONLY considerations, of course. How the action in question will affect other students is also critical, legal and political matters have to be taken into consideration, etc. But I respect the issues you raised, the manner in which you raised them, and the opinion you expressed.
Mel wrote:
"Oh, and please cut Zippy off, it has made it's point and doesn't know when to zip-it."
Nice.
I definitely agree that the child is an innocent pawn -- especially in light of the post over at HMS by Woodeene -- but I don't believe the school has the responsibility to accept this child when her parents have made it pretty clear that they want her enrolled so they can thumb their nose in the Church's face.
The school also has the responsibility not to scandalize the faithful and enrolling the child of a gay "union" when there are no apparent mitigating circumstances certainly qualifies as potentially grave scandal. Unless the couple is willing to sign a waiver along the lines of Jo's idea -- and, hey!, why shouldn't all families who enroll their kids also sign such a waiver? -- then I'm fully behind the school's decision to refuse admission in this case.
BTW, I would modify Jo's waiver and say that parents only have to agree that their child will be taught according to the doctrines and disciplines of the Catholic Church, as laid out by the Catechism of the Catholic Church. They don't have to agree with it, just understand that this is the "mission statement" of the school and that all children will be taught according to that worldview.
I predict that because of a forthright defense of Catholicism one of us will be offered a job as a Catholic radio pundit. The pundit will hold the job for exactly one year. At the end of the year the job as pundit will be exported off-shore and given to a teen-age Muslim girl in Karachi, working under the pseudonym 'Sister Clancy.' The girl will wear a headscarf.
Mark wrote:
"However, I would respect a school that took the little girl and made it crystal clear in writing from the outset that this kid will get Catholic teaching, not "developed" Catholic teaching and that if the parents don't like it they can lump it."
I think a school that did that could be committing legal suicide. It isn't as though the case law on all this stuff is all said and done. Attempting to come up with the contract proposed is no small matter. Drafted carefully it would be very expensive - the cost of drafting a clean contract would far exceed the girl's annual tuition - and yet at the same time the mere fact of negotiating would open the school up to lawsuits. Drafted not-carefully is even worse, for obvious reasons.
Given that the school decided not to admit the little girl, I think the "shut up and stick to the one sentence statement" approach is definitely the most prudent. Unless, of course, this is all about this one specific case rather than about the school as a whole.
It is a shame that our current environment requires apparent legal paranoia, but the fact that apparent legal paranoia is really simple prudence isn't the school's fault.
To be clear, I can't see that the opportunity or need would arise to teach a 4-yr.-old the Church's teachings on homosexuality,
Not the mechanics of the situation, no. But what about stories that talk about a family of mommy, daddy, Johnny, and Susie, and the little girl innocently asks "what about the family of mommy and MOMMY and Susie?" Then you definitely put the teacher between a rock and a hard place, having to either compromise Church teaching by pretending everything's A-OK with that, or telling a 4-year-old that children aren't supposed to have two mommies and no daddies. So you may not be quoting Leviticus to these kids, but there are definitely situations where the Church's teachings could and would have to be explained to some extent.
Zippy,
As you know I disagreed with Mark's take on the school situation, but he really was not writing with the scorn and derision that you are claiming he was. These claims of him persecuting those of us who disagree are exaggerated to say the least. I have disagreed with him several times mostly in manners of degree, never on essentials, and have found that he is not so inflexible as you paint him to be.
Fr. Rob,
This "developed Catholicism" is exactly the language used against Cardinal Arinze. It is definitely a code for "homosex endorsing." In my neck of the woods (Bay Area), they throw around the term "Progressive" to mean endorsing the complete moral relativity platform, particularly in sexual matters (and not at all in environmental matters, in which a strict orthodoxy reigns). We should be glad that they pick code words so quickly, as that really gives them away!
Maybe if the nuns (I assume there's a few at the school) wore their habits, the Muslim girl wouldn't look so out of place. My 2 yr old daughter thinks the Muslim ladies around us are all nuns, yet she's only seen one "real" nun in person.
The two mommies want their daughter to receive an education in line with what they teach at home.
The solution seems simple: they could *home school* their daughter, just like all those zany conservative people who think public schools are centers for indoctrination in ideologies that contradict what their children are taught at home.
At this point, the smoke starts to pour out of the ears of the two mommies and their ACLU lawyers . . .
Of course, if this school is sued and the case makes it to the Supreme Court, I don't have all that much confidence that the Establishment clause would be of much use in stopping the social liberal majority on the Court from declaring parochial schools a public accomdation as thus subject to edicts from the public school bureaucracy.
One final thought: I wonder if the Oregon ACLU would even comment on this brouhaha if it involved an Islamic school and two mommies with a "developed" view of Koranic law. Things that make you say: Hmmmm . . .
Erik, we will have to agree to disagree, at least with respect to the recent threads in whish I have personally participated. Indeed, the very thing that motivated my participation in each case was the dripping scorn for other quite reasonable views. Usually I just read and lurk.
Here is a letter I sent to the editor of the Eugene Register-Guard.
To the Editor:
When it appears that a religious reference or symbol is cast in the public spectrum, many in our community cry “Separation of Church and State!” But when the Catholic Church tries to assert her own teaching within her own walls, who do the same people reach for to enforce their agenda? Why the government, of course. Lee Inkmann is in the cross-fire of the teachings of the Catholic Church and her own chosen lifestyle. What does she expect? Inkmann is quoted; “ I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home…” Ms. Inkmann, whose teachings are you going to uphold when your home teachings come in conflict with the Church’s teaching on sexual morality? If a teacher at O’Hara was placed in the same conflict, which teaching would you expect the school to uphold? O’Hara Catholic School is just that; Catholic. The Pastor and Principal of the school must uphold and foster a school atmosphere that reflects Church teaching. Ms. Inkmann has the civil right to choose any lifestyle she wants, but she should not expect a private Catholic school to accept and affirm something it cannot. The American Civil Liberties Union has fought long and hard to keep any notion of religion out of public schools. Now it wants to intrude on the religious values of a privately funded Catholic school? Where's the civil liberty in that?"
We'll see if it gets printed.....
But, does the school have a right to refuse to accept a child from a home where the parents are openly living a lifestyle that is contrary to church teaching? Sure, they do. I hope that lawyers will stay out of it. They are a private entity.
Should they? Would that mean that they are saying that this living arrangement is all hunky dory? That is probably the way that it would be interpreted.
And where does the homosexual lifestyle fall on the sin continuum? When you get right down to it, we're all on it somewhere. I don't envy the school and parish staff. I do wonder at the audacity of the parents, though.
M.A. writes:
"But, does the school have a right to refuse to accept a child from a home where the parents are openly living a lifestyle that is contrary to church teaching? Sure, they do."
Well, I agree that the school should have such a right. I know that where I live it does not in fact have such a right, at least as recognized legally. Around here the usual thing is to include active membership in the parish as one of the major admission factors, the presumption being that an active member of the parish probably agrees with church teaching, etc. That may provide a hint as to why Ms. Inkmann has recently become such an active member of the parish in question.
"I hope that lawyers will stay out of it."
Ahhh. I hope for the second coming also! 
Mel,
I think that most of the modern elites who are into the idea of "separation of church and state" interpret it to mean that religious rules cannot be allowed to have authoritative public consequences that discriminate between different kinds of people. Since most of the things that we do -- at least the sorts of things we do that result in conflict that has to be resolved by discriminating authority -- are public this reduces to requiring religious rules to have no consequences whatsoever. Even the inheritance within a family when someone dies is a public matter by default, unless one uses trusts and such to hide it. Everything that matters has a public component. The "right of privacy" was invented in order to give Griswold a right to buy condoms in public commerce, for example. The whole public-private thing is a shell game in which the "rights" that modern narcissists demand are said by definition to be "private" and infringement against those rights is said to be "public'. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
The only way out of the ever-tightening Gordian knot is to completely reject the odd modern notion of separation of Church and State. That is about as likely to occur on a broad scale as the crowning of an American monarch, of course, so the only sort of folks who have any concrete idea of what to do will by definition be fringe nutcases.
This whole conversation looks like a classic case of dhimmitude to me.
Would any of the SOS be supporting this girl's right to religious garb if she were Wiccan instead of Muslim?
I am a consultant to religious non-profit organizations, primarily in education. One of my clients, a small, classical education K-8 with a Christian philosophy, was recently approached by a gay couple who wanted to enroll their son. The school refused to admit the boy for reasons pertaining to the lifestyle choices of the father and his domestic partner, both of whom immediately threatened to sue the school for discrimination.
The headmaster called me and asked me to draft a policy for the board to consider, since they had not been confronted with this situation in their short history. I suggested that no such policy was needed if, in fact, the school was consistant in its principled approach to addressing the issue of homosexuality.
The school's position is that it is not a sin to have a homosexual neurosis, but that homosexual behavior is sinful. There is a significant difference between who people are and what they do.
As hackneyed as it sounds, "hate the sin, love the sinner" seems to be the best we can come up with. I think we've got the hate part down. But if it's true that we do indeed hate the sin of homosexual behavior, we as Christians ought to be even more eager to show that we do indeed love the homosexual.
Unfortunately, many people seem to believe that love covers a multitude of sins. Roger Biery stated in his 1999 pro-gay essay, Understanding Homosexuality: The Pride and the Prejudice, that one of the most popular errors in the realm of Christian ethics has been the effort to ascribe to love a powerful spiritual quality with the power to sanctify virtually anything done its name. His unintended message was nevertheless quite clear: love, in and of itself, does not sanctify a relationship. And yet that is a difficult message for many Christians to grasp.
Francis Schaeffer wrote in The Great Evangelical Disaster that the Church is at its worst when it compromises either its compassion or its conviction. When the Church compromises its compassion, the result is harsh legalism and rhetoric that kills the soul. When it compromises its conviction, what good is it? I understand full well that the church has sinned grievously in providing a redemptive response to the issue of homosexuality. That doesn't excuse a response that offers nothing but license and cheap grace.
Greg, if I were the lawyer for the homosexual father I would find out whether or not the school excluded children of unmarried heterosexuals. I think part of the problem is that most Catholics have no real idea of what it is they are up against.
I agree with most of your post, but the large question remains: what to do when malevolent moderns are in fact out to destroy our schools and churches using cases like that of the Muslim girl and the lesbian's daughter as pawns? Those of us who have already abandoned one school that surrendered to moderns for another that hasn't yet will one day run out of places to retreat to. The rise of homeschooling is a symptom.
One last attempt: If you don't want Muslims in your school, don't admit them.
Once you admit a Muslim, what is your objection to a headscarf? Is the essence of Islam, for Christians, the headscarf, or is it a defective understanding of Jesus of Nazareth?
Would the young woman in question be any less Muslim if she didn't wear a headscarf?
If the school were honest it might say: 'Thanks very much for the tuition you paid. It was very helpful. We had no objection to accepting a Muslim student when you entered. Unfortunately, some of our parents are threatening to withdraw their children because of your headscarf (September 11 has happened since), and together they pay more tuition than you do'.
Pavel writes:
"One last attempt: If you don't want Muslims in your school, don't admit them."
How do you know that you aren't breaking the law if you do that overtly?
Also, the article was explicit that the girl had not worn the headscarf before. She was insisting on something new, a special dispensation from the dress code that she had not asked for in all her prior years there. If she had wanted to continue attending as she had before, without the head scarf, the way the article reads it seems that that would have been no problem.
Zippy...
I see your point, but I neglected to mention that this school is in an extremely impoverished part of our city. Most children are from single-parent homes. Several of the children have mothers who regularly prostitute themselves for a living. Most of the fathers we've been able to track are in prison.
And yes, the school is quite aware that there are a number of unmarried heterosexual parents. The fact that there are, however, has no impact on the school's consistant message of sexual purity and God's intention for us to manage our sexuality.
For this reason, school administrators really don't look at the homelife of the student as a determining factor in considering whether to accept them. School leaders are confident that what they are offering is better than anything the children could receive at home.
Greg writes:
"For this reason, school administrators really don't look at the homelife of the student as a determining factor in considering whether to accept them."
Well, again to play the devil's advocate, if I were the lawyer for the gay father I would argue that the school was making a special exception just to discriminate against him. His child's home life is being considered while the home lives of all of those other kids are not.
Even if it is possible to come up with a consistent policy that would exclude that child while including the ones already there -- which it may not be depending on the local law -- it would be very expensive to do so with any assurance that it doesn't legally leak like a sieve.
Apparently, there is some question as to whether the headscarf is really religious or just cultural. I don't recall the author's name, but a recent article by a middle-easterner was out (google for it) in which the history--very recent--of the tradition was explained as something imposed by "hardline" Islamist leaders, I believe in Iran. That's the gist of what I remember. I may be off on details.
According to Alan Dershowitz, who was interviewed on WMAL in DC last week, the scarf that you see all the Muslim women wear is not "traditional" by any stretch. It is Dershowitz's position that the scarf was never widely worn until the 1970's where it became a symbol of the faith during the Lebanese civil war. He claims that you can look all day at pre-70's photos of Muslim woman and won't find them wearing the scarf as a requirement. I don't know. There are no Muslim women in my family album. Maybe the more erudite bloggers at your site can definitively rule on this....
Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that a Catholic school is refusing to let a girl cover her head?
I do (find it ironic).
I wonder if the uniform rules require that girls keep their heads uncovered in the school chapel, too.
In my neck of the woods (Bay Area), they throw around the term "Progressive" to mean endorsing the complete moral relativity platform, particularly in sexual matters (and not at all in environmental matters, in which a strict orthodoxy reigns).
I am not surprised. Indeed all forms of engineering - be it social, philosophical, theological, political, medical, scientific, legal, or otherwise is preceded by verbal engineering. This is why I refuse to cede to the extremists of any stripe their own choice of terminology. Instead, I refer to them as they are. In the case of the "progressives" and "traditionalists" (to give two examples of many which could be mentioned) the proper terms are as follows:
"self-styled 'progressives'"
"so-called 'progressives'"
"pseudo 'progressives'"
The same principle applies to those who call themselves Traditionalists who are anything but the real deal. Let them control the language and eventually they will control the terms of the battle. I refuse them this concession and recommend that other people of good will act in like manner.
PS on the headscarf:
I would disagree with Zippy on this if the headscarf actually symbolized something of a religious nature. Instead, since it does not, I have to agree with him that it has no place in the school whatsoever.
This mess and similar messes will never end until our Catholic institutions accept nothing whatsoever from Caesar. Not a penny, not even in the way of local property tax exemptions. I mean surrender everything but everything we get from governments to do our good works.. Local, state, national. Including no tax deductions for donations. No public money coming through in the way of student grants and loans either. Absolutely nothing. What we can't do on our own, we don't do. The moral cost of accepting anything from Caesar to do our works of charity, corporal and spiritual, is destroying our very soul.
And as long as the taxpayers are in any way whatsoever subsidizing our good works, the taxpayers have a right to attach strings whether we like the strings or not.
Zipy... Thanks for your insightful comment. Um, actually, the school ultimately did accept the child. The immediate inclination of administrators was to not accept him based solely on the behavior of the father. But when measured against the behavior of other parents of students at the school, it made little sense to not accept him. I apologize for my lack of clarity on the issue.
So when it comes right down to it, if schools of any particular religious stripe claim the excluvisity to refuse students on certain grounds, it would stand to reason they had better apply the standard all the way across the board.
I. Shawn McElhinney wrote:
"I would disagree with Zippy on this if the headscarf actually symbolized something of a religious nature. Instead, since it does not, I have to agree with him that it has no place in the school whatsoever."
The claim some have made that the school has some new obligation to allow the girl to start wearing the head scarf now because it admitted her twelve years ago is obviously specious. As it is, her personal reasons - religious or otherwise - hardly matter more than all of the different ways that a sudden exception for her benefit could disrupt the school. Does anyone seriously think that if this exception ware granted there wouldn't be disruption and controversy over other demands for exceptions?
One of the wisest approaches to an exception was suggested by someone in the other thread: make a change to the dress code across the board saying that girls can wear head scarfs in imitation of the Blessed Mother. If the Muslim girl was then the only child with a head scarf, well, that says something about the school. If the Muslim girl puts the Catholic girls to shame and gets some of them to adopt head scarfs, bully for her. That approach could backfire as well, though, as others pointed out.
In general I don't have a problem with many of the possible approaches here, and I think the school could make a reasonable case whichever way. What I have a problem with, and what motivated my first posting, is attempts to treat a complex local issue as simple, and to treat people who recognize and grapple with that complexity as simpletons.
Unfortunately for the last 35 or so years our Catholic schools have not been staffed by religious who used to stand out as strong symbols of the faith orientation of the schools. Now our Catholic schools are "used" by many for discipline, character building, manners, etc. which parents don't find in the public schools. At the same time the schools have let this more secular character stand so that they are seen as more heterogeneous except for standards outside of religion. I think that when a parent comes to sign up a child and expresses certain demands that are outside of the regular protocol they should have to meet with the principal and at least a couple of witnesses: another teacher and two or more parents from the same class. They should then have it explained that all parents have the same understanding as to what is expected of ALL parents in a Catholic school and just what is taught - even outlined in a brochure that is publically available so that they can make their choice BEFORE entering the child. They should have it be known to these "guardians" that what is taught may cause some confusion in the minds of their children which they will have to contend with at home since the primary responsibility for the child's well being is in the home. If they then feel that this type of instruction would be disruptive to the child, then they would have the obligation to place their child in some other private school to their liking.
If "guardians" have another version of Catholicism than the universal teachings that they wish taught to their children they could be advised to contact others such as Ms. Kissling or "We are Church" types and try home schooling with their own particular philosophies of life since they DEFINITELY will not be taught in this Catholic school. Christ did not beg people to come to Him or water down the truth. He asked that the children be allowed to come to Him...which is a big difference.
Shawn, I noticed the expanded version of your above post on your blog. You realize that there are two kinds of people in the world: those who get cranky about being categorized and those who don't. 
I have a copy of Compton's Pictured Encyclopedia, dated 1939, that has photos of Algerian women in veils and also another picture of an unveiled woman with the caption, "desert women, though Mohammedan, seldom wear veils [in contrast to the women of the towns]" In all likelihood, the wearing of the veil was diminishing in the 20th century until the Islamic revival took hold when leftist movements began fading after the 1967 war.
Zippy, as a convert to both Christianity first, and Roman Catholic Christianity later, I am more than a little grateful that nobody in either group felt the need not to deal with me because of what I wore.
Folks, dealing with people as human beings doesn't mean approving of them. We CAN interact with people who have vastly diffefent beliefs and practices than ours and still treat them with respect. It is the sexual behavior of the Child's mother in this instance that is at question. No one is suggesting that the child did anything wrong. Would the school likewise bar entrance to a child whose mother had taken up with a man outside of wedlock? If so, where is the child supposed to find Christian formation? I think this needs to be rethought.
There's no sense in arguing on the basis of what an *article* said. I wrote an article once for a well-known newspaper in which the facts were later corroborated independently.
'I'll be darned,' said the editor. 'It was actually true.'
I thought we were disagreeing over whether or not to expel a student because of a headscarf. That she was not expelled for being a Muslim was, I thought, without question.
Once again, if you don't want Muslims, don't admit them - even if that means dispensing with public funds. Do the Hutterites take tax dollars? They manage to survive as Hutterites. How many Muslims live in Hutterite communities?
(I fully expect to hear now that Hutterites do accept tax dollars and are building a compulsory mosque in North Dakota).
Personally, I find it hard to believe that the headscarf, or a dress code, was the cause of the problem. But none of us here was there. I do feel strongly that the Catholics who expelled the young woman struck a blow against the reputation of Catholicism, and their own self-respect.
Has anybody sensed a mood of lack of self-confidence amongst many of us? Dhimmitude? Where?
I don't think any school can deal with a child without the "parents'" cooperation. Or else the school takes on a position as another parent who may be "warring" with those naturally in charge. The child then suffers and that is why there must be something established with the "parent" or guardian which is between the adults. If a school enforces a dress code for whatever reason, this has to be explained to the parent and the parent has to explain it to the child. If, in the case of some added dressing, a uniform can still be worn in completeness with only the addition of an extra head covering there doesn't seem to be much harm. This should be done for a genuine reason which more than likely the teachers can surmise and the reason should be explained to all of the children. More than likely, the other children will, down the road, also influence the exception and all will be well. I think there is more of a problem in the past decades in examples of less, not more, clothing!
Pavel.
"I find it hard to believe......but none of us here were there" was the point of my earlier comment.
Excuse the ignorance of a Down Under Kiwi, but what is 'Dhimmitude'. Must be a cultural difference.
Please can someone enlighten me!!
Hey, Don, I've got a friend or two in Auckland. Never actually been there though - just passed through the airport on the way to Oz.
I thought someone used the phrase, but maybe it was in another thread.
So far as I know it refers to a tolerated Christian minority in a Muslim country.
Whether or not that's what it means, I've been treated lately to at least one feverish tirade about how the Muslims are taking over not only the world but Europe, and there was a reference in the tirade to a mosque going up next to the Alhambra, hundreds of years after the expulsion of the Muslims from Spain.
David wrote:
"Zippy, as a convert to both Christianity first, and Roman Catholic Christianity later, I am more than a little grateful that nobody in either group felt the need not to deal with me because of what I wore."
Not sure why this was addressed to me, since it seems to be completely tangential to everything I've written here. But I think the rest of David's post brings up some worthy points.
Don, try Islam and Dhimitude: Where Civilizations Collide by Bat Ye'or.
Pavel, let me make sure I understand:
We can conclude based on the article that the girl ought to have been given a special exception from the dress code. But we can't conclude anything from the article. Hmmm.
No, you don't understand. I haven't been a straw man since Dorothy met me in Oz.
Dhimmitude is the second class status "enjoyed" by Christians and Jews in Muslim countries. In the past this involved distinctive dress, special taxes, restrictions on church bells, building and repairing churches, etc.
Pavel:
Get used to it. Zippy has put *tons* of words into my mouth. I never knew I thought that "no Catholic school should ever have a dress code" or that "I don't have to take responsibility for what I say" until Zippy told me I did. He's a master at telling people what they think. It also turns out I think anybody who disagrees with me is "stupid and offensive". I didn't know that either. I'm glad we have Zippy here to read our minds and tell us what's *really* in our hearts.
Thanks everyone, for the definition, and Dennis for the reference.
Pavel.
You'll have to call down sometime. I met Mark Shea back in May in my home town of Tauranga when he was over for the Eucharistic Convention in Auckland.
Any Aussies commenting on the straw man from Oz?
Zippy:
I expanded the comments because right after I made them I paused for a moment and thought "this would be a good development piece for the weblog." You know what they say, diamonds weblogs are forever...
The strike feature apparently does not work in Haloscan. Oh well...
Shawn:
[...channelling Mark Shea...]
Its a knick-knack, Patty Wack, give the frog a loan.
[...passing out cold from shock...]
Pavel wrote:
"I thought we were disagreeing over whether or not to expel a student because of a headscarf."
It isn't clear to me that the girl was expelled. It looks like she is refusing to come back to school, because if she did she would be required to come in proper dress.
I mean really, the girl went to that school for twelve years. She and her mother were acutely aware of the dress code, as their own quoted words testify in the article. Now the girl sits home, not expelled but refusing to go to school dressed according to the rules she and her mother have supported for twelve years.
A case can be made for mercy, but mercy presumes that it would be just for the mercy to be withheld.
To John and Peggy,
The question of the historicity of the headcover for Muslim women was discussed in another thread, and given this is a Catholic forum I don't want to go on and on about it. However if people kept posting on an Islamic blog that Catholics actually worship the cement statues that are in churches, I am sure plenty of Catholics would be extremely frustrated that the same lie kept being repeated again and again.
So... the salient points are this:
Centuries of classical volumes of jurisprudence are all in complete agreement that a Muslim woman is required by religious law to cover her body. What they disagree on is whether this commandment includes the face and hands (and a small minority disagree on the feet). As far as the headcover goes there is absolute consensus. Anyone who is interested in the topic can simply go to any number of volumes of Islamic jurisprudence and look up the topic.
For example, the classical manual of Islamic Sacred Law from the Shafi`i school by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri (died. 1368 of the Christian calendar), the topic of women's dress is covered in the section on 'looking at members of the opposite sex'. Briefly:
"A majority of scholars (n.with the exception of some Hanafis as at m2.8 below) have been recorded as holding that it is unlawful for women to leave the houses with their faces unveiled, whether or not there is likelihood of temptation." (p512 of Nuh Hah Mim Keller's translation).
How Tahiri (who claimed that headcovering is a 1970s invention) doesn't know this is beyond me. Perhaps, as an Iranian, he doesn't know how to read Arabic.
If you'd like references for this, please feel free to email me.
In the modern era, when colonialism impacted the Muslim world, unveiling was a part of modernisation efforts particularly by secularists in the Muslim world (eg. Kamal Attaturk in Turkey and the Shah in Iran). So during the period of say 1920s onwards until about 1970s a lot of middle to upperclass women in the Muslim world did not veil. Rural Muslims, those from lower socio-economic classes and religious continued to veil except where they were threatened with censure by state law.
In the seventies a number of revivalist movements gained prominence and part of their ideology was to identify with the religious act of veiling. Hence the veiled daughters of mothers who did not veil.
The style of headcovering has also dramatically changed in the Muslim world during the last part of the twentieth century. In the past traditional headcovers were used, but a more modern phenomenon is the 'scarf' over the hair. Islamic female dress has also begun to be called 'hijab' which is a relatively new use of the term and has replaced older words such as 'khimar', 'abaya', 'niqab', 'jilbab' etc. in popular use.
The Qur'an does not use the word 'hijab' (veil, partition) to refer to women's dress but uses the word 'khimar' (headcover) in Surah 24:
Surah 24:31 "tell the believing women... to draw their headcovers over their bosoms" and 'jilbab' in Surah 33:59 "Oh Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close around them".
If anyone wants a comprehensive list of primary and secondary sources discussing Islamic dress over the centuries you are more than welcome to email me
On the topic of 'dhimmi' it is essentially a tax for non-Muslims that exempts them from compulsory military service in Muslim armies. (If they volunteer to serve in the armed forces they are not required to pay the dhimmi tax). That the dynastic empires of Muslims abused the concept is a different topic entirely.
If it were me, I would urgently want other people to receive as much mercy as I would wish for myself.
Pavel wrote:
"If it were me, I would urgently want other people to receive as much mercy as I would wish for myself."
Sure. But this is a conversation between third parties (you and me). If I were a school official there, and if I decided to extend this sort of mercy, it wouldn't be on my own behalf. Extending mercy on someone else's behalf is like tithing with someone else's money.
Extending mercy myself to someone from whom I could justly withold it is one thing. Insisting that school officials are in the wrong for not doing so in this case on behalf of the whole school is to pervert the meaning of mercy - it is incorrect by definition. The school staff and administration are custodians of hundreds of students (or possibly thousands given the size of this girl's class). Insisting that they are in the wrong not to extend this sort of mercy-at-others'-expense in this sort of case entails several layers of misunderstanding.
I wrote:
"Extending mercy on someone else's behalf is like tithing with someone else's money."
That isn't to say it is always wrong, by the way. If you are rightful custodian of someone else's money it may be perfectly right for you to tithe out of it on their behalf. But your attitude and responsibilities are far different than if it was your own money.
Soooo....
I have read all 89 comments. It seems like we got off topic a bit, class, at least in this one blog comment space. So how have we concluded the issues of the two mommies who want their preschooler in the Catholic school?
I thought the issue of the Muslim girl was handled in the earlier blog.
BTW, I am grateful for the definition of dhimmmitude. I thought it was a neologism for comments from a commentator whose last name begins "D'Hi..."
You must forgive me, as I am a little dhimm-witted today.
Dunno why the Scarf Controversy would be considered off topic. See the blog at the top and its comparison of the two cases.
More on dhimmitude:
Dhimmis and Dhimmitude: The Status of Minorities Under Islamic Rule
.
Sorry, Zippy, I see now that I've made a mistake. I didn't know that in real life you represent the school, and that you made the decision in the matter of the headscarf.
You take full responsibility for it, don't you?
Inspired by this discussion, I've compiled a lot on the traditional Catholic headcovering, the mantilla. As you can tell from the pictures, it's purpose is not to provide modesty but it a devotional. For those unfamiliar with it's recent history: except perhaps among traditionalists Catholics, its presence in law and custom vanished in the 1970's. It remains part of the garb to be worn by women when they are ceremonially received by the Pope.
Re: Iran in the 1970's. I lived there and plenty of women who belived they were faithful Muslim women were not wearing headcovering. Were they are wrong? Were they following false iman's?
So Maryam, I disagree "as far as the headcover goes there is absolute consensus". The rule for Muslim women is the same for Christian women: modesty.
Re: "dhimmitude" this is term that describes the inferior status of non-Muslims in the dar al-Islam. Common usage of the term now encompasses more than the payment of jizya. This not an exemption from military service, but the substitute for the alms that are demanded from each Muslim. Most articles on the topic call it a poll tax.
Zippy: The article on the Muslim girl explains that the girl's mother was involved in an "Erase the Hate" week post-9/11 and specifically told students that Muslims girls begin wearing the scarf when they're ready to accept it. So whether or not the girl chose to wear it prior to wearing it now should be irrelevant to the school since they were put on notice that she might choose to do so and apparently said nothing.
David: The point is not how the parents of a particular child choose to sin (fornication v. homosexuality). The point is that admitting a child from a "gay union" when there are no apparent mitigating circumstances (e.g., the child needs services only that school could offer; the parents fear for their child's safety in a public school and can't afford another private school) then the school is scandalizing the faithful for no good reason, especially in light of the Vatican's recent statements against gay unions.
Besides that, there is also the matter that although both fornication and homosexuality are grave sins, homosexual behavior is more serious because it is, in and of itself, gravely disordered.
Pavel writes:
"Sorry, Zippy, I see now that I've made a mistake. I didn't know that in real life you represent the school, and that you made the decision in the matter of the headscarf."
Nope. I have executive advisory duties for _a_ school, but not that specific one.
"You take full responsibility for it, don't you?
I would if I made it, either way, absolutely. I have quite a bit of empathy for the folks who have to make the decisions, against the monday morning quarterbacks, having had to make all manner of tricky executive decisions in my own career myself. So sue me.
Michelle wrote:
"So whether or not the girl chose to wear it prior to wearing it now should be irrelevant to the school since they were put on notice that she might choose to do so and apparently said nothing."
If a child attends a school, obedient to the dress code for twelve years and then "puts the school on notice" that she is going to break it, that does not magically transform reality to create an obligation on the school's part. If you drive a car for twelve years without a ticket and then put the police on notice that you are going to start drinking and driving that does not translate into an obligation on the part of the police to ignore your transgression.
All this conflict over a head scarf, oy! Imagine if the girl refused to wear a bra.
Suggested solution to the scarf problem: it should be dyed to
a color to match the girl's hair.
As to the the child of the lesbian moms" : the lesbian parents and all the parents should attend an assembly where they are informed of magisterial teaching on all the sexual behaviors and advised that as age appropriate their children will be so instructed. And the whole assembly including a mug shot of each parent has to be videotaped and notarized . I suppose when they get to the contraception thing the school will lose almost all of it's enrollment.
Sara writes:
"All this conflict over a head scarf, oy! Imagine if the girl refused to wear a bra."
Well, in either case it would be a public display of a false religion within the walls of a Catholic school and against the dress code.
It is actually about the right of the school to prohibit the head scarf without being publicly castigated as stupid, offensive, un-Christian, the dreaded scare-quoted "Catholic", sinners against charity, and other fun epithets.
Is it possible to discuss the merits of the "Case of the Two Mommies" without bringing up the precedent "Case of the Muslim Headscarf"? Yes, I think it is. Perhaps I am mistaken.
How did all of us resolve the "Case of the Two Mommies"? Am I correct in observing that a majority of blog commentators supports the school in rejecting said pre-schooler's admission on grounds of the parent[s] not living a life consistent with the Gospel values and teachings of the Catholic Church, and that such petition for admission was merely [negative] publicity seeking against the Church?
Not that any of this intense and interesting discussion will have any bearing on the school's decision or its current policy.
Fr. Brian Stanley writes:
Is it possible to discuss the merits of the "Case of the Two Mommies" without bringing up the precedent "Case of the Muslim Headscarf"?
I expect that it is. A different blog entry that didn't highlight the comparison (and the putative intellectual deficiencies of certain of Mark's interlocutors) might kick off that sort of discussion.
I think the case of the two mommies is also difficult. It looks like a set-up, but see my discussion with Greg Wallace above for some of the associated difficulties. In Greg's example case the school allowed admission because it was too tricky to come up with a justification against that was consistent with the current student body.
Zippy: If a child attends a school, obedient to the dress code for twelve years and then "puts the school on notice" that she is going to break it, that does not magically transform reality to create an obligation on the school's part. If you drive a car for twelve years without a ticket and then put the police on notice that you are going to start drinking and driving that does not translate into an obligation on the part of the police to ignore your transgression.
With all due respect, Zippy, that has to be the silliest false analogy I've seen. Comparing the wearing of a scarf in the effort to preserve one's modesty requirements to breaking the law and endangering the lives of others is simply pounding the pulpit in an effort to drown out rational discussion.
Personally, I think that this girl is wearing the scarf as part of her religious commitment. So what? The school has accommodated her religious commitment in other ways by providing a room for her to use for prayers. I would only object if the girl were attempting to proselytize for Islam on school grounds (e.g., passing out tracts, holding Qur'an studies). The school is being unduly restrictive in prohibiting a modest young girl from wearing a neutral, modest item of clothing: a scarf.
Michelle wrote:
"Comparing the wearing of a scarf in the effort to preserve one's modesty requirements to breaking the law and endangering the lives of others is simply pounding the pulpit in an effort to drown out rational discussion."
Some no doubt do see a similar degree of seriousness. But the logic applies even with the most trivial of things. Putting McDonalds on notice that it has to give you a free hamburger does not magically change reality and create an obligation on their part, even if they have given you free hamburgers before. The idea that putting the school on notice somehow magically shifts the balance of obligation is simply false.
If the school had a problem with the girl practicing this particular part of her religious commitment, it should have said so when put on notice. The parents could have been called in for a meeting to go over the school's handbook on dress code. I will agree that it should have been done when the parents first enrolled their daughters, but for the school to accommodate this child's religious commitment in other ways (e.g., providing a private room for her prayers) but balk over a scarf is indefensible.
I think the difference here lies in the distinction between accommodating a particular child's religious commitment and allowing the child to proselytize for her religion on school grounds.
Someone else asked if we would be eager to allow a Wiccan child to wear an item of clothing required by her religion. If it were a neutral garment that caused no harm otherwise (say, a cape), sure, why not? If it were a piece of jewelry with negative connotations for Christians (say a pentagram), then the faith upheld by the school takes precedence.
As I said when writing about this for my blog, we need to teach children the discipline of making distinctions. If every departure from absolute conformity is seen as the camel's nose under the tent, our kids are either not going to take us seriously or will seriously rebel just to prove they can. If, instead, they are taught to use their God-given discernment, we'll have prepared them for the real world.
Michelle wrote:
"If the school had a problem with the girl practicing this particular part of her religious commitment, it should have said so when put on notice."
Even if this were valid reasoning, which I do not stipulate, isn't it stretching the notion of being "put on notice"? The girl didn't compose a letter saying "I intend to violate the dress code next year in such and such a way and for such and such a reason, if you won't make a dress code exception for me then lets discuss it".
Michelle wrote:
"...for the school to accommodate this child's religious commitment in other ways (e.g., providing a private room for her prayers) but balk over a scarf is indefensible."
Why indefensible? Praying in a private room is entirely different in virtually every respect from wearing a public symbol on one's body all day. If the notion is to teach children to discern and make distinctions then teaching them that the one accomodation is identical to the other is contrary to that end.
Zippy, 1.) the girl was not given any reason to believe that wearing her scarf would be a problem for the school when the school had already accommodated her practices in other ways, such as the private room for prayer, therefore she had every reason to believe that the school would accommodate her need to wear her scarf as part of her commitment; 2.) if anything, setting aside a private room for her to pray in is an even larger accommodation to her faith than the scarf; while I think it considerate of the school to do so, I would support the school's decision not to provide a private room on the grounds that the only prayer services permitted on campus are the school's own. I would however hope that they would allow the girl sufficient breaks from campus for her prayers provided she kept up with her schoolwork.
Setting aside a private room presumably was not against the explicit rules, and it presumably wasn't a constant public display in front of all the other students on a continual basis. We can shout "an apple is an orange!" at the top of our lungs all day long without bringing the statement any closer to the truth.
Zippy, you may very well be sued, because in your version of law, mercy on behalf of a third party is impossible, but severity against a third party is not.
As Sir Walter Raleigh says in his death poem, your attorney will be Christ, who in His own agony applied for mercy for many third parties.
Pavel writes:
"Zippy, you may very well be sued, because in your version of law, mercy on behalf of a third party is impossible, but severity against a third party is not."
I could wile away the hours
Conferrin' with the flowers
Consultin' with the rain ...
And my head I'd be scratchin'
While my thoughts were busy hatchin'
If I only had a brain ...
Hint:
I am not arguing in favor of the school's action.
I am arguing against public blanket condemnation of the school's action as stupid, offensive, a sin against charity, unchristian, and the other things it has been called.
There is a difference, for those capable of discernment.
That's your answer? My reference to Oz must have stung, but I was referring to myself, not to you, so no need to have taken offense. If it makes you more comfortable to think of me as brainless, please indulge yourself.
When you told us that mercy on behalf of a third party was impossible, I assumed you must be the responsible first party in the specific case, since you recommended severity.
In fact, even human judges extend mercy to third parties under human law, in cases in which they have discretion. And this is not even a case requiring exceptional supernatural grace and forebearance. It's a headscarf we're talking about.
Whose religion is false? I hope you don't think you represent the faith of Christ, who extended mercy to a multitude of third parties, including yourself.
As for your last 'hint', my apology for not being capable of understanding you. My discernment is obviously wanting.
Pavel writes:
"When you told us that mercy on behalf of a third party was impossible, ..."
Part of the problem is that I never said that. In fact when I compared it to tithing with someone else's money I expressly said the following:
"That isn't to say it is always wrong, by the way. If you are rightful custodian of someone else's money it may be perfectly right for you to tithe out of it on their behalf. But your attitude and responsibilities are far different than if it was your own money."
Also, I am presuming in this conversation I am talking to other ordinary human beings like myself. If I were in the presence of the Incarnate God I doubt that I would presume to speak at all, or do anything other than abjectly adore, without first being spoken to.
"I assumed you must be the responsible first party in the specific case, since you recommended severity."
I recommend neither severity nor mercy on the part of the first parties. My recommendation is specifically to third parties, that is, certain participants in this discussion. The content of my recommendation is (and has ever been) as follows: kindly refrain from publicly castigating the actions of the first party as stupid, offensive, a sin against charity, un-Christian, the dreaded scare-quoted "Catholic", and other presumptuous epithets.
"My reference to Oz must have stung, but I was referring to myself, not to you, so no need to have taken offense. If it makes you more comfortable to think of me as brainless, please indulge yourself."
Not at all. I was merely applying your allusion to myself, or more accurately to my straw-self.
Whose religion is false?
The religion of Muslims.
"I feel called to respond to my parish and the local parish school because of my developed Catholicism."
Why do we assume a "developed Catholicism" is a "development" outside Catholicism? It could just mean someone "developing" an attraction to the church. Perhaps this is merely someone returning to the faith?
Quite a bit of discernment needed here. Best left to the parish priest who knows the reality of the situation.
If the parents living in sin is a reason to exclude their children from the school we are going to have to start expelling lots of kids of the divorced and remarried, the parents living off crime or immoral business practices or contracepting etc etc etc. How does this help draw people closer to Christ? By keeping them out of our Catholic schools ?
Fr Wilson is right. "Let the little children come to me."
God Bless
Zippy,
The straw man was me. I insist.
For all I know you're a paragon of charity, so I apologize to you if anything I said implies a deficiency in your personal charity or your faith in Christ.
You're no doubt well-beloved by everyone who knows you because of your mercy and kindness.
Pavel writes:
The straw man was me. I insist.
Can I at least be the paper tiger?
"You're no doubt well-beloved by everyone who knows you because of your mercy and kindness."
You would have to ask them. For my part I neither took nor intended any offense.
The case of Lee Inkman just goes to show that Catholicism has no real centre.
Tom,
The centre of Catholicism is Christ who is our head.
We are scattered all around him, trying to approach him from where we are, which means we approach him from different directions, some of them opposing.
God Bless
Does he wear a headscarf but have no head?
Mark Shea:
I support the school on this one.
Do you also believe that Catholic schools are justified in excluding the children of parents who are divorced and remarried, of parents who use contraception, of mothers who have had an abortion (and not repented of it), and of parents who break the teachings of the Church in other ways? For that matter, what about the children of non-Catholic parents? Their parents are not just violating a particular church teaching, they are rejecting the church itself. Or is homosexuality the only sin a parent can commit that justifies excluding his child from Catholic school?
Fred has a good point.
It isn't a good look for the Church to be excluding the kids of lesbian parents from our schools at the very same time we are trying to persuade people that we aren't just bigotted rednecks who like to persecute homosexuals.
How are we ever going to be able to persuade people that our opposition to homosexual sex is not a predjudice against its practioners but a warning in love of the damage it does to them, if we exclude kids of lesbian parents from our schools?
To society at large we just look like a bunch of bigots. I don't for one moment beleive we are a bunch a bigots but thats the way it must appear from outside the church looking in.
Perhaps those on the ground in the parish know that this is an attempt by homosexual activists to attack the church, in which case exclusion might be justified. But in principle its got to be not only wrong but terribly damaging to our debate on homosexual sex if we are seen to be doing this sort of thing.
God Bless
Does a Catholic school bear the responsibility of discerning whether certain children should be admitted because of the scandal or notoriety caused by the child's parent[s]?
You betcha it does. Use your imagination, and know that there are lots of people who are willing to push the local parish far past the limits of propriety and discretion. Do you want the two mommies coming on the child's birthday to help with the party at school [yes, these things happen in pre-school and kindergarten], and be the one to explain why little Suzie has two mommies to the other five-year-olds, who will certainly ask the question?
These are not rhetorical questions, and I'm not sure of all the answers, age appropriate yet. And yes, I think one does have to take into consideration all the other morally questionable situations that married and non-married parents get themselves into, and expect the Church to be the sole instructors of the Faith for their children, while they live lives that mock the very values we're teaching. I saw plenty of that when I was teaching "Christian Ethics" at Loyola Academy back in the '80's.
I believe it was the Second Vatican Council which stated that parents are the primary educators of their children in the faith, a point repeated in the rite of baptism for children. This is not something that they can pooch-kick to the local parish school and say, "I'm not serious enough about my faith, so you teach it to my kid." "Developed Catholicism," my Aunt Fanny.
The little girl should (and if the school's accepting any outside funds other than tuition, which it probably is, _will_) be accepted.
The parish priest, I hope, would give her guardians Father Wilson's talk on "inoculation." Actually, the talk to all parents -- and guardians -- would be well worth it.
(I also hope the parish priest would give the guardians a little talk on using kids to further an agenda.)
Chris? Most of what you write makes sense to me except some of it doesn't. For example:
"But in principle its got to be not only wrong but terribly damaging to our debate on homosexual sex if we are seen to be doing this sort of thing."
Quick question...is this just a language thing or am I to understand that we are in a "debate" -- which I understand to be a pro or con notion discussion -- on homosexual sex?
Thanks!
Chris,
I was judging Catholicism using the same yardstick that Mark used last week to judge Evangelicalism; ie, that the present of one self-professed lesbian member shows that the movement has no real future.
Kelly,
We are not in a debate with ourselves as Catholics about the morality of homosexual acts which are clearly immoral. We are however in a debate with society at large about this. Sorry I didn't phrase it clearly enough.
God Bless
Fr. Brian,
I agree that Catholic education isn't very effective if the parents don't teach the faith at home.
On explaining to kids why a classmate has two mommies, we're already doing the equivalent when we have to answer the kids questions: "why is my classmate's parent divorcing? Living with a new mum/dad? Why is uncle living with a new "aunty" ? etc". These things are with us for heterosexuals living in sin too.
There is simply no way to escape from them giving the prevalence of divorce. We have to face up to the kids questions and use them as an opportunity to explain the faith. Excluding the kids of every parent living in sin from Catholic schools isn't an option.
God Bless
Oops. The should be "given the prevalence of divorce"
Sorry
Chris Sullivan,
I agree with you 100%. Years ago, I've been told that the children of parents who were divorced were quite ostracized. This just doesn't seem right to me that a child should have to suffer for the sins of his or her parents. It really is a shame that the child of the lesbian couple is being used as a pawn to further the gay agenda. Poor kid.
I'm not saying the child should be admitted in this particular circumstance. I'm not sure I have an opinion on that yet. But I think the best possible solution without ostracizing the child (in any circumstance) would be to firmly hold to the orthodox Catholic teaching whenever questions arise. It would obvoiusly plant seeds in the mind of a child; and if the child is growing up in a less than favorable family, that might be the best thing that could happen to him or her. School could possibly be the only chance to hear the Truth. I would never put limitations on God, so anything is possible; however, school just seems like an excellent opportunity to plant the seeds while a child is still young and impressionable.
There are a lot of other issues at hand as well, and I'm sure the school is taking that into consideration. But in the end, I hope it's in the child's best interest. I'm sure the school has that in mind - for the child of the lesbian couple and for the other children in the school.
I didn't understand that all the divorced parents or others living in sin were swooping down on this school demanding them to teach some "enlightened" version of Catholicism to justify their lifestyles as are the persons in this topic here.
Chris,
I didn't read in the article that the parents were trying to demand the Church modify it's teachings (which it can't). Or tone them down (which it shouldn't).
I think people may have misjudged what she really meant by "developed Catholicism". She might merely mean that she has developed an interest in deeping her faith. A calling from God? If it is a calling, are we doing the right thing to block it?
If they were trying to change church teaching or launch some political stunt then that might be a good reason to exclude the kid. I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in New Zealand the parish priest is the one who decides. He knows the people involved and is the best person to make the call.
The whole incident reminds me of situations in the past where kids were denied a Catholic education because their parent married a protestant. No wonder people think Catholics are narrow minded and bigotted.
God Bless
Propriety, discretion are concepts that mean very little nowadays, evidently. Is there anything that gives scandal, besides "Catholic intolerance" of the flavor of the month? And what do we say about lifestyles that mock what we profess, teach, and live? Parents have to take seriously what we profess, teach and live, don't they? If not, then they are choosing Catholic education because it is private education, certainly not for the content and expression of the faith in its fullness: its morality, its devotion and practices, its tradition, and its virtue. I'm not suggesting that we throw out the virtue of charity in dealing with these parents. I'm interested in Fr. Wilson's "inoculation talk," but have to hear more of the particulars. But there is no charity toward those wayward parents and their unfortunate children that is separate from the Truth, as in the Way, the Truth and the Life. I'd say the same to a parent who was a notorious gangster: I might not live too much longer beyond that conversation, but I have to answer to Someone else in The End, who will not only ask if I was nice to people, but also if I witnessed explicitly to the Truth of the Son.
I think of the rich young man who questioned Our Lord, and ended up going away sad, as his possessions were many, and he could not part with them to follow the Master. Some people will walk away sad, because they will not relinquish that which they grasp so tightly so as to take hold of the Lord's hand and follow His lead. Or is the evangelization envisioned by others here pressing for immediate admission much more subtle than what I describe? Again, not a rhetorical question.
I have been thinking about instances in our Catholic school where we have taken in Moslem children and children of homosexual couples. We teachers of the middle school fought and won the right to keep the students in our Religion class. They did not have to participate and I even encouraged them to read their own Koran. However, I knew that they were listening very closely to what was being said in the class. I wasn't just evangelizing my own Catholic and the Protestant kids there, I was reaching out to the Muslim kids as well. By the way, they are now attending Catholic colleges in California.
We are worried about the kids of the lesbian couple, but we have not altered Catholic teaching for them, or for the kids of divorced parents, the kids of unmarried parents, or the kids of Protestant parents.
I read about all of the protests and lawsuits going on, I look at the comments in this blog, and I wonder when our turn will come.
If the time comes that I cannot teach the Catholic faith as I know it, (I don't pretend to be a theologian, and so I do a lot of reading of people who are and of the Catechism and Bible.)it will be time for me to move over to the public schools where the money is better.
Yeah, right.
I bet Mark never thought he would get 130 -(131) hits on this posting.
Fr. Brien,
Your observations are logical, but they also make me think of St. Francis, who preached to the Sultan of Egypt. Should the 'Black Robes' have avoided the Iroquois?
How does one evangelize without taking risks? What would the missionary orders do if they avoided non-Catholics?
How do Catholics preach the Truth if they turn away from the people in darkness?
Yes, there is a desperate *kulturkampf* underway. Schools do have a responsibility to preserve the purity of the faith they teach.
How do we combine the obligation to evangelize with the duty to preserve purity?
Pavel,
You not only take beautiful photographs, but ask pertinent and insightful questions, questions to which I have no facile answers.
There is a nexus between Christianity and the culture. Niebuhr outlined the stances one can take as a Christian vis-a-vis the culture in his classic, "Christ and Culture." My sense is that the institutional Church is "groggy" in its response to the Culture: there has been much accommodation to the culture in the years since Vatican II, some of it healthy interaction, some of it horrible retreat. There are no quick answers, but I am afraid that another "pastoral" response is insufficient in weight. There was a time when the Church could respond with both caritas et gravitas in these situations. I think much of the caritas has been suborned by psychological and sociological "feel good"-ness and the gravitas was lost by the hierarchy's preoccupation with the former [see "Church Scandals: Pederasty"]. As I wrote earlier, I am very interested in reading Fr. Wilson's "inoculation" instruction.
There's been lots of heat here; now howzabout some light?
The real problem here is that this person proclaims to be a practicing Catholic in good standing with the Church and wishes to use this issue to further their "developed Cathocism." The more direct way of dealing with this given that the Church tends not to restrict membership at schools to practicing Catholics is to make known that the person is not in conformance with Church teachings and the presence of their child in no way condones the parent's actions, and the parish should be instructed to make sure that the parent in questino does not create scandal by taking any action that condones their now public and willful rejection of Church teaching.
"I feel called to respond to my parish and the local parish school because of my developed Catholicism," she said. "I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home, and I want to become part of a Catholic community again like I was when I was a child."
Here lies the crux of the problem: the "adult" parent: I want what I want whether or not reality speaks differently. Now, I don't believe that the school is rejecting the child at all. It is trying to deal with these subtle? demands and desires of the child's guardians which it cannot in all honesty do and still retain its true character. The parent (and I saw this often in social work) is then using the child as a pawn (only 4 years old) to make her own immature demands fruitful. Again, we have had too much gov/school claims to take over some separate parental role only to have the children abandoned when the school door closes. If any such child DOES attend this school under such opposing examples, he/she will more than likely be confused and be split in their developing ability to make clear moral decisions. Does the parent care? It doesn't look like it. I think of the case where our present pope had given a Jewish child to Catholic parents to raise after the child's parents were dead. But he honored the parents' wishes that the child not be baptized Catholic. Here, then, the school is in a sense honoring what the parent desires to be taught by her own example and leaving it up to the parent to make that choice.
To Chris Sullivan, regarding "I didn't read in the article that the parents were trying to demand the Church modify it's teachings (which it can't). Or tone them down (which it shouldn't)."
From the article: "I want my daughter to receive a Catholic education that will be in keeping with her teachings at home..."
Teaching which states that homosexual behavior is a sin would presumably not be in accord with what a lesbian couple is teaching at home. I think what is going on here is an attempt to insert a homosexual activist wedge into Catholic school. Once the child is accepted, then the parent can protest at the "hate" speech and "discrimination" extended to her kid. She joined back up in January, laying the groundwork.
Had she said "I do not expect the school to alter Catholic teaching to conform with my lifestyle," I would be more sympathetic.
Fr. Brian (sorry for the previous mis-spelling),
It's not as if the prevalent secular culture is indifferent to Catholicism. There's an onslaught in progress, a veritable war.
My wife and I are both members of AARP (American Association of Retired Persons) and we receive the AARP magazine. In the present issue there's a scurrilous satire on the Church under the cover of nostalgia for the 'old days'. The piece also contains a despicable satiric description of a priest's personal appearance. Why should a retirement association publish a hostile satire on the Church?
We've given up on the NYTimes because of its open hatred of the Church, and we're deeply suspicious of the Washington Post - we live in DC.
Should we sink AARP as well? We're both in our sixties, very quiet and private people who don't go out of their way to look for conflict. We keep busy with post-retirement careers. Personally, after the cold war experiences I've had there isn't an intact nerve in my body.
But this vicious and unremitting attack on the Church, which obviously stands in the way of whatever secular hell we're headed toward, is beginning to annoy me. Other than lead faithful lives of prayer and service, what can anyone do? Or perhaps that's the best we can do - witness in charity and patience, and never give up hope.
Patrick Sweeney wrote:
>So Maryam, I disagree "as far as the headcover goes there is absolute consensus". The rule for Muslim women is the same for Christian women: modesty.
My apologies Patricky, I fell into short-hand speak. 'Consensus' has a particular meaning in Islamic jurisprudence. I was referring to the scholarly consensus of the five schools (four Sunni, and one Shi`i) rather than the universal Muslim community. There is absolute juristic consensus however if you are talking about the beliefs and opinions of the entire Muslim world, there are certainly Muslims who feel that their faith does not include the practice of headcovering.
You have no argument that 'dhimmi' is an abused term in the Muslim world. Recovering Islamic concepts is not always an easy task.
Respectfully yours.
Urgh - sorry
Patricky = Patrick
You have no argument = you have no argument from me
I agree with the school. It is wrong to exclude children from enrollment on the basis of the parents' sins. After all, the sins of the father are not the sins of the son. But the case of the lesbian couple is different. Judging from their language, they have an agenda. That they want the school to teach to their kid this atrocious "developed Catholicism" justifies their action. It shows that they will make trouble for the school, (and their little girl) if the school refuses to take up on this "developed Catholicism". The school has a right to defend itself, and save the girl the grief of the battle.
On this case, I don't think the comparison with the admission of kids of single heterosexual parents or divorced parents holds merit. I've never heard of any desire from single or divorced parents to force the Catholic school to teach kids that premarital sex and divorce are acceptable and A-OK. These lesbians with an agenda are far different.
I also find it funny how they equate tithing to paying dues. Since when did the Church collect taxes?
Perhaps the "developed Catholicism " is newspeak for heterodox attitudes, the damage of which we have seen in the Church, and are presently attepting to stamp it out. Ref "Goodbye, Good Men " (can't tremember the author)
The attack that Pavel speaks of is very real - that is why over the last few years I have developed a keen interest in Apologetics.
Read "The Great Heresies" by Hillaire Belloc - in the final chapter of this book published in 1938, Belloc is very prophetic in discussing the great modern heresy he calls "The Modern Attck". We do have to act.
Jonathon writes "I've never heard of any desire from single or divorced parents to force the Catholic school to teach kids that premarital sex and divorce are acceptable and A-OK."
I hear this all the time. In New Zealand we have a "Catholic" magazine which campaigns for acceptance of divorced and remarried to receive holy communion and we have bishops taking a case for this to the Vatican (which was of course rebuffed). We had a parish youth teacher telling youth there was nothing wrong with premarital sex.
There wasn't anything in the article that suggested the lesbian mum had any desire to force the Catholic Church to change doctrine. Those on the ground in the parish might however know different and might well have valid reasons to reject enrollment.
It seems to me to hinge on an assesment of the spiritual motion of the parent - is it towards or away from the church. Just because she is living in sin doesn't mean she is moving away from the Church. Most people deeping their faith struggle over a peroid of time with sinful lifestyles. It takes time and grace to realise the sin they are living in and time and grace to overcome it. We need to discern whether people are in motion and not just see them as fixed where they currently are.
God Bless
Jonathan wrote:
"I've never heard of any desire from single or divorced parents to force the Catholic school to teach kids that premarital sex and divorce are acceptable and A-OK."
In the parochial school my son no longer attends there were regular representations of broken homes as the height of normalcy, "everyone comes from a different kind of family" sort of stuff in the books, filmstrips, and other media. Homosexuality wasn't being normalized but divorce surely was. Now I understand that we don't want to shun the 50% of kids from broken homes as "bastards", and that the sins of the parents are not the fault of the kids. On the other hand I don't think we can easily dismiss the notion that heads of broken homes can and do work to normalize the broken-home state in the minds of students at our schools. I even understand why -- who wants their kids to feel like their home-life is an abnormal, morally broken thing?
The problem is that these are all rear-guard actions occurring long after the major battle was lost. 30 some years ago an elderly effeminate celibate drew the line in the sexual sand at contraception, and it is only now that the full penalty for not following that instruction is becoming clear. (As an aside, I think this is one of the best evidences to show to protestants of the truth of Catholicism).
The only really safe places for Catholic kids are small hold-out schools and homeschooling. So what we ought to be discussing is not how to hold on to our mainstream parochial schools - we are just kidding ourselves if we think we hold them now - but how to take them back. That is part of why supporting the school on the scarf controversy is so important.
This may be part of what some folks haven't understood about my position on the scarf. I am encouraged that the school has decided to stop retreating and draw a line somewhere, anywhere. Modern culture always screams at us that we are hypocrites if we don't magically jump through time into the past, to a point where perfect consistency is putatively possible. So we are supposed to just keep on retreating before the kulturkampf forever, always harried on by cries of hypocrisy, retreating in front of the fact that prudentially to fight today we can't treat homosexuality equally to fornication (as if sins were persons with equal dignity).
Well, the real world doesn't work that way. All we can ever do is start from where we are. When we fight a battle we fight against the current enemy that we face, not the enemy that routed us 30 years ago. Shame on us if we preemptorily surrendered 30 years ago, or 12 years ago, but that doesn't relieve us of our duty to do what is right from where we actually are now. The choice is simple, on one level: keep giving up ground to the kulturkampf, ever harried on by accusations that we are uncharitable hypocrites, or stop and face it down from where we actually are.
And finally, those who are unwilling to stand and fight a particular battle on behalf of Catholic orthodoxy ought in the least to show some respect for those who are willing, like the people at both of these schools.
Zippy,
Wearing a head covering is part of the Catholic tradition. If the Virgin Mary or Mother Teresa turned up at Catholic school they'd also be wearing a head covering. St Paul wrote in favour of women covering their head and many Catholic women still do this in Church. It's a tradition we share with Muslims. It isn't giving up ground, its holding on to it.
God Bless
Chris,
Making an exception to the dress code at a Catholic school to allow a specific Muslim to wear Muslim garb is giving ground. In any case this has all been discussed above in excruciating detail, just scroll up. No amount of repeating the claim that an apple is an orange will make it so.
The Solomonic solution that I like best is to change the dress code to require all the girls to wear headcoverings in imitation of the Blessed Mother, by the way.
Fred asked Mark Shea:
"Do you also believe that Catholic schools are justified in excluding the children of parents who are divorced and remarried, of parents who use contraception, of mothers who have had an abortion (and not repented of it), and of parents who break the teachings of the Church in other ways? For that matter, what about the children of non-Catholic parents? Their parents are not just violating a particular church teaching, they are rejecting the church itself. Or is homosexuality the only sin a parent can commit that justifies excluding his child from Catholic school?"
For my part, I believe that a Catholic school is morally justified in excluding children for any or all of the above reasons, not to mention quite a few more, and is under no moral obligation to treat the various sins described equally. The actual circumstance of the school will necessarily influence what battles it picks, and it is under no obligation to surrender on one front simply because fighting on a different front would be impractical. Other practical, cultural, and legal issues also come into play, of course.
I forgot to mention another thing: just because "the school" - an organizational artifice the management, staff, and student body of which changes over time - has not fought a particular battle at one particular time does not imply that it is morally required to perpetually surrender on that front.
Zippy,
I love your Solomonic solution. I'd settle for making headcovering optional - then Our Lady would comply!
I agree we would be morally justified in excluding lots of children from Catholic school. St Paul wrote ""Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything is beneficial." 1Cor6:12
We have to ask ourselves "would it be beneficial" to exclude all these kids? I think not because our schools are one way of evangelising and attracting people to the faith. "Let the little children come to me". Lets let the kids in but make sure we teach the authentic faith with no comprises so they receive the very best opportunity we can give them to "come to me" whom is Christ.
God Bless
Ooops. "with no comprises" should be "with no compromises".
Sorry
I completely agree with your last post, Chris.
I like requiring a headcovering for all of the girls for a specifically Catholic reason, in the abstract, because it calls everyone's bluff. But the folks in the best position to assess these things are the ones there on the ground: the faculty, staff, and parents at the school.
Chris: Well, I guess I may have spoken too soon and I may not completely agree. I agree with the attitude or posture that your post implies most definitely, but I would give the locals at the schools a great deal of lattitude in dealing with their particular situation and I would encourage them to hold fast to the lines of orthodoxy that already exist, and to push them further in the direction of orthodoxy wherever practical.
"Send the little children to me" is a great attitude, but of course there are already children there and they are the first priority. I know a family that adopted and fostered quite a few kids until the day that one of the foster kids did some pretty horrific things to their own kids. That was the end of taking in foster children while their own children were young, and rightly so. The most charitable thing for a parent or teacher to do is to first look after their own charges, not to take on more charges that will corrupt or hurt the ones already there.
Zippy,
You're right. Only the people on the ground can make the call.
If the presence of this kid was going to be a harmful influence on the other kids (and gay political activism could easily turn this situation into that) then there would be a prudential duty to protect the other kids by appropriate action (talking to the parents, explaining the Church's teaching, explaining what behaviour is required and finally explusion if all else fails).
Nothing in this article suggests the presence of this kid is going to be harmful to the faith of the other kids. If the school is anything like ours, the lack of good catechesis and lack of solid Catholic teachers is likely to be far more damaging than the sinful lifestyle example of the parents.
The mere presence of a kid with two mommies is unlikely to do much damage. I'm much more worried about the photos in the newspapers and stuff on TV about gay marriages and men kissing which are the things our kids are asking us about.
God Bless
Chris writes:
"Nothing in this article suggests the presence of this kid is going to be harmful to the faith of the other kids."
Well, that may be overstating it.
It looks like a political setup to me, but your earlier posts get at one very salient point: is the parent using the child to advance an anti-Catholic political/religious agenda, or is she really on a trajectory toward repenting of her sinful lifestyle? In the other case, is the girl attempting to assert Islam against Catholicism in the dar-ul-harb or is she on a trajectory toward becoming a pious Catholic? Those are important moral questions that can't be answered by reading the articles, and of course once they've been dealt with on the individual-case moral level there are still the custodial moral, legal and practical levels to deal with. It may be that those moral subtleties in the individual cases are irrelevant in the custodial/practical/legal context, since giving ground in this one case (justly or not) opens the school up to demands to give ground in others. If the first priority is to protect and form the existant Catholic student body then it may just be too bad for those two individual children.
What if the parent of the child were a famous Catholic politician well known for their pro-choice platform and public funding of abortions? What if said politician became enraged to learn that their children's sex education did not include information on contraception and abortion?
I bet the above scenario has happened (know RCIA and Religious Education teachers who have been read the riot act for teaching what the church teaches as a result of parental complaints).
How can the Church act against the lesbian couple when they don't act against those who support abortion?
The lack of consistancy will make this another bonaza for trial lawyers.
Faith based schools ought to be unapologetically faith-based or else be secular. There can be no "in between." The in-between is a gold mine for trial lawyers.
The last few postings are on the button in my view.
Chris Sullivan.
I would suspect that the problem of potential litigation in a case such as this would be much more likely in the US than it would be here in NZ, even though we are moving that way also. I think Zippy has touched on this as well.
Don (kiwi),
We are blessed here in Godzone to live in a less litigious part of the world. Let us pray we can keep it that way.
One thing this issue brings up is the different understandings about what Catholic schools are here for.
"A Catholic school, he said, "is essentially a business that provides service to the public at large."
This may be what Catholic schools have to some extent become in the public mind but it isn't what our ancestors invested so much time and effort into creating. The primary function of Catholic schools are to teach the faith. They suceed or fail to the extent they teach the faith well.
The problem with watering down the faith component of Catholic schools is that they become "essentially a business". They are then wide open to attack by those wanting to further dilute the faith.
God Bless
I agree with Mark. Up here in Canada, a student took his catholic school to court to get an injunction so he could take his boyfriend to the school prom. He succeeded. The gay lobby funded the litigation and it was a clear case of the gay lobby sticking it to the Church. The Church can expect these type of attacks to continue. In response to some of the other comments, isn't it obvious that active dissent from the Church's teachings by way of overt lifestyle choices or one's public utterances and actions is grounds for censure including not being allowed to send your child to a catholic school? Say for example that a parent campaigned actively in favour of the practice of abortion, clearly they can and should be censured. On the other hand a person with same-sex attraction who struggles and sometimes fall into sin but accepts the church's teaching would be O.K. Living in a gay union and making a big deal of it is not O.K. One should show some caution in relying on press reports but it certainly looks like these two have an agenda, and the school had better do some fund-raising now to pay some upcoming legal bills.
Here's what I don't get. At all.
Okay, last year at about this time, everyone was really, really upset about all those homosexual priests "doing their thing", lettin' it all hang out and whatever - during the 70's and 80's, right?
Okay, and I agree, that was bad stuff, should never have happened, what were they thinking, and all that.
So, less than a year later, the Catholic Church (which seems to have taken a lesson from history - whaddya know, eh? We *can* learn from our mistakes!) The Catholic Church is saying, Okay, no, based on *our* experience with the homosexuals, (the consequences of which surely everyone remembers? Man, people have short attention spans!) Based on our experience, which basically blew up in our faces not 12 months ago, (and the burning ashes of which are *still* falling on us in some places), *we* think that maybe giving priveleges to homosexuals, (such as marriage, vocations to the priesthood, the responsibility of raising children, etc.) is possibly not the best idea in the world.
And they are turning around and saying, "Wow are you ever intolerant, you won't even give these people a chance."
I am just sitting here wishing that some Bishop would have the guts to come out and say, "Hey baby, we've been around that corner - we gave them their chances, and they blew it; they *more than* blew it. You, the public, told us we were crazy to give such people a chance, to let them be priests, right? Well, you were right - and from here on in, they ain't gettin' any more chances; not from us, anyway. You go right ahead and light that fuse, but we're not letting that bomb into our churches and schools, no how, no way."
Good lesson Gerald.
If its happened in Canada, it'll happen in the US and bet your .... it'll happen in NZ ( Godzone is getting less & less regtrettably, Chris) and Aussie etc if we sit back and let it happen.
Judith.
Scroll back to a post by David. This guy is fullfilling what the Holy Father has spoken about re homosexuals
and I think the guy needs a medal.
This has gotta be my final comment.
It looks like a political setup to me, but your earlier posts get at one very salient point: is the parent using the child to advance an anti-Catholic political/religious agenda, or is she really on a trajectory toward repenting of her sinful lifestyle? In the other case, is the girl attempting to assert Islam against Catholicism in the dar-ul-harb or is she on a trajectory toward becoming a pious Catholic?
Oh please. How many divorced/contracepting/non-Catholic/etc. parents of children in Catholic school are "on a trajectory toward becoming a pious Catholic?" If this is to be the standard for admission then Catholic schools will be rejecting the vast majority of their applicants.
The actual circumstance of the school will necessarily influence what battles it picks, and it is under no obligation to surrender on one front simply because fighting on a different front would be impractical.
In other words, it's okay to turn away the children of gay parents, while admitting the children of divorced/contracepting/non-Catholic/etc. straight parents, because the former are easy targets.
If that is how Catholic schools are to behave then they deserve all the scorn they receive. And as Therese points out, the trial lawyers will have a field day with a policy that includes such a blatant double standard.
"In other words, it's okay to turn away the children of gay parents, while admitting the children of divorced/contracepting/non-Catholic/etc. straight parents, because the former are easy targets."
Sure. There is nothing at all wrong with picking winnable battles; in fact it is imperative that we do so, and that is certainly what enemies of the Faith do. This odd modern sin-has-equal-rights notion, that once one concession has been made to sin a complete surrender across the board is morally required in order to treat all sin as having equal dignity, is nonsense.
Of course the long-term objective should be a return to taking Catholic teaching seriously across the board in Catholic institutions. So the revelers in divorce and contraception ought to stand up and take notice too.
As to the practical and legal matter, I agree that it is quite problemmatic. Scroll up, I've already posted on it extensively.
What happened to Mark?
Didn't Mark say he has, or recently had, gastro or summink?
Commenting by HaloScan
