Yikes, this is a tough one, I think. Surely it is not the kids' fault that they've been 'adopted' by this homosexual couple, and they're entitled to some education. Would a Catholic hospital refuse to treat these kids if they were brought in to the Emergency room by their homosexual 'parents'?
On the other hand, due to the public nature of the grave sin involved here, it could be seen as receiving the implicit approval of the Catholic school when the pair begin showing up at, e.g., PTA meetings or other parent functions.
On the whole, I'd have to say that the kids should go elsewhere for schooling (why in the world these 'parents' want to send their kids to this Catholic school anyway is beyond me, unless they're confident that it does NOT teach Catholic morals).
The Rev. Horan's slippery slope, though, is a good example of our declining ability to make obvious distinctions due to the corruption of political correctness. 'Darkening of the intellect' I believe it's called.
I have a friend whose mother was denied admission to a Catholic school in Cuba in the late 40s/early 50s because her parents were divorced. Her mother, with whom she lived, hadn't initiated the divorce and hadn't contracted an invalid second marriage, yet the school still refused to admit her child, apparently thinking it important that the students not be tainted by exposure to a peer whose family life was so irregular. Interestingly, my friend says her mother completely understood the school's reasoning and even may have agreed with it, even though its application to her might seem unfair.
Has anyone stopped to think that a Catholic education might be a vehicle to convincing this child that the homosexual marriage of his/her parents is morally wrong? Maybe it will even convince the parents (but I doubt it). The Holy Spirit works in mysterious ways.
Maybe a Catholic education and a set of morals might be just what this child needs now in his/her life.
I think it is also a slippery slope if we begin to penalize children for their parents' sins...exactly what Christ taught us not to do by curing the sick, who had received their sickenss from their parents' sins, according to Hebrew teaching and thought at the time.
Interesting to read the pastor's rationale to the child's admission. And Pat's accurate observation that the same Jesus who observed about the persecutors of the woman caught in adultery, 'let he who is blameless cast the first stone,' also told her, 'go and sin no more.' Adding- He saved His fury for the official teachers of the law. The ones who looked for loopholes.
Fury was not incurred by those who taught official law and looked for loopholes: Jesus's ruling WAS the loophole. Instead of overthrowing the old testament punishment, He added another requirement that made the stoning an impossibility, without eliminating the law. This is Jesus in a less revolutionary place, working within the hebrew framework while attacking hypocracy, not the law itself.
Independant of this, I think that the Church's overriding devotion to forgiveness should allow this child into the school. If Jesus is to work through the church, it must be open to all, regardless of their family, and even their past indiscretions. It makes no sense to me that the church would shut out an innocent child who has been put up for adoption and accepted by potentially flawed people. The way to god is not earsy: that's why the church and confession were created in the first place!
What sin has the child committed that it should be denied a Catholic education? If it is God's will that this child should later wish to become a priest/nun/brother would should they be barred because the couple that raised him/her were of the same sex?
"What sin has the child committed that it should be denied a Catholic education?"
Obviously none, but there's no requirement that Catholic schools admit everyone except open and notorious sinners. Canon law forbids the ordination of persons born out of wedlock, and though the Church may dispense from this impediment, the fact that it's on the books isn't a denial of natural justice.
Admit the kids. Being at that school might be the one thing that saves them.
I think the relevant admonition here is not "Go, and sin no more" but "Let the children come unto me." Other reports make it clear that the children are baptized Catholics. They deserve to be educated accordingly.
cuba is very hard on divorces - it's not just a catholic thing
in puerto rico, if a man claims that his wife denied him his 'marital privelegs' she receives no alimony
that said, divorce is sometimes necessary - that was the only 'moral problem' we had when i went to school - we had children who were the kids of divorced parents, but many of them simply did not grow up to be good Catholics - they need the school, but perhaps they felt on the outside very often, outside of all the other 'happy families' (and yes, the children of some of those 'happy families' sometimes did not turn out to be good Catholics, and they sometimes divorced)
i think this needs to be more compared to couples living together w/o being married - a problem now but now when i was in school - i think same sex disorder is a serious sin, when acted upon, but so is living together w/o marriage
they need some pastoral help w/ this, so people understand why they are sinning and what to do to not sin
sorry, privileges is the word i meant, and i meant cuba used to be hard - these days you can divorce verye asily
too easily and too often
you can deny baptism to a child whose parents are not living a proper catholic life, and / or it seems will not be raised as a catholic
going to a catholic school is not a right - it is a community
what concerns me these days is how many non-catholics are going to supposedly catholic schools
I don't want to get into a debate about legitimacy and ordination, but suffice it to say that despite canon law prohibitions they are relatively easily over come.
"despite canon law prohibitions they are relatively easily over come"
True enough. (My favorite example is a fictional one: in Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series, Stephen Maturin pulls strings so that Capt. Aubrey's illegitimate son can get a dispensation and be ordained a Catholic priest.) But the fact is that under canon law the default setting is denial of ordination to illegitimates, which proves that there is no *right* to ordination. Similarly, there is no *right* to admission to the Catholic school in question. The real question is whether the school can admit children from such a background without compromising its mission of passing on the truth. That is a prudential question, and one which the school must determine for itself. I admit the validity of arguments by those suggesting that admission may well be advisable because it will give the school an opportunity to evangelize children whose "parents" might otherwise shield them from the hard demands of the gospel. Of course, the same thing can be said of children whose parents are in invalid second "marriages." And in either case, I'd be worried that if the school admitted children from such irregular homes, it might tone down its message about the demands of Christ's law out of a misplaced desire not to offend.
As usual I stick in my two cent's worth...
Admit the children. As pointed out above, THEY are without sin/blame for this situation. THEY are the ones that will directly benefit from the religious education and basic atmosphere.
Err on the side of utility: do you want four individuals - two adults and two children - to be grateful to The Church, perhaps even to the point of reconsideration of past deeds.
Or do you want four embittered individuals: the adults now and the children - sure as shooting - later on.
The choice comes down to that: embitterment or possible salvation for four fellow human beings.
Regards
Seamus,
This matter is not at all analgous to ordination; we can, in fact, speak of rights here. Canon 217 states that "The faithful, since they are called by means of baptism to conduct a life conforming to the evangelical doctrine, have the right to a christian education." (My emphasis) Maybe that isn't, strictly speaking, a right to admission to Catholic school, but admission policies should take into account the right in 217.
Robert:
Do we even know whether the children of the homosexual couple are Catholic? If they aren't, then canon 217 is irrelevant. If they are, then canon 217 still doesn't answer the question decisively. If they are Catholic, then certainly their pastor and their bishop have an obligation to see that they have access to the Catholic education to which they are entitled under canon 217. As you concede, that doesn't necessarily mean admitting them to St. John the Baptist School. But I admit that on the other hand it might well mean admitting them, though I think that's for the pastor and the bishop to determine in the exercise of their prudential judgment. (And it seems that the school superintendent, who I assume has authority delegated from the bishop, has determined that these children should be admitted. As I said before, that's not necessarily a problem, unless as a result the school fails to teach the truth with full vigor.)
This is all well and good, we need to discuss these issues relevant to our application of faith in the world today. However, while we are discussing Christ's teaching regarding judgmental behavior as sin, we should also examine His admonition to, "Let the little children to come unto me, forbid them not; for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 19:14 NKJ). This seems to me to be an ageless, timeless imperative. No matter the circumstances we should never restrain a child from the teachings of Christ when given the opportunity. Why shouldn't children of Gay Marriage be allowed into a Catholic, or any Christian, School? They are allowed into Heaven.
"Why shouldn't children of Gay Marriage be allowed into a Catholic, or any Christian, School? They are allowed into Heaven."
I don't believe that eligibility for Heaven is the only criterion that schools do or should apply when deciding which children they should admit. There may well be pedagogical reasons to exclude the children of homosexual couples--but if there are, then those reasons would also call for exclusion of the children of divorced/remarried and unmarried heterosexual couples. (For example, the school might determine that it's just too much of a distraction for its educational mission to have to make sure everyone understands that the admission of those particular children shouldn't be taken as a denial of the gravely sinful nature of adultery and sodomy.) That said, I'd be surprised if such reasons were applicable in the Costa Mesa case, but I'd leave that determination to the sound discretion of the school authorities.
Of course, if the school had good reason to believe the homosexual "parents" in question were applying in order to try to make trouble (e.g., to be in a position to demand that the children, once admitted, not be exposed to moral teaching condemning sodomy, or to file a lawsuit if the application were denied), then that would be a good reason to exclude them.
"to be in a position to demand that the children, once admitted, not be exposed to moral teaching condemning sodomy"...that is probably what they expect and what will happen.
Otherwise, there would be feature stories and letters in the local newspaper about how "selfrighteous" and "harsh" and "cruel" the school & diocese are.
Maybe, they should have the parents sign something - all parents could do this - to the effect that they know Catholic theology will be taught and that they have familiarized themselves with what that means.
Hey how about this guys…
Instead of attacking the school lets challenge the two gay people to do what is in the best interest of the children, lets tell them if they truly want what’s best for the children and believe in the catholic teachings of the school, then nullify this false wedding, do what is right and bring the children up in a proper catholic setting.
Commenting by HaloScan
