Founded Hope?
In a clash that pits Catholic teachings against shifting values of American society, a group of parishioners and parents has accused Orange County church leaders of defying Pope John Paul II by allowing a gay couple to enroll their two boys in a diocese school.
Eighteen people signed a letter last month demanding that St. John the Baptist School in Costa Mesa accept only families that sign a pledge to live by Catholic doctrine — a move that effectively would kick the boys out of school. The church regards homosexual acts as sinful, and in 2003 the pontiff condemned marriage and adoption by same-sex couples.
"This is not a radical or mean-spirited approach to Catholic education," read the letter. "It is a straightforward assurance to any prospective parent that their child will be taught the fullness of Roman Catholic doctrine."
But Father Martin Benzoni, who oversees the 550-student elementary and middle school, last week rejected the group's demands. He released a new policy stating that a child's education comes first and that a family's background "does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school." [Source]
It seems to me that this effort is mistaken. Accepting a child to a school that has same-sexed parents is not the same thing as defying either the Pope or the truth of the Church's position on homosexuality. Many Catholic schools enrolls students of other faiths or in cases where the parents have no faith at all. I know of know Vatican documents that restrict Catholic education to only those in one hundred percent in conformity of the Church.
Hugh Hewitt posts in reply to this article:
I doubt there is a Catholic school in the nation that doesn't have children within it whose parents are divorced and remarried outside of the church, using birth control, or missing Mass on a regular basis. In fact, as a matter of doctrine, I believe all of us are sinners. Proponents of exclusion of the children are thus raising one form of sin to a higher level of condemnation than all others, so high, in fact, as to condemn the innocent children for the sins of their fathers.
I believe that some forms of sin do indeed require a higher form of condemnation then other sins, though I also would not put the sin of the father (or is that fathers?) onto the children. St. Paul made a distinction between the effects of sin when he said "All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal. " -- 1st John 5:17 His point though is that a more restrictive view towards Catholic education would in fact result in near empty schools since unfortunately there is a small percentage of Catholic who assent to all of what the Church teaches.
I am also unsure of why a homosexual couple would want to enroll their child in a school run by a Church that has been called both hateful and homophobic by activists. Maybe they know that in the majority of Catholic schools know that the children will never actually hear the Church's true position on homosexual activity. Or it could be a case of activists seeking further inroads into the acceptance of homosexual activity.
'Well kids what did you learn in school today?' 'We learned from the Catechism that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." We also learned from one of the Vatican's letters that your adopting us is "gravely immoral." Well isn't that special!'
The above is a fictional conversation and as a result of the education given in most Catholic schools might even be considered in the genre of fantasy.
Benzoni acknowledged the conflict between the two-father family and the teachings of the church, but said that the boys — both kindergarteners, adopted by a pair of Costa Mesa men — had been baptized in the faith and deserved a Catholic education.
It is true that baptized Children deserve a Catholic education, but the real question is why were they allowed to be baptized at all?
Can. 868 §1. For an infant to be baptized licitly:
1/ the parents or at least one of them or the person who legitimately takes their place must consent;
2/ there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason.
It seems doubtful as a matter of prudence that an adopted child of an actively homosexual couple should be baptized. There would not seem to be a founded hope that the child will indeed be brought up in the Catholic faith. In most cases it would not be easy for a priest to judge this of parents unless they were public sinners, but in this case it should have been easy when two men calling themselves the parents present a child to be baptized. In these cases the Baptism would be valid but would probably not be licit. The petitioners might have been correct in their opposition if they had originally opposed the baptism, but I don't believe they were correct to oppose the Catholic education of the Children.
Known as 
I hope this children are educated to be good Catholics, but I have a strong feeling that they are being enrolled in order for their parents to be "offended" and immediately demand that the school stop teaching church doctrine.
There was a similar case to this a couple of years back in Eugene OR (where the pastor of my parish was tape-recorded during a pastoral visit to a prison inmate causing a major church/state/seal of confession scandal). The parents in that case were lesbian women. I don't remember all the details, but I am sure they are available on-line.
Once again, I think that it is an issue of setting up the church as a target by some persons, and poor formation by others. It is entirely possible that these two men honestly believe that God had blessed their relationship and that the children deserve a Catholic education. And it is entirely possible that two men who have emotions and sexual attraction for each other could still be living in a chaste friendship, trying to raise these children to be faithful sons of God. I don't know if it is likely, but one of the tragedies of our hypersexual society is that same-sex friendships are assumed to have a sexual component to them.
I do think that the issues arise not because the parents of schoolchildren are sinners ( I mean, we all are sinners) but that the parents may claim that sin is not sin - and this applies to same sex couples, unmarried heterosexual couples, adulterous 'marriages', sterilized, contracepting, using artificial reproductive technology, etc etc, parents.
If we are going to exclude children based on the parents - where do we start and where do we stop?
I say that the Catholic schools should take the children and teach the truth - no matter how uncomfortable the truth makes those selfsame parents. Make it part of the papers that parents have to sign to enroll the children that "The values taught in this school will reflect those taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and may be found in the Catechism. IF this makes you uncomfortable, you may want to reconsider choosing our school for your childrens' education." and see what happens then.
An interesting case. Ultimately, the pastor has the final judgment on sacraments and parish involvement.
Regarding Catholic school enrollment, many schools across the country (and especially in cities) enroll non-Catholic students. In fact, many schools would fail if they had no tuition income from non-Catholics. Since Mass attendance runs about the same in student families as in non-student families, one can also deduce that in most schools the parents do not attend Mass regularly, and in some cases, don't attend at all. Do you toss kids if one parent attends, but the other Catholic parent goes to a church of another denomination?
In regards to the kids, and by extension, the family, I am trully saddened.
It looks like the Great Commission has turned into the Great Dismissal.
Nate
I disagree. In the past even moreso than today it was not at all unusual for non-Catholics who wanted their children to get a good education to have their children baptized. The condition--that they be brought up Catholic--was accomplished by making sure they went to school and Mass. At school their religious instruction would be taken care of. A son of a prostitute could grow up to be a priest--or, at least, his soul would be saved. I'm sure a canon lawyer would interpret "brought up in the Catholic religion" as imposing a low threshold and I highly doubt that liceity of the child's baptism would be in doubt simply in virtue of the parents being public sinners. Being brought up by two men in a conjugal relationship is messed up, sure; but is it an insurmountable obstacle to being one of Christ's faithful? That's the central question, and it's evident to me the answer must be no.
Parochial schools can't possibly screen parents for violations of Catholic doctrine. The sin in which these boys' - what can they be called, adoptive parents, legal guardians? - appear to be living is more public, but not necessarily more serious than the sins of others who send children to the school. The men must probably be asked to commit themselves to forgoing legal action against the school should the boys be taught that homosexual relations are morally wrong, but the school really can't exclude the boys if their guardians agree to that.
I know the parents who objected to this and I fully agree with them! As usual, the presentation of the "facts" by the media, is seriously lacking! It would be one thing if the kids were simply from another family of poorly formed parents. The truth is that they are the children of parents who are living openly in direct defiance of the Church's teachings on love, human sexuality, and marriage. The family is the first church and these kids cannot possibly get a solid formation in their Catholic faith because they are being brought up in a counterfeit family structure. Further their situation can only create confusion for the other children who won’t understand the complexity of these issues. Would you want your children exposed to homosexual men at a Catholic school, especially in kindergarten? Remember these parents just want the parents of kids attending Catholic school to agree to live in accord with the Church. There is an abundance of UN-Catholic school options for those who reject Catholicism, but there are VERY FEW options for those who want to give their children a fully Catholic formation!
I have to ask the question: Why do the "fathers" of these kids want them enrolled in a school that should be teaching that their "fathers’" relationship is intrinsically wrong and a lie? The question has been broached of whether they may be trying to advance the gay agenda and it is a fair question. One of the fathers has been accepted as a teacher’s aid in the class and is in direct contact with the other parent's children. The fathers listed themselves openly in the school directory as father and father. By their relationship they are presenting themselves in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church and the Holy Father. The Episcopal Church seems to have accepted their position so why not go there?
Even in being as loving as possible and trying to teach the Catholic faith to their kids do you think a classroom education will override their experience at home? If these men have renounced the truth of the faith can we expect them to support the Church's teachings in even a marginal way? Isn't it a lie for us to tell even their kids that it's okay for them to have gay fathers when the Church teaches the truth that it's wrong? The Church loses all significance and authority by accepting this situation. It would be the same as appointing an abortionist to head the school system.
Those who live in direct conflict with the Church must be treated with firm love. Jesus said: "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Mt 18:15-17 Even Christ calls us to distance ourselves from those who reject the Church!
It’s terribly unfortunate that these kids don’t have parents who will properly form them. It will be exceedingly difficult for the school to do when they are exposed to a counterfeit image of marriage and family at such a young age. The other kids deserve to have a solidly Catholic education presented to them without being exposed to counterfeit family images. If the parents cannot at a minimum sign a pledge to live as Catholics then their kids should attend another institution.
Tim,
"As usual, the presentation of the "facts" by the media, is seriously lacking!"
Fine. Ask one of the parents to post here in response.
"The family is the first church and these kids cannot possibly get a solid formation in their Catholic faith ..."
More so than parents who never attend Sunday Mass?
"Would you want your children exposed to homosexual men at a Catholic school, especially in kindergarten?"
Why is this a danger for a child?
"Remember these parents just want the parents of kids attending Catholic school to agree to live in accord with the Church."
Fine. Then the same standard should be applied to all parents.
"I have to ask the question: Why do the "fathers" of these kids want them enrolled in a school that should be teaching that their "fathers’" relationship is intrinsically wrong and a lie?"
Their situation is not unique. Clearly they believe the value of Catholic education outweighs potential confusion for the kids.
"The question has been broached of whether they may be trying to advance the gay agenda and it is a fair question."
So ... has there been an answer?
"The Episcopal Church seems to have accepted their position so why not go there?"
The Episcopal parish might not have a school. Plus the family might be Catholic.
"If these men have renounced the truth of the faith can we expect them to support the Church's teachings in even a marginal way?"
Yes, aware that these guys have not renounced the entire faith.
"Isn't it a lie for us to tell even their kids that it's okay for them to have gay fathers when the Church teaches the truth that it's wrong?"
No. The Church has taught that homosexual intercourse is wrong. Opinions have been offered that gay people adopting children is wrong. But the case has yet to be shown infallible.
"The Church loses all significance and authority by accepting this situation. It would be the same as appointing an abortionist to head the school system."
Not exactly. The "same" situation would involve the children of the abortionist being enrolled at school. Or the children of parents who do not attend Mass.
"It’s terribly unfortunate that these kids don’t have parents who will properly form them."
Better than having no parents at all. Far, far better.
"If the parents cannot at a minimum sign a pledge to live as Catholics then their kids should attend another institution."
Then you've just shut down just about every non-elite non-prep Catholic school in the country. Congratulations.
"If the parents cannot at a minimum sign a pledge to live as Catholics then their kids should attend another institution."
Then you've just shut down just about every non-elite non-prep Catholic school in the country. Congratulations.
Why would the elite prep schools survive? Money doesn't make you any more virtuous (prhaps even less so). PArents of elite prep schools wouldn't be able to sign that pledge any more than those of a poor inner city private school.
Love your MT Blog Diet Patch http://www.diet-patch-online.com