A tale of two Archdioceses

I had an interesting conversation today.

Two American, Catholic Archdioceses with Catholic schools.

Two Archbishops, both of them were Cappucchin Franciscans.

One Archdiocese allows a child in a "same sex" household attend Catholic school.

The other Archdiocese does not allow such a child to attend the Catholic school.

Where does this end?

It will continue!  That’s for sure.

There will be more and more challenges of this kind.

Remember what the Holy Father said in Portugal to groups which are engaged in social activities.

The services you provide, and your educational and charitable activities, must all be crowned by projects of freedom whose goal is human promotion and universal fraternity. Here we can locate the urgent commitment of Christians in defence of human rights, with concern for the totality of the human person in its various dimensions.  I express my deep appreciation for all those social and pastoral initiatives aimed at combating the socio-economic and cultural mechanisms which lead to abortion, and are openly concerned to defend life and to promote the reconciliation and healing of those harmed by the tragedy of abortion. Initiatives aimed at protecting the essential and primary values of life, beginning at conception, and of the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, [only… not two women, or two men, or three or four, or a combination of same, or of children or dogs or any other critter.] help to respond to some of today’s most  insidious and dangerous threats to the common good. Such initiatives represent, alongside numerous other forms of commitment, essential elements in the building of the civilization of love.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to A tale of two Archdioceses

  1. jbalza007 says:

    Speaking of Portugal, they just approved the gay marriage law, making Portugal the 6th country in Europe to allow same-sex unions (they may have just timed it after the Holy Father’s departure!):

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/18/2903000.htm?section=justin

  2. TrueLiturgy says:

    I think that the USCCB needs to come together and decide this together, or simply get a ruling on this from the Congregation for Catholic Education. Also, I am surprised that Cardinal Sean O’Malley has not made his own statement on this issue. Perhaps he is waiting for a response from Rome on the issue…. We shall wait and see :-)

  3. TonyC says:

    How does the new assertion that the Bishops do not report or work for the Pope, r.e., the recent case in Kentucky charging the Pope in the sexual abuse cases, impact such conflicts between Bishops? Who will be the arbiter of conflict if they are independent agents? Just thinking!

  4. Frank H says:

    Perhaps this an opportunity to teach about “subsidiarity”. Can’t each Bishop call the shots in his own diocese, even if one appears to contradict another’s approach?

  5. ipadre says:

    We need clear Catholic identity from all corners of the Church! We are a house divided.

  6. revs96 says:

    Interesting that you mention the speech in Portugal, as the Cappucchin Franciscan who allowed the child from a gay house was there listening in person.

  7. brassplayer says:

    Why are we punishing the child by denying them a Catholic education? The child didn’t do anything wrong.

  8. Lucas says:

    I thought the child in Boston was not allowed to attend school either? Did I miss something?

  9. openmind says:

    I understand the Church’s stance against homosexuality and same-sex marriage…but does that really man the child of gay parents cannot go to a Catholic school? Wouldn’t a Catholic education be a positive influence in that child’s life?

  10. Sedgwick says:

    brassplayer: What is the child supposed to do and think when his Catholic school teachers teach him that there is no such thing as gay “marriage,” and that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and an objective disorder? (I’m assuming, of course, that the teachers will faithfully transmit the teachings of the Church. That might be my first mistake!)

  11. PghCath says:

    Would someone care to explain the logic behind denying the child a Catholic education? As far as I know, Catholic schools don’t deny admission to kids whose parents are divorced and remarried. Why punish this innocent because of his parents’ transgressions? What if the adopted child of same sex parents wants to become a priest? Same result?

  12. rakesvines says:

    On the issue of admitting a child from a same sex couple to Catholic school, one cardinal is definitely wrong. I can say that with certainty because Card. O’Malley and Chaput took mutually exclusive positions so, one of them must be right and the other wrong – by definition with everything else being the same.

    Acc. to Abp. Chaput: “Many of our schools also accept students of other faiths and no faith, and from single parent and divorced parent families. These students are always welcome so long as their parents support the Catholic mission of the school and do not offer a serious counter-witness to that mission in their actions.” I really don’t know what Card. O’Malley was thinking. I am with Card. Chaput on this one.

  13. CeeLee says:

    (1) Since the parents are the primary educators of their children, the parents hold the responsibility.

    (2) Homosexual parents could just be setting up a law suit situation. Seems insincere.

  14. PghCath says:

    At Sedgwick: The same thing can be said about kids whose parents are divorced and remarried against Church teaching, it seems. Yet such kids can attend Catholic schools.

  15. Jerry says:

    re: brassplayer – “Why are we punishing the child by denying them a Catholic education? The child didn’t do anything wrong.”

    The intent isn’t to punish the children, but rather to prevent them from being placed in the extremely awkward position of (potentially) being taught in school that their parents are living an immoral lifestyle.

  16. Leonius says:

    “Why are we punishing the child by denying them a Catholic education? The child didn’t do anything wrong.”

    The child isn’t been punished, on the contrary the child and all the other children at the school are been protected. As is the school itself from the lawsuits that will result when the child complains that the school is teaching negative things about the “parents”.

    The question to ask is rather is:

    Why on earth would two homosexuals want to send a child to a school that is going to teach that those homosexuals are disordered and engaged in an immoral and sinful lifestyle?

    Cui Bono?

  17. Jerry says:

    re: PghCath – “The same thing can be said about kids whose parents are divorced and remarried against Church teaching”

    There are two dofferences: divorce/remarriage may be moral if an annulment was obtained (and generally the status is not know to external parties), and a heterosexual couple living together outside marriage (or in an invalid marriage) is not gravely disordered as a homosexual relationship is.

  18. brassplayer says:

    “There are two dofferences: divorce/remarriage may be moral if an annulment was obtained (and generally the status is not know to external parties)”

    I would assume that the numbers of marriages that are actually annulled by the Church are quite few.

  19. Nathan says:

    We’ve been over this ground before, when Abp. Chaput had the kerfuffle over the same-sex couple in Colorado were not allowed to put their child in a Catholic school. Abp. Chaput did a fine job of answering his critics in that a Catholic education must involve the example of the parents.

    The reality on the ground is that a Catholic school education is not an entitlement, even for traditional Catholic families. More than one of my children have been denied attendance in my parish school (ok, we were given the “your child just doesn’t fit here” talk by the principal and we didn’t raise a fuss) because they required classroom accomodations (in the case of my high-functioning autistic daughter), or because they were not in the middle 50% of academic ability or behavior (two sons).

    I have also seen schools associated with Catholic organizations deny entry to students of traditionally-structured Catholic families because they might have to spend academic tutoring resources on them at some time down the road.

    My diocese actively employs the policy that Catholic school is NOT for students who might need any resources or teacher effort beyond the average.

    Why should those who actively choose to adopt a lifestyle clearly contrary to the teachings of the Church be given that opportunity when those who try to live (pitifully at times) in obedience to the Faith and support our parishes with time, money, and prayer are routinely denied the same? Why is it an issue of justice for them and not an issue of justice for us?

    In Christ,

  20. doanli says:

    What could be wrong with telling the child that his or her “parents” are living immorally?

  21. Charivari Rob says:

    Lucas – “I thought the child in Boston was not allowed to attend school either? Did I miss something?”

    The child will not be enrolling at the school in question for next year. The Archdiocesan Secretary for Education and Superintendent of Schools released a statement about the events of last week and the possibility of the child enrolling in a different catholic school.

    http://www.bostoncatholic.org/Utility/News-And-Press/Content.aspx?id=17878

  22. doanli says:

    In a different Catholic school?

    The American part of the RCC is a divided house indeed.

  23. PghCath says:

    At Jerry: Your points on the difference between homosexuality and divorce are well taken. However, regarding your comment to brassplayer, Heaven forbid the day when educational decisions are made based on saving students from “awkward” situations! As I see it, the point of education to encourage students to look away from their pre-conceived notions and towards Truth. That process is often awkward for all involved, but the benefits outweigh this cost.

    I guess I just don’t like the notion of viewing kids in relation to the actions of their parents – no matter how disordered those actions are. A number of great Catholics have come from lousy parents. There have surely been some duds mixed in with the St. Monicas of the world.

  24. JosephMary says:

    I think that with the child belonging to a gay couple in the school, the scene is ripe for this to happen:

    assuming Catholic teachings are being taught…

    the child learns the practice of homosexuality is a mortal sin and goes home to two mommies or daddies or whoever is there now and reports it. Mommies or daddies sue the Church and school for ‘hate’ crimes to call their lifestyle a sin. Win lawsuit. Catholic schools no longer, and now legally, allowed to teach the Catholic faith.

  25. brassplayer says:

    “Why should those who actively choose to adopt a lifestyle clearly contrary to the teachings of the Church be given that opportunity when those who try to live (pitifully at times) in obedience to the Faith and support our parishes with time, money, and prayer are routinely denied the same? Why is it an issue of justice for them and not an issue of justice for us?”

    The parents have adopted the contrary lifestyle, not the child.

  26. JohnE says:

    The undermining of faithful Catholic parents’ values is already often included in the price of admission for public education. Why a lesbian couple would actually want to pay extra for such a “privilege” when they could have teaching more in line with their lifestyle is beyond me — unless they’re assuming Catholic values aren’t being taught (which could be a fair assumption for some schools). Presuming that Catholic teaching on marriage is indeed faithfully presented, it’s not fair to punish the child or other students just because the lesbian parents want to be belligerent. In Denver my understanding is that the parents were quite open about it.

    If parents were quite open about being divorced and illegitimately remarried and telling people that Church teaching was wrong, I suppose it would be just as appropriate to kick them out too. But divorce isn’t as scandalous as a lesbian couple. You can’t tell a divorced couple just by looking, they have to advertise it. It’s much more obvious with a lesbian couple, especially when they’re scratching out “father” on the application form and adding a second mother.

  27. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    Jimmy Akin, in the National Catholic Register, has rewritten a response to a “Catholic” official on the school enrollment issue. Briefly, the Catholic School Foundation has threatened to pull funding from any parochial school that doesn’t march to the PC tune and let the lesbians have their way. Note how Akin gets to the heart of the matter — he sounds almost like Fr. Z himself:

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/grant_official_threatens_catholic_schools_over_lesbian_case/

  28. frjim4321 says:

    There are any number of inconsistencies with regard to parents who send their children to Catholic day school. For example, many such parents do not attend weekly mass. Many are not in canoncial marriages. Some may be employers who do not pay their workers a living wage. Some may be smokers, who abusively inflict second hand smoke on their children. Many parents of Catholic school children may cheat on their taxes, ignore their elderly parents, or promote racism in their homes. Many use contraception. Yet there is no public display of dismissing their children from Catholic School. Cherry picking the “same sex marriage” issue as a reason to eject a child from Catholic school reeks of meanness and injustice, and places the Church in a very negative light. Whoever the Capuchin bishop who allowed the child(ren) to be retained is clearly on a wavelenth with the gospel message, the other ex-Cap needs to go back to seminary school and get back to the basics . . . it sounds like he’s using a family issue to push an agenda. I wonder who he is, and who he understands his constituency to be. (Is this Denver/Chaput?)

    When my godson was baptized fourteen years ago there was another child baptized at the same mass. His mothers have proven to be excellent parents, and the boy is doing very well. What a disgrace it would have been if the pastor had said “I will have to baptize your son privately.” We are not going to advance the gospel message by rejecting, demonizing and marginalizing people we aren’t comfortable with, or more to the point who make us uncomfortable with ourselves.

    Fr. Jim

  29. Dave N. says:

    a Catholic school education is not an entitlement

    …maybe not an entitlement to go to a Catholic school, however, all the baptized are entitled to Catholic education. See Canon 217.

  30. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    I’d like also to note what a terrible situation this puts pastors in in the archdiocese. As it is now, one phone call alleging sexual misbehavior some time in the distant past can ruin their lives. Now they have to worry that any parent who walks through the door may have an agenda — and be ready to call the press and a reporter if they say something that isn’t politically correct. This feels like a set-up. Apparently the lesbian couple didn’t identify themselves (not full names) on the school application. And during a pre-admission discussion, this particular pastor gave them advice as best he could, that the “fit” wouldn’t be right. (He’s got a reputation as a nice guy, not a big liberal or conservative.) He seems to be in tune with what the Holy Father said in Fatima. Maybe that why he’s in hot water in Boston. Would that Cardinal O’Malley had listened to Benedict’s talk more closely.

  31. doanli says:

    Fr Jim,

    With all due respect, aren’t the parents or godparents obligated to bring their child up in the Faith?

    Baptism is the right thing to do because the child is innocent but I thought bringing said child up in the Faith was integral to the sacrament as well?

  32. Mike says:

    “We are not going to advance the gospel message by rejecting, demonizing and marginalizing people we aren’t comfortable with, or more to the point who make us uncomfortable with ourselves.”

    In all due respect Fr. J, this doesn’t have much to do w. “comfortable” at all. I have know a few homosexuals that I liked–thought they were funny, interesting, etc. If two moms want their child baptized, they shouldn’t give public scandal.

    I really think it’s that simple.

  33. MaryW says:

    Fr.Jim-

    The Church is not rejecting or marginalizing people who choose to live a lifestyle in which the behavior, according to the teachings of the Church, is intrinsically evil. They are marginalizing themselves by continuing to defy Church teachings. Also, the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself in this case is to admonish the sinner, Jesus said, “go and sin no more.”

  34. momoften says:

    Two things. First, if you think about it….by the mere differences of the way things have been interpreted in these dioceses(and in the past)..doesn’t that in itself prove that all bishops haven’t been directly following the letter of law by Rome and in essence the lawsuit that has been filed against the Vatican trying to sue for damages because of sexual abuse has no grounds? Secondly,obviously in this case, it would be harmful to have partners allow their child to be in the Catholic school. It brings scandal, it also brings a hint of approval to the partnership in itself, which by the way is not approved of by the Catholic Church. As for the child, the child will suffer irregardless. Don’t ever think the child is being punished. The child is a pawn right now. The child is already in a very bad situation. The child is innocent now, but as they grows older –it just isn’t the same. I know, I know a young man very messed up for the fact that his mother decided she was a lesbian. He struggles for lack of a father, and true mother. It makes him bitter. It makes me cringe when people say it is good for a child(who has problems or a lack of normal life)to be with those that can be an example…they end up taking others down with them. I have seen it time and time again. It is NOT good! These same couple parents should already know what the Catholic Church teaches, and they don’t. Although a child is baptized, if the parents are not living a virtuous lifestyle, no matter what they are taught, everything that is taught the child will be confusing.

  35. Cincinnati Priest says:

    I am a pastor of a suburban parish with a large school.

    As such, I have had some experience in what kind of pressures result when those who are living in public and direct opposition to the Catholic faith send their children to Catholic schools. Here is what would certainly happen if this child of publicly known lesbians were to be admitted:

    • Extreme pressure on faculty not to teach the Church’s teaching on marriage.
    • An ostracizing of any teacher who dared to do so, on the ground that he/she was being “intolerant” or “mean-spirited” or “insensitive” to the child.
    • A normalizing of a gravely, gravely immoral act in the minds of the student body, because the schoolmates would begin to perceive this kind of “family” relationship as “normal” – After all, little Suzy is my classmate and goes to my school, and seems normal enough.

    It is easy to say glibly, “we shouldn’t punish the child for the sin of his or her parents,” but realistically speaking, there would be extremely negative consequences in taking the child in to the school to the entire community. As Catholics, we consider the common good (good of the parish) not just the “rights” of an individual.

    Anyone who claims that the environment would not be changed, and that the Church would continue to be able to teach the fullness of the truth, is simply not acknowledging the reality of the tremendous pressure of political correctness (not to mention litigiousness) in the society in which we live. This is especially true on the East Coast.

    Finally, @Fr. Jim’s point, it is preposterous to attempt to analogize the wrongs of smoking or cheating on one’s income taxes to living in a homosexual relationship. The Church has made it absolutely clear that marriage is at the very foundation of Christian society. It is objectively a much more serious sin than those other examples he cites.

    The bottom line is that we as Catholics can not afford to minimize the seriousness of attacks on Christian marriage. The secular world will do that well enough on its own.

  36. JohnE says:

    Fr. Jim, here’s the crux of the argument from Archbishop Chaput (http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3517):
    “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. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church. Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents.”

    Archbishop Chaput is not advocating a search for gay parents so that they can punish them by kicking their children out of school. I suspect anyone who is as openly opposed to Church teaching on such serious issues should also have their children removed — in the best interests of everyone.

    Did you really put second-hand smoke on the same par as gay “marriage”? Even if it was, I doubt there are many smokers who carry signs around the parking lot advocating blowing smoke in the face of children, or signs saying “Racism? fine with me”.

    And do you really think the archdiocese reported this incident to the news and then spread it nationwide? Come on, it was the parents who decided to use the situation to make a public display. I’m glad Archbishop Chaput is more in tune with what true bold compassion is rather than settling for a more convenient, counterfeit, politically correct form of “compassion”. The milquetoasts who never want to offend anyone have done enough harm already.

  37. Jerry says:

    re: Fr. Jim – “there was another child baptized at the same mass. His mothers have proven to be excellent parents”

    I assume the two women who are parents to this child are living together as a married couple. If this is so, How can they be considered excellent parents when they present a constant source of scandal to the child?

  38. If a Catholic school were some sort of charity school in a poor neighborhood or a mission area, where all the kids knew that their parents weren’t on the right side of the law, I suppose you would have less compunction about educating children of drugdealers, polygamists, and/or lesbians. So you could have a bishop taking that position.

    If a Catholic school were in a parish that was fairly law-abiding and aimed toward forming Catholics whose parents weren’t in desperate circumstances or constantly fleeing the law, but whose parents for some reason tended toward permissiveness toward ‘alternate lifestyles’, then you would obviously want to be a bit more careful about whose money you accepted, and who had influence on the school.

    Some schools, you search kids for knives before you let them in the door. Some schools, you don’t. It’s perfectly fair, if the situation is ruled by the probable problems.

  39. Norah says:

    I am guessing Fr Jim that you baptised publicly the child with the two “mothers”.

    As a primary (elementary) school teacher I am aware how difficult it would be for a teacher to teach the truths of the Faith about Homosexuality and same sex “marriages” if a child who lived in such a house was before me. The thought that the innocent child would be subjected to cruel teasing would make any teacher think twice about presenting the teachings of the Church. Self censorship would very likely be applied.

    I too smell lawsuits down the track.

    There are undoubtedly parents living immoral lifestyles who send their children to Catholic schools but these lifestyles aren’t usually obvious to the school population in general as would be the case with two mummies coming to the school functions.

  40. doanli says:

    Such turbulent times we live in that it leaves a simpleton like me scratching my head every day….

  41. EXCHIEF says:

    Cincinnati Priest has it absolutely right. In addition, parents have a responsibility to work in partnership with a Catholic school in providing a Catholic education for their children. It is impossible for that partnership to exist when the “parents” do not support by their very lifestyle Catholic teaching.

  42. frjim4321 says:

    Norah, no I did not celebrate the baptism, since I was godfather it would have resulted in a confusion of roles.

  43. AnAmericanMother says:

    Speaking as an old courthouse rat, I will bet you this is a setup for either a discrimination lawsuit or an intentional infliction of emotional distress lawsuit. All the ‘married’ lesbians I am acquainted with are die-hard radical feminists with an agenda, chips on their shoulders, and a lawyer on speed-dial.

    I can see no reason that radical feminists would send their child to a Catholic school, other than to make trouble. There are plenty of private schools with secular or ‘tolerant’ religious backgrounds, that would welcome a child of homosexual parents and indeed would see it as a feather in their caps.

    And it’s preposterous to compare this to secondhand smoke or cheating on taxes or even divorce. None of those sins show . . . and nobody is trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that any of those sins are not sins.

    Admitting children whose parents are in a gravely disordered and notorious relationship will cause nothing but trouble for all concerned — the children especially.

  44. Mike says:

    Cincinnati Priest does have it right.

    God bless you, Father!

  45. Justalurkingfool says:

    This former Catholic is not surprised at all over any of this, although I find it very disheartening. Marriage is in deep trouble and what is being done to support it is pathetic.

    There is tremendously more of an effort, within the Catholic Church, to find a way out of marriages, than there is to work to heal wounded valid marriages; even those found valid in Papal Courts.

    Benedict does not seem to have the taste to speak, in person, to those of us his fellow clerics are destroying, quite openly and actively. I find his disengagement from even seeking a hearing from those of us who know what we are talking about, beyond scandalous.
    I lose respect for him by the day.

    Still he is the Holy Father and has the big picture. But that is little comfort when his fellow bishops and priests, all of them in spite of their lies otherwise, encourage open adultery, as long as it is not known to those around them. The scandal to the children of the valid marriage and to the old friends and family do not seem to matter. An abandoned spouse is a pest to American Clerics of every level. The adulterous spouse is their mission….. to support them IN THEIR ADULTERY.

    Peter, why have you forsaken us?

  46. TJerome says:

    frjim4322, are you a Roman Catholic priest or an Episcopal priest? It sounds like you are the latter rather than the former.

  47. TNCath says:

    It is absolutely ridiculous. Sometimes folks need a good chewing out, and, there are a few bishops out there that could benefit from it.

  48. “Two Mommies” or “Two Daddies” a married couple do not make. Period.
    Baptize the child and make it very clear that this child is to be raised in the Roman Catholic Faith which does NOT admit homosexual couplings, civil or otherwise.
    If not, the child cannot be baptized unless a third party can attest to the certainty the child will be raised according to Catholic moral/practical teaching and life.
    Otherwise, it is a “sham”…the “couple” is preventing the child from salvation if he/she is not baptized; it is not the fault of the priest or the diocese.
    This horrible conundrum is not the fault of a priest or of diocesan policy; it is the immoral nature of the relationship of the so-called parents.
    If they agree to live in chastity, in mutual respect and abiding by Catholic moral teaching, I do not see a problem; but if they are are blatantly living a homosex lifestyle, no way.

  49. robtbrown says:

    Fr. Jim,

    Smoking? And the parents’ possible business practices? Didn’t you forget the problems of high cholesterol and fatty diet?

    What about the priestly stuff, the Sacraments? I suggest that you begin tomorrow by saying mass ad orientem in Latin so that those assisting at mass will not be subject to the usual Protestant gruel that passes for liturgy and does little to propagate the faith.

    BTW, where did you study theology?

  50. winoblue1 says:

    Here is a simple solution:

    Ask all parents to sign a “partnership agreement” that outlines that they will
    enter into a partnership with the Church in attempting to instruct and exhibit
    the teachings of the Church in their personal lives so as to demonstrate a
    consistent witness to the values of the Church for the benefit of the child.

    This would then allow gays to either admit their living conditions are sinful
    or to remove their children from the Catholic school.

    Do you think it will work?

  51. New Sister says:

    Thank you, Cincinnati Priest, Nazareth Priest, for countering “Fr Jim”. His sort of confusion is exactly what is causing such a MESS amongst us laity – and is destroying our country.

  52. Bruce says:

    “We are not going to advance the gospel message by rejecting, demonizing and marginalizing people we aren’t comfortable with”

    Nobody wants to reject, demonize and marginalize Fr.Jim. The Church is our Mother and it wants to help us to save our souls. Matthew 9:13 “For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance” When I came back to the Church 5 years ago I realized that the Church was calling me to a higher morality. I had to be honest with myself, either I was going to follow Church teaching
    with the goal of saving my soul or reject it. For me, being honest with myself if I had rejected Church teaching I would have left the Church. Who is doing the rejecting Fr. Jim?

  53. albizzi says:

    These gay parents who wish to place their kids in catholic schools are hypocrites.
    If not, will they accept that the teachers remind clearly and daily their children that the gay way of life is a sin?
    In my opinion, the first thing the school’s director must require from these parents is that they read the Church’s teachings on that issue, in a second step that they promise not to teach their kids anything contrary to faith and morals, and third to write all the stuff on a document and make them signing it.
    If they decline to sign, OK stay out with your kid.

  54. Scott W. says:

    Listing other sins to counter the sin of homosexuality and same-sex marriage isn’t an argument. It’s just pointing out other corruption to justify giving more corruption a pass.

  55. Henry Edwards says:

    Fr. Jim,

    I wonder whether techology is outstripping moral theology. As a priest, how would you classify the sin — e.g., mortal or venial — of one who presents himself in com boxes as a Catholic priest, but actually is not one?

    A perhaps more interesting question is the extent of sin committed by a Catholic priest who denies Catholic doctrine in com boxes. Do modern moral theology texts include a sin of “internet apostasy”?

  56. robtbrown says:

    I asked “Fr Jim” where he studied theology not only because he manifests no knowledge of it but also because he wrote the following:

    the other ex-Cap needs to go back to seminary school and get back to the basics

    I have never met a priest who referred to seminary as “seminary school”.

  57. Roland de Chanson says:

    What is the point in sending any child to a “Catholic” school today? The schools are staffed by teachers who couldn’t get better paying jobs in the public school system. What nuns are left are in civvies screening candidates for the seminary to ensure that only the pro-queer and pro-femme ordination types get admitted. I suppose though that if you get through Catholic grammar and high school, you might have a better chance to lose the faith completely at Notre Dame.

    I do sympathise with Cardinal O’Malley though. This It is a much tougher situation for a perpetual vacillator than the moral quandary he found himself in when deciding whether to wash women’s feet. He had to appeal to Rome on that one too. If you can wash their feed, Seán, why can’t you consecrate their hands. (That’s for extra credit in the seminary with Sister Frau Kommandant at the gate.)

  58. robtbrown says:

    Henry,

    I think “Fr Jim” was on the swim team at Harvard captained by Richard Blumenthal. Then later, the two were Marines in VietNam together.

  59. frjim4321 says:

    robtbrown, that does not even make any sense

    I don’t want to be party to this rabbit hole.

    My opinion is that Cdl. O’Malley handled the situation appropriately, and that Cdl. Chaput could have done better. That’s all.

    The ad hominems toward the end of this thread are not in keeping with the usual quality of discussion overall.

    Fr. Jim

  60. TJerome says:

    Well, frjim4321, your comments are not up to the usual quality of discussion on this blog. Cardinal O’Malley is a sell-out to modern culture a la his “performance” or lack thereof at the Kennedy, fake Catholic, canonization, funeral Mass. Chaput is a standout in the American heirarchy. You obviously align yourself with the same-old, same-old spirit of Vatican II drivel that got the Church in the mess it is in today.

  61. adagio48 says:

    Fr Jim. I believe the Cardinal O’Malley has not made a desision. The decision was made for him by the head of the Catholics Schools Mary Graza O’Neil.

  62. robtbrown says:

    Fr Jim,

    You still haven’t said where you studied theology.

  63. @Fr. Jim, Smoking and tax returns (et. al.) are compared to publicly scandalous behavior which attacks the very foundation of society? What about the hierarchy of values that Catholics must follow, or are you a seamless garment guy? What I find most disturbing is that you use some lesser sins to justify other larger sins. What kind of Gospel preaching is that?

    In general, children always suffer from their parents sins, e.g. the child of a drunk. And for the whole human race, how about us and Adam and Eve? I never committed original sin, yet I suffer permanently because of it. These lesbians are playing on sympathy using the little girl as a bullet shield, and I would agree with the other comments about a lawsuit setup. The evil doers want to eliminate any Catholic identity and teaching, not only from the public square, but now also from the Catholic institutions. The universities fell away a long time ago, now it’s time to hit the grade schools. Get the precedent established, and the dominoes will all fall.

    And this whole debate reminds me of the Akita prophecy – Bishops against Bishops, et. al. Why? Because the faith is not being practiced nor preached properly.

  64. Penguins Fan says:

    The “parents” of this homosexual “couple” in Massachusetts are using their child as a wedge to split apart the Church. It is all about making homosexuality legitimate and demonizing those who won’t accept it.

    Archbishop Chaput has it right. Cardinal O’Malley does not. given the watered-down faith that is so apparent in the Northeast and Upper Midwest, I am not surprised by his actions – but I am not pleased with them, either. If I should ever find myself in Boston, or Los Angeles, or another diocese with such a bishop as O’Malley or Mahony in charge, I would attend an Eastern Catholic parish.

  65. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    I am aware of a situation in a suburban Boston parish in which the adopted children of two male homosexual activists — activists who’ve gone on national TV to promote their lifestyle — attend the religious education program (not school). The children made their First Communions at this parish. A friend who attends that church told me that the same-sex couple’s children were constantly reassured by their CCD teachers that they were “no different” and their whole family was “welcome.” One of the children told the teacher, “But we are different. We have two daddies!” I am not making this up.

  66. JohnE says:

    One small correction to some of the posts above: Chaput is not a cardinal (yet); he’s an archbishop.

  67. irishgirl says:

    Right on, Cincinnati Priest and nazareth priest! And Leonius and Roland de Chanson as well!

    This whole thing reeks of a lawsuit in the making.

    Archbishop Chaput is right. Cardinal O’Malley is wrong. Period.

    There has to be consistency in standing up for Catholic teaching among our Bishops!

    I’m so tired of the PC crowd and having to be afraid of ‘offending’ someone!

  68. robtbrown says:

    robtbrown, that does not even make any sense

    You wouldn’t know one way or the other.

    I don’t want to be party to this rabbit hole.

    It’s hardly a rabbit hole. Your theological deficiencies are evident.

    My opinion is that Cdl. O’Malley handled the situation appropriately, and that Cdl. Chaput could have done better. That’s all.

    Your opinion is wrong headed.

    The ad hominems toward the end of this thread are not in keeping with the usual quality of discussion overall.
    Comment by frjim4321

    What ad hominems? There are people here who doubt that you are a priest–for various reasons. Your tactic of feigning outrage merely confirms the doubt.

  69. TJerome says:

    robtbrown, I suspect “frjim4321″ gets his jollies by posting his non-Catholic views here. He’d make a great episcopal though.

  70. robtbrown says:

    In general, children always suffer from their parents sins, e.g. the child of a drunk. And for the whole human race, how about us and Adam and Eve? I never committed original sin, yet I suffer permanently because of it.
    Comment by Fr. Marie-Paul

    I would be careful with Original Sin. Although it is true that you and I did not commit it, nevertheless, we receive both the penalty of death (poena mortis) and the guilt (culpa). And it is not merely a matter of communal guilt.

  71. smad0142 says:

    Fr. Jim, MAY BE, the local Priest in the Archdiocese of Denver who helps with the Focus group, or whatever the gay ministry group is. I do not include this to insult the good Father, but to help to contextualize his comments IF he is the Fr. Jim I am thinking of. This Priest gave my father the Last Rites 2 years ago, he is fine now, but if this is the same Fr. Jim my family is eternally indebted to him.

  72. bnaasko says:

    Fr. Jim,

    Thanks for promoting Abp Chaput to Cardinal!

    I never thought we would have a Red Hat residing in Denver!

  73. AnAmericanMother says:

    Fr. Jim,

    This is not ad hominem. It’s a fact that you sound more like an Episcopalian than a Catholic.

    I have seldom if ever heard a Catholic priest take the line you are following, but I heard plenty of Piskie ministers say the same thing (and in almost the same words) before I became a Catholic.

    One thing’s for sure – you didn’t graduate Nashotah House or TSM.

  74. brassplayer says:

    And it’s preposterous to compare this to secondhand smoke or cheating on taxes or even divorce. None of those sins show . . . and nobody is trying to convince everyone (including themselves) that any of those sins are not sins.

    ?????

    So, if a sin “shows” (e.g., child having two mothers) then it has to be addressed. But if the sin doesn’t “show” (divorce), then it can be ignored???

    That makes absolutely no sense.

  75. Henry Edwards says:

    brassplayer,

    Did you perhaps hit the submit button before finishing your thought? If a Catholic, you surely you know the difference between sins that do and sins that do no cause scandal — encouraging sin by others, perhaps by lending some sense of acceptability or legitimacy to the particular sin involved.

    In regard to the possibility of scandal, whether or not a sin “shows” obviously makes all the difference.

  76. AnAmericanMother says:

    brassplayer,

    What I meant was that sins that “show” have the additional problem of creating scandal.

    Most folks who are divorced do not go around advertising that fact, nor do they belong to “Divorce is Good!” organizations and push the idea that divorce is not wrong or not a problem on everybody.

    However, the homosexualists do all of those things — plus it’s obvious when Heather has two mommies and they show up for the P.T.A. and the school play.

    That in effect co-opts the parish and the school into approving the ‘mommies” behavior, confuses the other children, and often browbeats the teachers and principal via PC (and the threat of lawsuits) into softpedaling or contradicting Catholic teaching.

  77. AnAmericanMother says:

    Henry –

    “I will read the rest of the thread before posting.
    I will read the rest of the thread before posting.
    I will . . . . ”

    That’s exactly what I meant.

  78. brassplayer says:

    Mr. Edwards,

    Yes Sir. I do consider myself a Catholic.

    Don’t really care much about the difference between sins that do and do not cause scandals. I would assume that they are both considered sins in the eyes of the Church. However, I find it disappointing that a Catholic school would choose to recognize some sins and disregard others because of a potential “scandal”.

  79. Scott W. says:

    Don’t really care much about the difference between sins that do and do not cause scandals. I would assume that they are both considered sins in the eyes of the Church. However, I find it disappointing that a Catholic school would choose to recognize some sins and disregard others because of a potential “scandal”.

    If you don’t care, then why care whether a trained Catholics with their heads screwed on right execute their offices faithfully?

  80. Henry Edwards says:

    1) Yes Sir. I do consider myself an [informed] Catholic.

    2) Don’t really care much about the difference between sins that do and do not cause scandals.

    Contradictory statements?

  81. TJerome says:

    Henry Edwards, thanks for pointing out the contradictions in positions. Even God cannot resolve a contradiction, but some of these folks seem to think they can. Best, Tom

  82. Roland de Chanson says:

    FWIW, Cardinal O’Malley (a.k.a. “Cardinal Seán”) has a post up on his blog relative to this issue. (http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/)

    In it he praises everyone: Fr. Rafferty who doesn’t want the boy admitted to his school (a boy adopted by two lesbians! Ubinam gentium sumus?), Mary Grassa O’Neill, the apparatchik for Political and Religious Correctness, Abp. Chaput, who has excluded a child in similar circumstances and the poetess Sappho for the lyricism of her plaintive love songs to her female students. No, wait, I made that last one up.

    But, in a most bizarre opening paragraph, he describes his having said a memorial mass for a whorehouse madam, which he spells “madame” (une putain hautement estimée!), who had girls shipped in to the islands in oil drums, some of whom died in transit. He took the dead madam’s daughter under his wing and sent her to the Catholic school.

    I’m not sure what the relevance of all that is, except to establish his bona fides as a pastor with the best interest of children at heart. I don’t doubt his good intentions for a moment. But I would not be surprised if these trouble-making tribades take umbrage at the thought the precedent for their “son’s” admission was created by a West Indies whore and murderess.

    Whatever the outcome, this poor boy’s life is already a shambles.

  83. Supertradmum says:

    Please, please, as a teacher with the NAPCIS Master Teacher Certificate,which demands two years of studying the Catholic Church’s consistent teaching on the role of the school, the parent and the teacher, spread over two centuries and five popes, let me add that the role of the school and the teacher is to supplement and add to what is already being taught in the home and not a substitute for no Catholic teaching.
    Look at one of the many encyclicals which explains this at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_gravissimum-educationis_en.html
    As a former high school and junior high school teacher, well as early grades and sacramental prep teacher, I cannot imagine teaching Confirmation Prep or Marriage Prep to a student whose parents are obviously at odds with the Magisterium. I do not want teachers being sued for “hate crimes” when they are in fact teaching their students the Truth. I had to take an Oath and make a Promise to only teach Catholic doctrine and to live as a practicing Catholic when teaching at Holy Rosary Academy in Alaska. This is par for all good Catholic schools. If the teachers do this, according to the guidelines in Ecclesia Dei
    If a diocese contradicts over 100 years of clear teaching on the role of the Catholic teacher and the Catholic school, the diocese is in error.
    And, homosexuality is a much more serious sin than other sins, and there are gradations of sin. I remind our commentators of http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html
    In which John Paul II reminded us that bishops and all were to stand up against pressures to change the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The decision of the Diocese of Boston is a “cave-in” to pressure.

  84. greg the beachcomber says:

    Without equating being in an openly homosexual relationship to other sins, I do think it’s wrong for Catholic schools to overlook certain sins because they’re not evident, such as divorce and cohabitation. I would imagine the application forms have, or should have, a place for the child’s parents to confirm they’re validly married in the Church. If it’s a single, divorced parent, then they’d need to agree they’re not dating. If they clearly violate that agreement, they should be told that their family isn’t a good fit at the school and asked to leave.

    The kids know whose parents are married, divorced or shacking up, and so do the teachers, so the same concerns about teaching kids their parents are going to hell, or worse, not teaching any of the kids that adultery and fornication will send them to hell, still apply.

    Is it really too much to ask parents of Catholic school students to live Catholic lives at home?

  85. AnAmericanMother says:

    Roland,

    I am stealing “trouble-making tribades” immediately.

    For what it’s worth, I know a couple of lesbians who have a son – conceived by AI by one of the women. We used to see them occasionally because of a friend-of-a-friend work connection, but we avoided going there even before we became Catholic, because the situation was so obviously toxic and tragic, and there was nothing we could do.

    The poor kid has no idea how to be a boy, and they certainly haven’t helped him. His mannerisms are very ‘femme’ as is his vocabulary. And now that he’s hit puberty they seem to be taking out their hatred of men on him. Horrible, horrible, horrible . . . and as I said there’s not a thing we can do about it.

  86. Supertradmum says:

    greg the beachcomber,

    Please remember that a divorced, single Catholic parent with an annulment can date. Some schools do ask these questions,by the way, as part of the pastoral understanding of the needs of the family. Most people who are dedicated in living outside the rules and laws of the Catholic Church would not want to send their children to a Catholic school. I am convinced these homosexual and lesbian couples are setting up situations for law suits. Period.

  87. Supertradmum says:

    I meant to refer to Ex Corde Ecclesiae,not Ecclesia Dei above. This document, although referring to universities and colleges,follows the consistent stance of the Magisterium that teachers must teach the Deposit of Faith. Therefore, those who attend such institutions, must be open to upholding those truths. Anything else is hypocrisy. One of John Paul II’s key phrases,@integrating faith with life@ holds true for the lower grades of elementary and high school as well. The teacher cannot teach alone, in an elite situation,without the cooperation with the parents. Indeed, it is the responsibility of the parents to cooperate with the teachers in the presentation of the truths of the Faith.

  88. Roland de Chanson says:

    AmericanMother,

    It’s not stealing if it’s freely offered! ;-) Glad you liked it. I really do feel sorry for the boy in Hingham and for the boy you know. The ironic thing here is that O’Malley took the archdiocese out of the adoption business because of the Massachusetts (Sodomchusetts) requirement not to “discriminate” against the sexually confused. And now he doesn’t have the cojones of a Chaput.

    But, no sense in worrying about all this. Things will get a lot worse before they get better. After all, we’re coming up on three years of Summorum and the bishop of Rome is still trad-shy. The meek may inherit the earth but the pusillanimous have inherited the Church. Vae nobis.

  89. AnAmericanMother says:

    O.K., consider it “borrowed”. With thanks. :-D

    I’m willing to be patient, since the Church sees things in geological time. Three years is not much time to turn a large ship on a new course.

  90. TJerome says:

    Maybe O’Malley shoudl have been a politician instead of a vir ecclesiae. What a maroon.

  91. Fr Paul says:

    It is one thing to disagree with or criticize decisions or actions of bishops.

    It is quite another thing to use derogatory adjectives or names to describe bishops and/or the Holy Father.

    To those who can so casually call a bishop – a successor to the apostles – a “maroon,” or say that he is “pusillanimous” or “doesn’t have cojones” – I hope you are spending much time each day in prayer for these men who have such tremendous responsibilities on their shoulders.

  92. TJerome says:

    Tell you what, Fr. Paul, if you accept responsibility for their destruction of the Faith, I’m fine. O’Malley is lucky he hasn’t run into this Irishman. I’d rip his head off for his rank cowardice at the Kennedylalapalooza. It is because the Faithful have been “respectful” of these weanie prelates, that they believe they have a free pass to give comfort to the heretical Catholics and show the most flagrant disrespect for real Catholics, you know the ones that really care and aren’t using the Faith for their personal aggrandizement.

  93. Charivari Rob says:

    Fr. Paul – “It is one thing to disagree with or criticize decisions or actions of bishops.

    It is quite another thing to use derogatory adjectives or names to describe bishops and/or the Holy Father.”

    TJerome – “O’Malley is lucky he hasn’t run into this Irishman. I’d rip his head off for …”

    It is yet another thing to make threats – either empty or actual – of physical violence.