Punditry

One of the most common rebuttals to the situation of the children being raised by Lesbian couple  not being able to attend a Catholic schools is the seeming issue of fairness.  That a equal standard is not being applied to other irregular situations involving heterosexual couples and the children being raised by them.  I agree with Jimmy Akin take on this and as he usually does he puts it succinctly.

You see, an awful lot of parents of kids in Catholic school aren’t morally perfect, and if children were to be excluded on the mere grounds that their parents are sinners then enrollment would be quite low indeed.

And this is true. If a Catholic school applied that kind of test in determining enrollment then it would thwart its principal mission, which is providing a Catholic education to students to help them be more holy and closer to God.

So, “Your child can’t enroll because you’re a sinner” is a nonstarter as a principle of enrollment.

But does it follow from this that a parents’ actions should have no bearing on the enrollment of their children? Couldn’t certain actions of the parents cause such a problem that it would fundamentally interfere with the school’s mission?

Suppose that the parents insisted that their child attend the school naked (and suppose that civil law allowed this, for purposes of the thought experiment).

This fundamental rejection of the school’s dress code would cause such severe problems that the school would be entirely warranted in saying, “I’m sorry, but your child cannot come to school if you’re going to insist on nakedness.”

That’s an extreme, but it’s not hard to see how having a child in class whose “parents” are of the same gender could interfere with the mission of the school:

1) It will impede the ability of teachers to be frank about the nature of marriage due to the problems that will ensue with a child in this situation in the classroom.

2) The child will also become a proselytizer for homosexual “marriage” and/or be tormented relentlessly by other children.

3) The other children will be scandalized (in both the proper and the colloquial senses) by knowledge of the child’s situation.

4) All of the above will be exacerbated to the extent that the “parents” have any presence at or try to play any role in the life of the school.

So . . . bad idea.

It’s not the fact that the “parents” are sinners that makes it rational for the school to deny their children entrance. It is the fact that the nature of their public relationship is such that either the school would have to refrain from teaching the fullness of Christian doctrine regarding the nature of matrimony or tremendous problems would arise with a child in this situation in the student body.

At least that’s how I see it.

How do you? [National Catholic Register Blog]

Catholic schools can’t become Parent Cops seeking out the situations of the children’s parents.  But the situation of a same-sex couple is apparent from the get go and is quite public.  The situation for the child is of course quite hard.  Dawn Stefanowicz a child who grew up with same-sex parents has worked with many other children from similar situations and it is a very difficult circumstance for those children.

The story about the Catholic school in the Diocese of Denver not allowing the children of a Lesbian couple to attend has certainly taken off in the media and of course raise a lot of protest from the homosexual community.

I certainly agree with Archbishop Charles J. Chaput who calls it a “painful situation.”  Even when an action is taken correctly for the right reasons it does not prevent the suffering of those involved.  As Archbishop Chaput also said:

“If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible.”

There is a comparable situation when it comes to the baptism of children.  For example in Canon law:

Canon 868. For the licit baptism of an infant it is necessary that:  … (2) there be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such a hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be put off according to the prescriptions of particular law and the parents are to be informed of the reason.

While education is different from baptism there is some commonality and it is rather difficult in this sad situation that the children will receive the proper reinforcement of what the Church teaches generally and their living situation specifically denies part of what the Church teaches.  There is also of course the scandal caused by such a situation that attempts to normalize a same-sex relationship as being equal to heterosexual marriage.  It is very sad that the children are caught in the middle of this, but the same-sex couple raising them put them in this situation in the first place. Whether or not they understood what the policy was or the fact the the school would be actually faithful to Archdiocese policy is something we  don’t know.

Fr. Breslin who made the decision comments are well worth reading in full.

This past week we implemented a policy that has been the most difficult decision of my life.  The choice could have been made to do nothing and allow a lesbian couple to enroll their child in our Kindergarten.  But that choice would have been against Archdiocesan policy; and when a priest is ordained he promises obedience to his bishop; and I cannot violate that vow; and I will not.

The choice before me was either to protect the beliefs of our faith or pretend nothing was happening.  But our school, after all, is a Catholic school. And our reason for existence, both as a parish and as a Catholic school, is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. Being disciples of Jesus Christ is very demanding. Yes, being disciples entails adherence to the many examples of Jesus’ love: love one another as I have loved you; be not the first to throw a stone; judge not lest you be judged.  Think of the Good Samaritan story and the Prodigal Son.

…

Society and way too many Catholic institutions have decided that “nothing was happening” and thus have ignored or even aided such situation.  He goes on to talk about  repentance and the sanctity of marriage.  Though I would quibble with the following.

Would that I could wave a magic wand and make all of the present struggle disappear.  I hate the fact that I had to make a choice between being loving and protecting the teachings of the church.

I would certainly argue that there is not a choice in this case between protecting the faith and loving those involved.  Love is willing the good for the other and when you act for their good by not affirming something that is objectively grave sin you are in fact committing an act of love.  Reminding someone that they are in fact sinning when it is down prudentially is an act of mercy.  If he had ignored the situation he would not have not been loving them in any way. The culture, as it often does, gets things totally backwards.  They call promoting same-sex relationships as good and any objection as hatred and homophobia. When you ignore sin calling it good it does not eliminate the effects of sin and does harm even with the most sincere motives.  So often what is called sincere is really SINcere in that it affirms instead of rebuking sin.

One thing that has annoyed me in these stories is that in almost all of them they are called Lesbian “parents.” Well perhaps one of them is the biological parent, but the other is the person they are living with. Same-sex relationships by their very nature are not fruitful. It is easy to understand all of the confusion considering the state of heterosexual relationships concerning fornication, divorce, and adultery. Too often heterosexual couples try to make their relationships just as unfruitful as same-sex ones via contraception and abortion.

We should certainly pray for the children involved, the same-sex couple, those scandalized by the truth of what the Church teaches; along with Archbishop Chaput and Father Breslin who defended the truth.

Fr. Z’s comments on the story.

When NY1 News reporter Roma Torre asked whether a pro-abortion Catholic should be invited to a “Catholic event” such as the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner, Dolan’s response was unequivocal.

“Actually, Roma, I don’t think we should invite anybody that would take a stance [in favor of] abortion, because this is not a Catholic issue,” he replied.

The archbishop later clarified that his answer pertained to giving public honors to such persons.

“In our mind, being opposed to abortion, is a civil rights issue, it’s a natural law issue, it’s not a Catholic issue,” Dolan continued. “We’d be uncomfortable in anybody that would, say, promote a stand that would be for bigotry, or against civil rights, because that’s contrary not only to the teaching of the Church but to what we would call civil rights and the natural law.”

The archbishop said that a pro-abortion Catholic such as New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo would be “welcome” to a Catholic event – but “there’s a difference between everybody being welcome, and providing somebody who is dramatically, radically, publically at odds with the Church on a particularly given issue to have a place of prominence and to receive an award.”

Exactly, there is a big difference. You often hear the term about a church being “open” when they actually mean that the church openly sees some sin as acceptable. You also hear so much that Jesus ate with sinners as a justification for accepting sin. The Catholic Church is truth open in that it is truly open to everyone and certainly wants all to go to Mass. Even those who receive the medicinal penalty of excommunication are still able to go to Mass, but just can’t participate in the sacraments until they have repented and gone to sacramental confession. Those that are pro-abortion or who are pro-homosexual acts also are invited to Mass, they just can’t participate in the sacramental aspects of the Church until they also repent. Yes, Jesus ate with sinners and the sinners he attracted were the one who admitted their sins and were on the road of conversion. Less frequently mentioned is that Jesus also ate with Pharisees who he would rebuke. Fellowship with others does not mean that sin must be ignored – it is a spiritual act of mercy to rebuke the sinner – just make sure you have deforested the logs in your own eyes.

“It’s not like I sit down and say: How can I grab some headlines, how can I really cause a splash,” Dolan said.  “You just try to do your work, and sometimes things get attention. …

“If people ask me, I feel obliged as a teacher, as the official teacher of the Archdiocese of New York, to try my best to give the Church’s wisdom here.”

Dolan noted that he was “grateful” that the New York legislature struck down a same-sex “marriage” bill last year.  He also affirmed that the St. Patrick’s Day Parade should continue disallowing a gay pride banner, which would conflict with the parade’s “strong Christian identity.”

Well said. It seems to me that many other bishops are more worried about being seen as “headline grabbers” or being perceived as acting politically instead of being a teacher – a true shepherd. Jesus called truth a sword and one that divides. Preaching the truth must be in season and out of season.

But, he said, it would be a mistake to understand the Church’s stance against such matters as mere naysaying.

Instead, he said: “the Church in a way is one big yes: one big yes to human life, one big yes to anything that advances, lifts up, enlightens, liberates legitimate human identity. We’re in the ‘yes’ business, not the ‘no’ business.

“So I get frustrated sometimes, when that’s interpreted as being ‘anti-gay,’ that’s where we kinda cringe,” he continued, “because believe it or not, we get attacked from the other extreme for defending the rights of gays and for the strong Church teaching that every single human being … is a child of God, deserving of dignity and respect.”

Dolan called the late John Cardinal O’Connor of New York, who was outspokenly pro-life, his “hero” – and acknowledged that his office calls for a “prophetic” voice, although he prefers using a persuasive tone when possible.

“There’s always a little bit of tension between those two,” said Dolan. “But occasions might call that I’ll have to be prophetic. I’m sure there’s gonna be times … that I’m gonna have to be a bit of a pitbull. In general, I like to be an Irish Setter.[reference]“

Archbishop Dolan has that nice personality balance the evicts a cheerful orthodoxy. He is able to declare the truth without seeming mean-spirited. Though his critics will often see otherwise. But again the Archbishop makes great points. The Church says yes to all of the great truths. It is the secular culture that says no constantly to the truth and yes to sin.

In the Name of Diversity

Catholics in England might like someone of Cardinal Martino’s caliber at the moment.

This week, the U.K. parliament voted to pass an amendment to a bill that, according to the government and an agency of the Catholic Church, will allow faith schools to teach sex education according to their religious ethos.

But pro-life organizations and many orthodox-thinking Catholics say the amendment is deceptive and misleading, as it will still require all schools, including Catholic schools, to give information about contraception, abortion, and homosexual partnerships in the name of equality and diversity. The government’s education minister, Ed Balls, seemed to admit as much on a BBC radio program on the day of the vote.

“They can explain the views of their faith,” he said, “but what they can’t do is say that they are not going to teach children about contraception, how to access contraception, or how to use contraception.” He added that what the bill changes is that for the first time “these schools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument.”

Teachers in faith schools, he said, will have to teach “different views on homosexuality, they cannot teach homophobia, they must explain civil partnership and must give a balanced view on abortion. They must explain both sides of the argument and how to access an abortion. The same is true on contraception as well.”

Faith schools will, therefore, now be obliged to instruct young girls on where to kill a child in their womb, say pro-life organizations[reference].

This of course is not surprising in any way. You are allowed to believe whatever you want just as long as you also do what the government tells you to do.

But the Catholic Education Service, the agency which has worked with the government on the bill and which is governed by the bishops of England and Wales, supports the legislation. It insists that the teaching of all aspects of the curriculum in Catholic schools “reflects their religious ethos,” and that sex education “will be rooted in the Catholic Church’s teaching of the profound respect for the dignity of all human persons.”

Unfortunately this also is not surprising. You might have wondered historically how King Henry VIII managed to have his way with all but one bishop as he went into schism and brought the other bishops along. Again the Episcopacy seems to be largely silent over a massive offense against religious freedom and the ability to teach the full truth. You can pretty much just cue the crickets. Though at least one voice, Scottish Cardinal O’Brien mentioned the government’s “systematic and unrelenting attack on family values.  The whole thing is kind of like watching the Reformation all over again except the power grab does not happen under the banner of religion.

Here in the United States recently  the Archdiocese of Washington announced that it is shutting down its foster care and public adoption program because of the new same-sex marriage law.  Like in the case of Massachusetts and San Francisco where adoption services were also shut down, there was no religious conscience clauses allowed.  So once again tolerance in the name of same-sex marriage results in the shutting down of a Catholic Charities adoption service.  Previously:

The Archdiocese told the Washington Post on Wednesday that failing to broaden conscience protections for religious groups and individuals would force them to cancel its social services contracts with the city. That in turn would affect the tens of thousands of people seeking help with adoption, homeless shelters, and health services.

The idea they might have to shut down all contracts with the city seems to have gone by the wayside. The Archdioces now puts a positive light on shutting down some services by saying “Continues 82 other programs” – so that religious freedom has been violated in such an extreme way didn’t manage even a news release by the diocese about this specifically. Maybe they are too busy with Carbon fasts.  The USCCB has also not managed a statement on the fact that now three Adoption services have been shut down.  Pope Benedict XVI spoke out against British “equality laws” and for them creating “limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”  The same thing is happening here with very little outcry where we just seem to go along.  Our freedom to practice religion is being taken away from us and our consciences violated by the state – oh well, move along.

Washington D.C., Feb 22, 2010 / 07:19 pm (CNA).- At the American Conservative Union’s recent annual meeting, Deal Hudson, president of the Catholic Advocate, hosted an event with the theme “It’s time for a Catholic Tea Party.”

The annual meeting of the ACU, called the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) took place in Washington D.C. from Feb. 18-20.

Hudson told attendees of the Catholic Advocate event that “it was time for Catholics to realize they don’t need permission from their bishops to become politically active.”

Hudson’s remarks were made in the context of a campaign to “reform the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD)” that he is helping lead. The CCHD, which is under jurisdiction of the U.S. bishops, has recently come under fire for its alleged connections with a network of community organizations that have promoted abortion and the homosexual agenda.

Clarifying what he means by a “Catholic Tea Party,” Hudson said, “We are not calling for the dismantling of the USCCB, not at all. Episcopal conferences are fully mandated by the documents of Vatican II and the Code of Cannon Law.”

“But,” Hudson continued, “we want the USCCB to be managed in a way that does supplant the role and responsibility of the laity and programs like the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. In the case of USCCB programs like the CCHD a serious overhaul is necessary to prevent Catholic money from being spent on organizations supporting abortion and same-sex marriage.”

“$2,000,000 has been spent this way and it needs to stop,” Hudson claimed.[reference]

I take his point – but don’t care for the term “Catholic Tea Party” I do think there is already too much taking in of political terms within the Church. The terms “right” and “left” are bad enough without bringing in more political parallels.

The historical parallels more apt – though not a perfect match – would be the Catholic response to the Protestant Reformation. The response of the Council of Trent and the so-called “Counter-Reformation” is more in the line of what we need – though I certainly don’t mean calling a new council. The aftermath to the Second Vatican Council (not the Council itself) has parallels to the Protestant Reformation when all of a sudden people perceived some new “freedoms” divorced from the teachings of the path and a culture of do your own thing developed. Just this time the Luthers, Calvins, and Zwinglis stayed within the Church. They too started with the mind of reform in what in fact needed reformed only to split off into contrary theologies that continue to spawn and divide today. The Protestant Reformers all went off in their own directions.

So many in the Social Justice movement perceived that more could be done to help the poor and set about to do this good work, but like Luther sided with the Princes they ended up siding with the government as the tool for this work and soon started to ignore the negative aspects of this alliance all in the name of the poor. The USCCB’s Catholic Campaign for Human Development fell into a similar trap by largely seeing government programs as the answer. So many of the groups they support basically agitate for more government money and intrusion. They quickly became blind to the anti-Christian agendas of the other groups they were working with all in the name of human development. This of course is a common human flaw that people can so concentrate on one aspect of the truth that it soon looses relation to other truths – something we all have to watch out for.

Again I don’t see how the Tea Party model is applicable here. It is effective in the arena of politics where large demonstrations for common cause are useful. Though I would like a Missal Party where we all dressed up as some group and grabbed a bunch of OCP missals to be thrown into the closest harbor (Boston or otherwise). I just don’t see large demonstrations of Catholics outside the USCCB offices for example being very effective. Maybe I am just hung up on the Tea Party metaphor being used – I just think it does not conjure up an actual Catholic reply. Besides Tea Party sounds to Puritan. Sign me up for a Catholic Beer Party, named after all the fine work monks contributed to civilization and true reform throughout the centuries. They preserved knowledge and made beer – showing they got their priorities right.

Seriously though. The Counter-Reformation (what a stupid historical term) was effective because the first reform sought after was personal reform. It was Saints Ignatius, John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Francis de Sales, Chales Borromeo, along with many others who led a true reform. Today like every age we need saints. Besides if we don’t take up the cause of personal holiness when we get to Judgment Jesus will ask “Who Dat” (a form of Matthew 7:23).

The Church of St. Michael Catholic Aid Council is sponsoring an all-you-can-eat fish fry from 5-8 p.m., Friday, Feb. 19 in the lower level of Archangels Hall at the church, 16311 Duluth Ave., S.E., Prior Lake.

Lightly breaded Alaskan Pollock, macaroni and cheese, potato wedges, coleslaw, green beans, corn, homemade rolls, coffee, milk and dessert will be served. Tickets are $9 for adults, $8 for seniors (65 years and older), and $5 for children 5 to 12 years old. Kids four and under eat free.

Everyone is welcome and to-go orders will be available. For more information, contact Cheryl Dymit at (952) 440-6927. Article.

I guess “All you can moderately eat fish fry in keeping with the Lenten spirit” was too long to fit on the sign.

You have to wonder what other ironic events they hold during the year? Perhaps a Bar-B-Que on St. Lawrence’s feast day or maybe a kegger in honor of Venerable Matthew Talbot.

More details on the CCHD scandal from Deal Hudson.

CCC’s executive director, Deepak Bhargava, states that they are fighting for "lifting restrictions on women’s access to health services." (Bhargava was also a featured speaker hosted by the USCCB at a three-day conference

CCC joined the "Stop Stupak" coalition through its "Campaign for Community Change" arm, explaining, "Of course, no issue is more critical to women’s economic opportunity than the ability to choose when and under what personal circumstances to raise children.

CCC is a member of the National Coalition for Immigrant Women’s Rights (NCIWR). NCIWR requires all members to sign an agreement supporting, among other things, "Reproductive health care coverage financed through public funds provided to all immigrant women regardless of legal and economic status," as well as "equitable access to confidential and non-coercive family planning services and contraceptive equity."

Sean Thomas-Brietfield, Director of CCC’s Taproots Project, wrote an article promoting consensual "polyamory," or "relationships where there is no expectation of fidelity."

CCC developed leaders for same-sex marriage advocacy and homosexual activists through its Generation Change program. In 2008, CCC received a $50,000 grant for leadership training from one of the chief funders of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered) causes, the Gill Foundation.

Ralph McCloud, the current Director of the CCHD, participated in a December 2008 event cosponsored by CCC and the Gamaliel Foundation "Realizing the Promise Forum," celebrating the election of Barack Obama. McCloud is reported to have proclaimed, "Very soon we will see a New Jerusalem." The conference video suggests the CCC is engaged in "partisan political activity" in violation of the CCHD grant guidelines.

This is the second round of incriminating evidence presented by ALL and BVM about the CCC. Three months ago, they issued a press release and supporting researchregarding 31 CCHD grantees with a relationship to CCC — all of which was ignored by the USCCB.

As ALL’s Michael Hichborn points out, these reports have "revealed no less than fifty organizations (one fifth of all CCHD grantees from 2009) that are, in some capacity, engaged in pro-abortion or pro-homosexual causes (www.all.org/cchd). The sad thing, however, is that these recent revelations manifest a pattern of cooperation stretching back for decades."

John Carr’s excuse about what is going on at CCC sound more and more like “I am shocked that gambling is going on here.”

In a related story Bishop Hubbard of Albany and head of the Office of International Justice and Peace at the USCCB has authorized Catholic Charities in his diocese to distribute needles to drug users. When I first saw the story this weekend the excuse reminded me of the condom argument – they are going to do it anyway so let us make it safe. No word yet if Catholic Charities will be issuing cars with large bumpers to protect drunk drivers. I can’t see how this is allowable considering Catholic moral teaching and Canonist Ed Peters is of the same opinion and has a good post on the subject.

In other crappy news. Raymond Arroyo on EWTN’s The World Over had torture apologist Marc Thiessen on to explain why torture is not torture. I was tortured by his logic when I first heard the program. I had wondered why Raymond Arroyo hadn’t corrected and taught his friend Laura Ingraham about the Catholic teaching on torture – now I know – he doesn’t seem to know it either. Defining waterboarding as not torture is just like saying the fetus is not a human person.

Fox News) – An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring “individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings,” Fox News reported Thursday.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the “darker side” of Mother Teresa.

The stamp — set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa’s 100th birthday — will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.[reference]

Hey where were they when Rev. Martin Luther King was honored. The Civil Rights movement was predicated on the fact that men are created in the image of God. That all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. I mean a Reverend forcing his viewpoint on us and causing the passage of the Civil Rights act by the government surely spells “THEOCRACY!!!”

As an ex-atheist I find it rather funny that people whose basic creed is “Survival of the Fittest” whine about a stamp. Yep Darwinian Evolution leads to being upset about a picture on a stamp.

Atheists are often prickly about the idea that atheists can’t be good people even if they can’t define good in a non-relativistic matter. While atheists can certainly have the natural virtues and even holiness to the extent that they participate in God’s grace – it is often the case that they put up blockages to that grace as I know from my own life. The holiness of Blessed Mother Teresa is really quite shocking to the sensibilities of the atheist. This total pouring out of yourself for others is beyond their ken for the most part. Though by their logic if we can be good totally on our own then it was just Mother Teresa’s decision to be good that made her good and had nothing to do with her being a nun. It was just a matter of her will so why should she annoy them?

Now as to Mother Teresa’s Dark Side I would guess they are not referring to her long time Dark Night of the Soul. Though it is rather interesting that Blessed Mother Teresa lived totally by faith for about 50 years with no consolations from God at all. Atheists also live with no seeming consolations from God and if anything Mother Teresa would totally understand the feelings of atheists. I guess the idea of living totally by faith without being able to feel God at all is what is so offensive to atheists. Then again I doubt if they realize this part of her life. Christopher Hitchens is one of those haters of this saint and wrote a short book without footnotes and couldn’t even get the name of one of the figures involved correct.