TO ARMS! Denver priest attacked for being obedient: POLL ALERT!!

I will have actions items for you, below.


UPDATE 9 March 1850 GMT:

Archbishop Chaput chimes in more directly.

There is a real kerfuffle going on in Boulder, CO, in the Archdiocese of Denver. 

The Archdiocese of Denver that catholic schools in the Archdiocese are not to accept as students the children of same sex "parents".

The policy is here:

Parents living in open discord with Catholic teaching in areas of faith and morals unfortunately choose by their actions to disqualify their children from enrollment. To allow children in these circumstances to continue in our school would be a cause of confusion for the student in that what they are being taught in school conflicts with what they experience in the home.

The policy would also protect teachers in the school.

At the catholic pre-school of Sacred Heart parish in Boulder, CO, a decision was made to adhere to archdiocesan policy and not admit the child of a lesbian "couple".

Liberals and homosexual activists are now staging a professional nutty.

A fire storm is now whirling about the parish, Sacred Heart, and the parish priest, Fr. William Breslin, who has a blog called The Heart of the Matter.

Fr. Breslin is personally taking a great deal of heat for adhering to archdiocesan policy and his parish and school are being picketed.  He is being attacked on his blog.

You can imagine the canards the protesters are tossing around. 

  • What Would Jesus Do?  (…as if they know…)
  • Don’t pick on a child!  (… they aren’t… this is about not hurting the child …)
  • Teach Acceptance!  (… by which they mean ignore the Church’s teachings on homosexual actions, etc…. )

I have some comments.

First, the protestors and the couple are the ones abusing that child by instrumentalizing her.  Knowing the Archdiocesan policy, the only reason why the lesbian "couple" would press this is to hurt the Church or try to force their own sinful agenda on an institution of the Church.  They are using the child as a tool in their fight.  So are the protesters. 

Second, the parish priest did not set the policy.  If people want to protest, go to the chancery and protest.  Follow the Archbishop around and protest.  Protesting at the parish or the school to protest at the point of weakness not of strength.  That is what bullies do.

Third, this sounds like a concrete use of the tactics of Saul Alinsky.  Am I wrong?  As a result, there are larger forces behind these protests and probably even the original decision to test the archdiocesan policy at that school… where the parish priest (I am guessing) had a reputation for being strong… thus ensuring that there would be a conflict.  If you want a fight, you never pick fights with people whom you know won’t fight back.

Fourth, this is part of our struggle right now over our Catholic identity and that ad intra and ad extra.  Remember: If Catholics don’t know what their faith is, if they don’t embrace it, then they will have nothing to contribute in the public square.  But when they do, the prevailing secularist and relativistic zeigeist will fight back with demonic ferocity.  Their objective is to driven the Catholic voice from the public square.  They will do their best, therefore, to subvert Catholic identity from within and from without.

Now, something from Fr. Breslin’s blog, with my emphases and comments.

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. [This is about identity.] And our reason for existence, both as a parish and as a Catholic school, is to make disciples of Jesus Christ. [Not of the world.]  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.

But when it came to making disciples, He spoke in a different way, a more radical way: unless you take up your cross and follow me, you can have no part of me.  Repent and change your ways.  If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn and offer him the other cheek.  Unless you hate your mother and father, brothers and sisters, you cannot be my disciples.  Unless you eat My body and drink My blood, you have no life within you. And when the throngs deserted him, He turned to the 12 and said, “Do you also want to leave?”   These are only a few of the hard sayings Jesus gives to those who really want to be his disciples[Do I hear an "Amen!"?]

    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[But what he did was choose truer love in choosing adherence to the teachings of the Church.]

    As I look around Boulder I recognize that there is ample love all around; but there is a scarcity of discipleship. [That suggests that what one sees "around" is not truer love, the love that is charity.]  I chose to be on the side of what was lacking.  I chose to protect the faith over doing what would have looked like the loving thing to do["looked"] Perhaps some of you parents have been in the position to make a decision for your family that looked like the opposite of love, but was the right decision anyway.

    My brothers and sisters, our school is a Catholic school and our teaching on the sanctity of marriage is as clear as a bell.  So, the decision I made was based on my conviction that we needed to rest on the side of backing our beliefs and our values.  We need to fight for our Catholic values because here in Boulder it seems, no one else is. [kaBOOM] In many ways, I feel quite alone, even though I know I am not alone[No, Father.  You are not alone.  WDTPRS has your back.] But I do feel like Coleridge’s Ancient Mariner—“alone, alone, all, all alone- alone on a wide, wide sea.”  If you’re upset, blame me.  Not our principal.  She’s an excellent principal.  I’m the one who made this decision.  If you want to blame, blame me, your Catholic priest for being – Catholic[OORAH!]

Some links:

Video from a local newspaper from yesterday’s protest:

The Denver Post
America Magazine


1.  Right now… now… stop and pray the St. Michael Prayer for Fr. Breslin and Archbp. Chaput.
2.  Immediately after pray the Memorare for the conversion of the couple of that child.
3. VOTE in that poll from the .
4. Then vote in the second poll farther down on the right side.

TwitterAs of now, 2029 GMT, here are the results of that poll.  MOVE THEM.   PUT THIS ON YOUR BLOGS.  TELL AND E-MAIL FRIENDS.  TWEET.  ETC.  I will update results on Twitter from time to time.

The second poll, farther down on the right side is about protesting:

UPDATE 9 March 1505 GMT:

You are doing your work!  Thanks!  Keep going!

 UPDATE 9 March 1837 GMT:

Getting there!  Great progress!

 UPDATE 10 March 1813 GMT:


The poll graphic on the page is screwed up.

This is the best I could get

UPDATE 10 March 1839 GMT:

I see that on Fr. Breslin’s blog, the comments have been deleted under all the posts.  Hard to blame him, poor guy.

UPDATE 10 March 2344 GMT:

The Yes, I am Catholic category has pulled ahead!  

But the bad opinion is still head if you add their two categories together.

UPDATE 11 March 1344 GMT:

The poll has been turned around!

Keep up the good work!

UPDATE 11 March 2304 GMT:

The good guys are winning.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Our Catholic Identity, POLLS, SESSIUNCULA, The Last Acceptable Prejudice, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Dr. Eric says:

    I prayed and voted.

  2. Rose in NE says:

    Prayed and voted. Thank you for doing the right thing Fr. Breslin.

  3. Prayers for Fr. Breslin and Archbishop Chaput…stand tall in the Lord! I guess the “heat” is being turned up, no?

  4. Ulrich says:

    father, if u link at ?requestid=000etc the’ll know who comes from u! [I changed it.]

  5. Ulrich says:

    *voting* very hard

  6. jkking says:

    Fr. Breslin is a very courageous man!

  7. Cath says:

    Prayed. Voted. We need more like Fr. Breslin and archbishop Chaput who wont back down in teaching the Faith.h

  8. Ulrich says:

    don’t forget the second poll!

  9. michelelyl says:

    Just one comment- does the Archdiocese also not accept children of parents who are ‘shacking up’ or are divorced and remarried without annulment? I think that the ArchDiocese has made the only decision they can under the circumstances, but I also see far more parents who do not follow the Church’s teachings on the Sacrament of Marriage who put their kids in a Catholic school or in a parish Religious Education Program than those who are homosexual who try to do so. The Diocese of Orange (CA) had a similar situation a few years ago. Very sad for the children involved- I too pray that the ‘parents’ reconsider their lifestyle choice for the sake of the child.

  10. Brian Day says:

    Prayed. Voted.

    Not much change in percentages yet. Everybody vote!

  11. eulogos says:

    I support a policy saying that parents of children in the school must obey the church’s teaching about marriage, and I support enforcing it. However, homosexuals are not the only ones disobeying the church’s teachings about marriage. Are they insisting that the parents of students be in a valid marriage? Are they insisting that they be married at all, as in, asking for a marriage license? If the parents are divorced and remarried, are they making them apply for annulments? Because otherwise, they aren’t really married, right? Are they asking people on the admissions interview if they contracept? If they have been sterilized?
    This is sort of like those Catholic schools which fire single teachers if they get pregnant, but pay no attention to what the male teachers do, or to what female teachers do so long as they don’t get pregnant, or so long as they abort in order to keep their jobs. In otherwords, it is about what is obvious, not about the real morality of the situation.

    So yes, let’s enforce this rule. But lets not enforce it just against homosexuals.

    Susan Peterson

  12. claire traas says:

    I could see how children of parents who are practicing homosexuality could experience confusion if a Catholic school actually proclaims what the Church teaches about homosexuality. But if the school is truly Catholic, why on earth would two gay parents want to send their child there anyway? I suppose one *could* conclude that they want to “attack” the Church, but how could the desire to send a child to a good school be construed as malicious?

    I have a hard time with the idea of denying a youth the privilege of an authentic Catholic education just because his parents are practicing homosexuals. It’s sad enough that the child has to grow up without a mother AND a father. With that kind of environment, how are they ever supposed to receive the seeds of the true Faith? For all we know, Catholic school might be the only “solid moral ground” in that kid’s chaotic life and a real source of sanctification, especially if they are able to receive the Sacraments through the school.

    It sickens me that children are being used as pawns in some sort of “battle” between the Church and advocates of homosexuality.

  13. Central Valley says:

    Voted and prayed. There is a similar case in the diocese of Fresno see here

  14. lucy says:

    It’s amazing how twisted the devil makes things. May God have mercy on all folks who think there is nothing wrong with “living as they were created”. I prayed and voted. God love good priests !

  15. Steve K. says:

    “Yes and I’m Catholic” is now up to over 18% and we outnumber “No and I’m Catholic” (o really?) by about 5%, however generic “No” still far outstrips our vote. Get out the vote!

  16. Joan M says:

    Prayed and voted.

  17. claire traas says:

    Also… bringing donuts & fresh coffee to people protesting YOUR church? That’s the craziest thing I’ve heard all day. If people come & protest my church, I am NOT serving light refreshments.

  18. RichardT says:


    A protest organiser said “I know they have the right [to exclude the child], but why would they want to?”

    You’re still relatively free in America. Here in the UK we probably don’t have the right to.

  19. Looked at the comments on Fr. Breslin’s blog…some of them are just satanic in origin…this poor priest needs our prayers and penance big time. What’s next? That’s what is in my mind at this point.

  20. Prayed. And voted.

  21. nazareth: Yes, they are indeed. Post good comments.

  22. EnoughRope says:

    Do Fr. Breslin a favor and go give him a kind word on his blog. He is getting all sorts of nasty and vile comments. Tell him how proud you are of him. The enemy is watching. We need to shore up our fellows who are fighting the good fight.

  23. haleype says:

    A Catholic school has a right to adhere to and promote Catholic values.

  24. K. Marie says:

    I voted in the poll and will be keeping the Archdiocese in my prayers.

  25. Fr. Andrew says:

    If you look at America, Father Martin makes a very un-Jesuit mistake of confusing natural vices with unnatural vices. Surely he remembers his Thomistic moral theology which distinguishes between the two?

  26. Supertradmom says:

    oh my goodness-look at the percentage of Catholics who disagree with diocesan policy…pray, pray, pray or this is the end of freedom of religion…

  27. eulogos says:

    I do see that it would be difficult to try to deal with the ways that heterosexual couples do not obey the church’s rules or God’s laws with respect to marriage. But perhaps they could start with making sure the other parents in the school are legally married. And they could have some sort of statemnt for people to sign with respect to obeying the church’s teachings about marriage and family life, for them to sign, given out with a booklet that explains these teachings.

    Of course you wouldn’t ban everyone who had EVER sinned by having an abortion or committing adultery, as some commentors over on the priest’s blog were trying to say would be the only fair thing. And you can’t really ban people who have been sterilized in the past because it is often irreversable and insurance companies won’t pay for reversing it and few can affort it therefore.

    So for non Catholic parents, you would expect that they are at least legally married. For Catholic parents, you would ask them to sign something saying they will attend mass, and they will follow the teachings of the church on marriage and family life. Obviously you can’t follow them home and see if there are birth control pills or a diaphragm in the cabinet! But you would raise their consciousness level of the Church’s teaching, at least, and challenge them to think about it.

    I feel sorry for this priest. I know what it feels like to be attached as a “hater” for trying to uphold the church’s teaching on this subject. I recently went through this on my college alumni list and I was depressed and could hardly sleep for over a week.

    Susan Peterson

  28. basenji says:

    Prayers and votes completed. Both Fr and Archbp are courageous and inspiring men. I am thankful for them both.

  29. Fr Andrew: If this distinction was taught whenever Fr. Martin was in the seminary, I’d be shocked.
    Thomism has had a very bad reputation/existence until probably ten years or so.
    I thank God I was taught moral theology from a Dominican from the ‘Summma’. I really do thank God for that!

  30. Supertradmom says:

    Please, people here, go to Father’s blog listed above and write to him. More comments are negative and hateful, than positive and supporting.

  31. Ralph says:

    I have three children in parochial school. I have two more who will be enrolled when they come of age. Thus I am knee deep in “catholic education”.

    With that perspective, I am not sure how I feel about this situation. First, I think Father has 0 to do with this. It’s the Bishop’s call. The pastor has an obligation to the Bishop. Those in the “nutty” are barking up the wrong tree. They know this, but also likely know that they will get nothing from the Archbishop. He’s not one to be swayed by public pressure. (God love him for it!)

    So, I am angry with the protestors. I am angry with the “parents” who used the child in order to create a “situation” to draw media attention and discussion.

    But, what of the ban itself? I am just not sure. The child has no chance without the Church. Who is going to teach her the Sacraments? Who will show her Christ’s love? Yet one of the reasons I send my kids to Catholic School is to shelter them. I don’t want to have to explain to my preschooler why Mary has two mommies. So one part of me is very supportive of the policy of exclusion. But the other part of me, the part that is a father of five children, weeps for the child who is a pawn in the game. I am hurt that she may never know Christ’s love for her. Perhaps no one will ever teach her that Sacramental Marriage is a gift and Lesbian “love” is a sin. She deserves a Christian education as much as my babies and, truly, may need it even more.

    So I ask you all, add a 5th prayer to Father Z’s list, a prayer for the little girl who is in the middle of it all through no fault of her own.

    My opinion

  32. JohnH says:

    I am happy to see that my childhood Alma Mater has taken a turn for the better. I distinctly recall a much different view of Catholic teaching while attending Sacred Heart for my entire elementary and middle school education. In my class we had the son of two abortionists in Boulder. As such, abortion was an issue that the school avoided teaching about. They preferred that parents educate their own children on that issue. Thankfully I was blessed with good parents.

    God bless Fr. Breslin. I know this will probably not end well without sincere and generous prayer. God forgive the hate-mongers picketing Sacred Heart.

  33. Elly says:

    I’m really having a hard time understanding how this policy protects the child. Wouldn’t it be better for the child to be confused than to have no knowledge of the truth? But I don’t doubt that Father did the right thing in obeying.

  34. lofstrr says:

    Why send your kid to a place that you know will teach them something manifestly in conflict with your lifestyle if not to lay a trap for them. This is clearly a setup and using an adopted child in such a calculated manner is disgusting.

  35. deborah-anne says:

    I have prayed and voted. My heart bleeds for Father Breslin. The good father needs to know he has support. Satan once again is trying to infiltrate, but courage always has its reward.
    Father Andrew: Well stated!

  36. kelleyb says:

    Father, the left is on the march. The Church is in another monumental battle with the evil one. We must pray.

  37. Dr. K says:

    Thank you for keeping us abreast, Father.

    Cleansing Fire has joined the crusade to defend this priest.

    He needs our e-mails and posts of support on his blog. The blog has been flooded with liberal anti-Catholic spam.

  38. MAJ Tony says:

    Elly: it’s as much a problem, really moreso, of being clear about what’s acceptable to the rest of the school, and the greater good, as it is a problem of the child’s salvation. As kelleyb stated: we must pray, and for all involved.

  39. ies0716 says:

    I prayed and voted, but similarly to some other posters, I’m not sure how I feel about this. Obviously the priest had no choice but to enforce the Archdiocesan policy, but I’m not convinced that the policy is the correct one. Many children of single parents, invalidly married parents, and non-Catholic parents attend Catholic schools. If dioceses aren’t going to ban these children I’m not sure why they would ban the adopted children of same-sex couples. I think it would make sense for the parents to have to sign a waiver that they understand their children will be taught genuine Catholic morality (so as to preclude conflict and possible lawsuits in the future), but it seems unfair to the child to prevent her from being taught the Catholic faith entirely.

    I think we need to pray for Fr. Breslin as well for the little girl caught in the middle of all this.

  40. deborah-anne says:

    Father Z, Saul Alinsky! You are not wrong, but absolutely right. His perverted tentacles reach far and wide. This smells of his radical strategies and tactics. There are extraordinary battles waging.

  41. Supertradmom says:


    Some schools, which have brave and very Catholic boards, do not let parents who are living in sin have their children in the school. A marriage certificate is asked for by some schools. Non-Catholic parents, as well as non-Catholic teachers have to sign agreements that they accept the teaching of their children in the Faith. I personally know of schools who asked these questions and ask for compliance. A Hindu couple I know had three of there adorable children in a school where I taught many years ago. Religion class was a requirement and the children took the courses. When one of the children wanted to convert, the parents pulled the children from the school, but were very nice about it, as they had signed an agreement to comply with school rules.

    I do not know if the child did convert. He was in junior high at the time.

  42. Melania says:

    i have voted and prayed. I will forward this to friends so they can vote.

    You’re right. This is pure Saul Alinsky. This is a well-thought-out campaign and it is a technique that has been used by the Left for decades. The Church cannot just play defense to these people, waiting for their next move. Just waiting to react to this kind of tactic means the Church always loses. The Church (we) have to be proactive against this ideology. That’s of course what Archbishop Chaput and other brave souls like him are trying to do.

  43. marthawrites says:

    Voted. Prayed. Posted a supportive comment and prayer on Father’s blog. This priest and his bishop are carrying the cross of Christ. This is why we have the Year for Priests, so we can become more aware of how much our ordained ministers NEED our continual prayers.

  44. Supertradmom says:

    Spelling problems today-their, not there-and may I add that one Catholic school had to let go a Catholic woman who got married by the JP only. The teacher had also signed the oath and agreement to live by the teachings of the Catholic Church, and also to only teach those. By her life, she negated this agreement. She was aware of the “problem” and left when her breaking of his contractual agreement was pointed out to her. She had no intention of changing her personal situation.

    We cannot have our children confused. That is what real education is about-not merely head knowledge, but experiential knowledge. The students actually found out what happened and supported the principal and the president of the school. However, it was painful and sorrowful, but part of the mission of the school. The parents supported the admin as well. Either a school is Catholic, or it is not. As a Notre Dame graduate, I still feel the pain of what happened last year and should not have happened. It is the same principle here in this case–either live by your Faith or not, whether as an individual or as an administration.

  45. Maltese says:

    *First, the protestors and the couple are the ones abusing that child by instrumentalizing her. Knowing the Archdiocesanpolicy, the only reason why the lesbian “couple” would press this is to hurt the Church or try to force their own sinful agenda on an institution of the Church. They are using the child as a tool in their fight.*

    VERY well said! I guess God could have created Adam and Steve, or alternative forms of procreation, like certain bugs are capable of. But, really, the natural order, and 2,000 years of Judeo Christian history teach that the family is the basis, the bedrock of a stable, happy, healthy world. And there are those who would cast that asunder for their own selfish desires, or narcissistic political postures….

  46. paulbailes says:

    We’re all sinners – so Catholic schools are full of children taught by imperfect parents.

    The difference here is that the “parents” are proud of their sins, no ashamed of them as we all should be ashamed of our sins.

    People who are proud of their sins, and publicly so, are hypocritical to try to associate with the Church in any way, be it Sacraments, Education, etc.

  47. Clinton says:

    It would have been so easy for Fr. Breslin to avert his eyes from this situation and save himself a mess of trouble. Sacred Heart and
    the Archdiocese are lucky to have a priest willing to shoulder this cross.

    I laughed aloud when I read that Sacred Heart parishioners had brought over coffee and doughnuts to the protestors. That was a
    stroke of brilliance! It is mighty difficult to demonize a group, to characterize them as haters and bigots, when they’re not only turning
    the other cheek but also handing out pastry. Those fine people from Sacred Heart may have helped change a few minds and defuse
    a tense situation.

  48. Henry Edwards says:

    Posted comment:
    If I understand the voting correctly, it appears to me that well over half the voters in this poll are not Catholics. This seems puzzling to me. What interest should non-Catholics have in — and of what pertinence is their opinion about — the enrollment policy of a Catholic parish school?

  49. Supertradmom says:

    By the way, are five people a “protest”? Just curious.

  50. RR says:

    I support the decision, but its rationale has not been well articulated. The obvious rejoinder, which opponents did not hesitate to make, was what about all of the other parents living in violation of Catholic teaching?

    The difference is that there is a political agenda at work here that is unique to homosexual advocacy. This agenda involves sliding into the mainstream of (first) mainstream American life and (then) mainstream Catholic life. These lesbian parents oppose fundamental Catholic teaching. So why would they put their kid in a Catholic school except to slide into the mainstream life of the Catholic parish and dilute its teaching on marriage and sexuality?

    Here is the key point: No other family irregularity has such an obvious political agenda. Divorced and remarried people are not making a statement about trying to push their views onto the Church. Of course, if they did so (or there was some major organized divorced and remarried political movement), that would be different, and the school would be in the right to prevent enrollment.

    Part of the point here is that there is no such thing as half enrollment. The school can’t say that the kid can be enrolled, but the lesbian parents can’t help out with the school play, or that they cannot serve on a parents’ advisory board. Practically speaking, there is no half a loaf.

    These issues are not easy, but there are good reasons for why the archdiocese is making a particular point about homosexual couples.

  51. Supertradmom says:


    We are living in an increasingly anti-Catholic society, led by those on the Hill, as seen in recent remarks about the Bishops. People want to show their “democratic” ideals against the supposedly mean, nasty, bigoted Catholic Church. Relativism has a name and it is “intolerance”…..

  52. Fr_Reif says:

    Thanks for posting this Fr. Z. This is evidence that our whole culture, our whole society needs prayer for conversion.

  53. Luke says:

    Well said, Supertradmom.

    I feel a real loss for the child of this couple. This problem shows up the harm that comes from same sex marriages and further allowing those “couples” to adopt. Taking this opportunity to look at dissenting blogs has been a horror for me.

  54. Fr. B says:

    From Fr. Breslin’s blog:

    “Oh, for the fleshpots of earlier days. How long has it been now that we have felt intimidated about our teaching on the sacrament of marriage – even to the point of feeling that we should apologize for our faith. That kind of spirit is not one of a true disciple of Christ. In the last analysis, I asked this question: why should we compromise our faith for someone else’s behavior?”

    Well said.

  55. Dr. K says:

    Who is the one really doing the damage to the kid here; the priest defending Church teaching, or the homosexual “parents” who are using their child as a political pawn?

  56. Girgadis says:

    I first heard of this situation on a blog renowned for attacking Catholics. Surprisingly, even some of the hardcore regulars agreed that if someone doesn’t like the teachings of the Church, they have no business sending a child to a Catholic school.

    I posted a word of support on Father Breslin’s blog. He’s a courageous man and he is right to practice this kind of tough love. True charity demonstrates genuine concern for the soul, no matter what the consequences. So sad for the little girl at the center of this controversy.

  57. Supertradmom says:

    As a former high school teacher, I want to explain how much a teacher appreciates a clear, Catholic stand on such issues. I had an irate dad at my religion class door many years ago, as I was teaching Marriage and Family. He did not want the Catholic view of marriage being taught. Thankfully, my principal stood up for me and explained to the man that the Catholic school supported Catholic teaching and he had no right to harass a teacher doing her job. The same thing happened concerning the role of Mary in the Church, from some parents who were in “mixed marriages” and did not want their teens learning the rosary, of all things. If a teacher is supported, she or he can do their job. Sadly, in another so-called Catholic school, I was not allowed to teach the rosary, as “Mary was no longer relevant”. I left that school, as it had lost its reason for existing.

    Teachers need to be protected. Can you imagine a Catholic marriage and family class in a diocese which is weak in the area of the Church’s teaching regarding traditional marriage? Plus, a teacher is only the helper to the parents, not the primary teacher, but the secondary teacher. A teacher should be strengthening what is being taught at home, and not contradicting the parent. Of course, this would be impossible in this situation. The child is not a victim of the Church’s stand, but a victim of our permissive and really messed up society which accepts homosexual adoption.

  58. I’m confused about what the archdiocese’s policy is meant to do. Why would the Church in Boulder seek to withhold Catholic education from children growing up in same-sex-parent environments? How else will the child have the opportunity to be “taught in school” something “conflict[ing] with what they experience in the home”?

  59. Supertradmom says:

    Children should be in schools which are wholly supported by their parents. The administration, teachers and parents form the teaching triangle for the child. In this mix, the child would be hearing contradictory messages, obviously. It is not the duty of a Catholic school to proselytize children outside the family unit. This is wrong. The Catholic teachers support what is already going on in the home. Schools are extensions of the family and the Church. If a family lifestyle is completely contrary to the Teaching of the Church, the child will suffer even more and not be able to understand the conflict, at that early age. The diocesan policy is to protect the children, parents and teachers who are Catholic and want a Catholic environment and curriculum for the children.

    The same is true for any religious school, such as Jewish school, Muslems schools, or Amish schools. A continuity of truth is the ideal for all children attending Catholic schools. The diocesan policy protects all those mentioned here, plus guards the Deposit of Faith for future generations.

  60. Supertradmom says:

    May I add that the same type of thinking surrounds the rules concerning the baptizing of infants and children. Parents who are not part of the Church and who do not belong to a parish or regularly attend Mass cannot just bring their children in for the sacrament. Baptism is a commitment for the parents to bring up the child in the Faith. A similar argument, minus the sacramental grace, applies to Catholic education. Catholic education is a commitment by the parents, with the help of the established school and diocese.

  61. Prof. Basto says:

    Done. Once at work, and once here at home.

  62. wanda says:

    Prayed and voted.

  63. Sursum Corda says:

    Here is what I posted to Fr. Breslin’s site:


    Thank you for your clear decision to uphold Catholic teaching in the face of illiberal fury.

    Nothing like upholding Catholic teaching to bring out the worst in the “Diversity” hypocrates.

    The homosexuals are using this child, in an attempt to advance their misguided agenda. Shame on their lack of caring for this child! As usual with homosexuals, it is all about them.

  64. TJerome says:

    I posted my support of Father Breslin on his website. He’s a good man and needs our prayers as he battles Mammon.

  65. Mary Bruno says:

    Prayed and voted.

    When my daughter was in Catholic grade school we had to sign an agreement we would follow the teachings of the Church.

    I agree with Supertradmom regarding teaching in the schools. I can picture parents complaining at school regarding what is being taught because it is not what they believe. But this is a Catholic School. Last time I checked I sent my daughter to Catholic School to be educated within the realm of Catholic Faith and Tradition.

    How can you value a Catholic Education if you are living against the faith and participating in sin without any regrets? Everyone sins, every one makes mistakes–but if you are Catholic you will confess the sins and try to avoid them in the future. You won’t publicly announce your sins and say they are not sins and that you know better than the Church, you know better than what the Bible teaches.

    If you have or had children in Catholic school you know how it works. Before First Holy Communion we make posters of our families, pictures from the child’s Baptism, etc Not only would it effect the child of the homosexual couple, but it would effect every student in that classroom who is preparing for the Sacraments. If Mary has two mommies and she is a nice girl and the mommies are nice ladies why is it bad? Well, if they are in Church and maybe I see them going to Communion and they are standing at their child’s side when they make the Sacraments then it must be ok. This leads to confusion of many not just the child of the “couple.” It will bring the sin out in the open and expose many innocent children sinful situations.

    I’ve heard parents struggle with this type of situation. They know a gay person or gay couple who are very nice, upstanding people and they wonder how to explain it to their children.

    We cannot judge whether someone is committing a sin since we do not know their intent or their level of understanding that they are sinning. But we can teach our children that certain behaviors go against what God/Jesus/Church teaches. As parents we have to teach our children in our faith and what it means.

    Let’s not forget this is a CATHOLIC SCHOOL that has the foundation to teach children in the CATHOLIC FAITH. That must be the first and foremost concern.

  66. Random Friar says:

    I voted, I pray, I will offer Mass for him.

  67. gmarie says:

    Last month, I wrote a term paper for a Moral Theology class on this very subject. The Archdiocese of Denver is completely right, especially for the child’s sake. The confusion for this girl would be very real. An excerpt from my paper:

    “What good is it to have your child learn something at school to only to be taught something radically different at home? Scripture admonishes us, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” If this is what we teach, how will a child of a homosexual couple reconcile the love he feels for his “parents” and his love for God? How does he cope with the fact that because of their sin, his “parents” cannot inherit the Kingdom of God?”

    With this kind of confusion, the doors would be wide open for Satan to walk right into this child’s heart. I know some say that children of homosexual parents should be allowed into Catholic schools if only to be able to hear the Gospel message and receive sacramental graces. However, it would be better served to evangelize to the girl when she is old enough to truly understand with reason. Right now, she reasons as a child, with her feelings. A faith based on feelings is not enough. God will provide many better opportunities for her to know Him. In this case, receiving an education from a parochial school whose basic philosophy is diametrically opposed to what she is learning at home is not her best chance.

  68. momravet says:

    If you have multiple people at home who would like to vote (the second poll has
    been moved to the front page of the Denver Post) you can delete cookies and deleted
    the cached pages then close the browser and reopen it and it should be clear for
    you to vote again. The DP has a javascript or php program which looks at the cookie
    that the DP has put on your system when you vote.

  69. AJP says:

    What a difficult situation all around – poor Father Breslin! Like many others here, I am very conflicted about this. I prayed for Fr Breslin and will post something supportive on his blog, but I didn’t vote because I honestly do not know what to think about this. On one hand it does seem like the policy punishes the child and deprives her of perhaps the only access to Christ and the sacraments that she’ll ever have. I worry too that this will lead to her growing up to be incredibly hostile to Catholicism.

    However I also went to Catholic schools for jr high and high school. None of my classmates had gay parents but there were certainly some remarried parents, and many parents who were nominal Catholics, non-Catholics, and a few who were anti-Catholics. While it sounds horrible to blame children and teens for the sad state of Catholic schools, the fact is when you have a large number of students coming from those kinds of families, this waters down the Catholic identity of the school. The school can’t teach and live out the faith at the adult level that high schoolers should be capable of, because too many students are ignorant of even the basics – or outright hostile to them. It’s like trying to run a conservatory where 75% of the students can’t read sheet music, and 25% throw a fit if asked to.

    Also many Catholic schools are very reliant on a few major donors. If those donors are not living in accord with the Church’s teachings, the school is going to be even more hesitant to uphold the truth. You don’t want your top donor’s kid coming home and telling him and wife #3 that her teacher said remarriage is a mortal sin.

    An important question is why do such parents want to send their kids to Catholic schools in the first place? Why would an abortionist, a man on his third wife, a lesbian couple, or (as at my school) plain old anti-Catholic WASPs want their children to go to a Catholic school? At my school, I think it was because the school was viewed by the community as very strong academically, but very lightweight when it came to Catholicism. No one’s lifestyle or beliefs would be threatened by the school’s religious affiliation.

    So perhaps a solution to these horrendously sad and difficult situations is to strengthen the Catholic character of our schools and hopefully pre-empt such families from even being interested. I liked ies0716’s suggestion of having prospective parents sign a waiver. Let them know upfront that the school is unabashedly Catholic. Spell it out explicitly: your children will be taught exactly what the Church teaches on marriage, chastity, etc. Explain that this policy will be enforced on the students, as is age appropriate. For instance, in my high school many students would loudly and publically boast about fornicating, and mouth off to the religion teachers (who despite the poor catechesis, really did their best to promote chastity) things like “you can’t make me believe that!” and “whatever, whatever, I do what I want!” (South Park reference there, yes that’s what my HS was like!). There were no consequences for this behavior, but ideally in a Catholic school this behavior would be punished with extreme prejudice!

    I would hope that if a school were very “hardcore” upfront and followed through with that, word would get around the community and that would dissuade various unorthodox parents from enrolling their kids. But it avoids setting up a policy that specifically excludes anyone (like homosexuals) which, as we see, leads to great acrimony against the Church.

  70. frjim4321 says:

    It does not promote the Faith to exclude youth from Catholic education, particuarly for the purpose of punishing parents. It doesn’t sound like the parents are using the child as a pawn as much as Bp. Chaput – all due respect – seems to be using the case to promote his own notoriety. As I have mentioned in another string, it seems that Bp. Chaput is campaigning for something (someplace). This is how it is done . . . we’ve seen it before. It’s about L.A. That being said, if the parents are using the child for political purposes, that is truly vile. Fr. Jim. [I am not convinced. There are a lot of ways to “campaign” without creating yourself this sort of headache. Furthermore, would it be a good strategy to campaign in this manner to go to a place where you would have to do this same thing on a HUGE scale? No, I don’t buy it.]

  71. mfg says:

    Fr. Breslin might want to contact Fr. C. John McCloskey in the Arch. of New York. Fr. McCloskey had a similar problem and solved it successfully.

  72. Robert says:

    Some folks think the child is being punished for the sins of the parents.

    We should probably remember a few things.

    1. Parents are the primary educators of children.
    2. It is very difficult to catechize children if their parents are outside of the faith.

    I really wish that more parishes would implement and promote adult faith formation to catechize the folks in the pews (and those who don’t sit pews also), rather than merely hope that the seed of faith will grow on the thin soil of their children.

    The sad fact is, whether or not that poor child is enrolled in the Catholic school, the sin of the parents will visit upon that child.

    The parish and the diocese should work for the good of the whole school and not merely for all individuals. It used to be a common saying that one bad apple would spoil the whole barrel. Some folks are relying on the hope that we’ll be successful in pitting the child against the child’s parents, so that the child won’t be a bad apple. It seems unrealistic even if it is successful.

  73. viennaguy says:

    What I don’t get is, why should the child not get a Catholic education because of something it did not have a choice in? It’s not going to get a good moral upbringing at home, so should it not get one at school?

  74. Frank H says:

    At 5:23 am Eastern Time, it is Yes 40.4%, No 58.4%. Keep voting folks!

  75. 200 Years West of Salt Lake City says:

    Good Morning
    After reading “Guest Rant” yesterday I invite prayers for those who attack a Priest. Perhaps a prayer like ‘momoften’ (comment 29 of 86 when downloaded/printed) suggested would assist Father Breslin. The Memorare for the conversion of the two adults (secular parents) is most fitting. If God can place Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity into a host, bet He can find a way to enter that child, as well.
    200 Years West of Salt Lake City

  76. avecrux says:

    viennaguy –
    I think there is legitimate question about whether it is possible for the child to get a good moral upbringing at school. Young children naturally love and admire their parents. If anything, a young child could grow to dismiss or despise the Church’s moral authority if he or she interprets is as “attacking” his or her “parents”.
    Regarding moral problems in families: the natural vs. unnatural distinction is incredibly important. While contraception is a grave evil, repentance and a sacramental Confession can put the couple back on the right track in a single day. A homosexual “couple” however, would have to completely dissolve their supposed “union” to get right with God. A homosexual relationship is disordered and unnatural and can never be legitimized.

  77. JonM says:

    While some see this as the Church punishing a child, really what it is doing is protecting students from serious scandal. And it is the choice of the two women (and a failure by the State of Colorado) that led to this.

    If a child of homosexuals is permitted to a school that is indented to offer Catholic formation, undoubtedly there will be children confused. Some will think that because their friend is nice, therefore her caretakers must be too, and conclude the Church is wrong.

  78. avecrux says:

    You make an excellent point about scandal, JonM. A contracepting couple can rectify their situation in a day, by the grace of God, through a good sacramental Confession AND it is unlikely that their own children will know of their sin – and the wider community may not either. Some time in a vibrant Catholic community with good witnesses can lead to their conversion. I have seen this happen on many occasions. On the other hand, if a contracepting couple is actively dissenting in the community – for example, seen handing out condoms at a Planned Parenthood rally – or protesting Father’s homily on Humanae Vitae – their public action should have them dismissed as well.

  79. Rob Cartusciello says:

    At 9:45 am EST, Catholic Yes votes (in favor of the policy) outnumbered Catholic No votes 2 to 1.

    Sadly, the woman who organized the protest, Beth Osnes, graduated Marquette University (Jesuit) with a BA in Theology.

  80. MAJ Tony says:

    Sorry, but frjim4321, I think your belief is a canard with respect to +Chaput “campaigning” for LA. I don’t doubt your sincerety in belief, just question your basis for it. This is the second time you’ve brought it up lately. +Chaput has been an active voice for more than a day or two.

  81. You are moving the poll. Good job!



  82. catholicmidwest says:

    Fr. Andrew,

    Yes, fornication and the like are natural vices. The homosexual act (including the lesbian act) is an unnatural vice; there are others. We must point this out and stand firm on that point. Unnatural vices have no justification in any argument that involves human beings. They violate natural law.

  83. catholicmidwest says:

    Just because she graduated with a degree in theology doesn’t mean she actually comprehends any. She managed to spit out what she was told, most likely, with a passing grade on her sentence structure. She read articles and summarized them well. It’s completely possible; happens all the time.

  84. catholicmidwest says:

    And Rob, that’s particularly do-able at the BA level.

  85. Seraphic Spouse says:

    Prayed, voted, blogged. Also blogged on the importance of fathers.

  86. Luke says:

    frjim4321, I don’t think this is about punishing the young girl involved. It’s about whether the circumstances of her life fit the faith or not. This is where I have a problem with the decision that was made here. Although some fine arguments have been made here defending the decision it still rings unclear with me. SOmeone above mentioned that a man on his third wife shouldn’t be allowed to seek Catholic education for offspring, and then went on to make similar comparisons. The problem with these types of comparisons is that they are simply the result of sin–especially in our day and age. Regarding the obvious fact that same-sex couples break a few moral rules, why couldn’t their adopted child be taken as a student? What harm would really be done? None that I can see. The little girl will grow up to feel either resentment, embarrassment, or anger or possibly yet indifference, no matter where she is educated. Wouldn’t it be good to expose her to the teachings of the Church? If she is left without moral training she is likely to grow up taking the side of her “parents” that society “just doesn’t understand them and they really “””LOVE””” one another.” If a problem grew out of the parental relationship later in the schooling, then action could be taken to discontinue the schooling. I don’t believe this is the place to weigh the sins of the parents. After all, what argument could that lesbian couple make to their child about the relationship? Only that this is “how we choose to like and therefore it’s okay.” But that little girl could become well versed in the first chapter of Romans and discover the errors of her parents while choosing to serve God in her own life.

    Having said all of that I support Father Breslin because he is acting in obedience. It takes a real backbone to do so in the face of these circumstances. But–playing again on Romans 1, verse 32 here–I’m not convinced that schooling that child would be tantamount to approving the parent’s lifestyle.

  87. Jayna says:

    There was actually a Law & Order: SVU episode exactly about this issue. Stabler (much to Benson’s dismay) agreed with the school’s decision to to not permit the girl’s attendance. The school in the episode maintained that allowing her to go to a Catholic school while her parents were very openly out of the closet would be confusing to other students.

    Like others, I am not quite sure what to think on the issue. My mother went to Catholic school from beginning to end (I would have had we been able to afford tuition) and she often had non-Catholic, mostly Jewish among that set, classmates. Where is the line drawn on the issue? Are gay parents who wish to be a part of the Church any worse or better than parents who conform to heterosexual precepts but refuse to accept every other teaching of the Church? Surely that would complicate trying to teach students that the Church is the One True Church. Assuming, of course, that schools even bother teaching that anymore.

  88. Luke says:

    Of course, I neglected to mention that I am biased regarding such matters because I was accepted into a Catholic school from k-7 even though my mother opposed the faith and lived a very immoral life. She lived four houses down from the convent and Sr. Anne (the principal) was well aware of the circumstances. Largely because of my exposure to the faith I converted at 13 yrs and would be considered staunchly Catholic by many today even though my own mother never converted to the faith. We can debate natural vs. unnatural sins and lifestyles, but in the end it seems to me that we should esteem the child’s opportunity to know God above all else.

  89. Brian Day says:

    This episode jogged a memory about an incident in my diocese (Orange in Calif) from five years ago.
    Background here: Other Parents Want Gay Couple’s Kids Out of School (Fox news)
    Follow-up here: Catholic School in O.C. Limits Gay Parents’ Role (LA Times)
    Dr Ed Peters comments: Admitting children of same-sex couples to Catholic elementary schools: thinking beyond the clichés

    I’ve rummaged around the diocesan website ( to see if there is any additional information that is more recent. I couldn’t find any.

    The Norbertines who run the parish are good. The sister who was principle for 31 years was dismissed at the end of the school year. I suspect she was a nun of a certain age. The diocesan school superintendent punted. What a mess.

  90. Scott W. says:

    Chaput responds:

    And can we pullleeze stick to the content and not engage in ad hominems about Chaput’s career motives?

  91. Supertradmom says:

    viennaguy, and those who want the child in the school:

    I have two questions for you; firstly, do you think love is connected with truth? And secondly, what about all the other parents and kids who have a right to paid real Catholic education without compromise?

  92. Supertradmom says:

    In addition, if the diocese allows this child in, please see that the decision would end Catholic education as we know it today.

  93. We are shifting that poll. Keep it going! If you haven’t voted… VOTE!

  94. Luke says:

    Supertradmom, how is accepting the child of a same-sex couple connected with compromising the education of the other children? And yes, to answer your question, love is connected to the truth. To approve of the parent’s behavior would be hate and not love. Is whether allowing this child into the school is the same as embracing the parents life choices?

  95. Luke says:

    So Dr. Edward Peters makes a very good distinction in the linked article between sinful actions and lifestyles. It would be next to impossible to make such a circumstance work in fairness to the rest of the school. I’m not convinced that it would change Catholic education as we know it today, but I now agree that it would pose grave difficulties that are better gone around than crossed or faced head on such as would be the case in allowing the girl into school.

  96. LauraL says:

    Prayed. Voted – although the second poll has been changed, as of this hour. Also posted on Father B’s blog, and sent him a personal email, offering my support and my encouragement.

    I swear, we have come full circle. We now live in a culture that has more inc common with that of the ancient, pagan Roman Empire than with the America my parents knew and loved when they died, 19 years ago. I believe this is significant. The Enemy knows his time is drawing very short indeed – and the evil is accelerating at an astounding pace.

    I’m glad to be part of this Church – and I’m grateful for this internet community, which relieves me of much of the sense of solitude I face. God bless you all!

  97. LauraL says:

    “Supertradmom, how is accepting the child of a same-sex couple connected with compromising the education of the other children? And yes, to answer your question, love is connected to the truth. To approve of the parent’s behavior would be hate and not love. Is whether allowing this child into the school is the same as embracing the parents life choices?”

    Luke, as Abp Chaput pointed out, the active teaching of the Church’s moral theology would carry with it the implication – to the child – that these adults it knows as “parents” are immoral. While this is true, it’s still a grave unkindness to force that kind of challenge to a young child.

    The alternative – to softpedal Catholic moral teaching so as to preserve the child’s feelings – is unthinkable!

  98. mfg says:

    Re my comment at 12:34am. Correction: Fr. McCloskey is in Washington DC.

  99. I think it is interesting (even encouraging) that 10% of respondents agreed with the Archdiocese’s policy and did not identify as Catholic.

  100. Charivari Rob says:

    Scott W., thank you for posting the link to the Archbishop’s statement. It does much to forment understanding of the situation and the policy.

  101. Luke says:

    Yes. I understand the implication that the school would preach against the parents. But what if the parents were told that and agreed to the full scope of the education? Their child may well grow up to feel that her parents are living a lie anyhow. By virtue of having same-sex parents the child’s feelings are compromised regardless of what schooling she receives. So then the question seems to lie more on the basis of the greater good of the student body and not the feelings of this little girl. My point still stands that accepting this child would not amount to an approval of the parental choice for a same-sex partnership. If it weren’t for concerns over the affects this would have on the student body I think we should leap at the opportunity to pass the truth on to a child who will otherwise face a life of confusion. But then, my opinion is unpopular and I’m a partisan in these matters because my own conversion and subsequent love of the faith stems from exposure to the Catholic Church as a pagan child.

  102. Kudos to Dr. Peter’s article.
    He taught me well; I am very grateful for this…really!

  103. Mother says:

    Prayed, voted, and sent a word of support for Fr. Breslin.
    Oh, Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

  104. Gregg the Obscure says:

    At first this case baffled me.

    I can understand the appeal of most sins. In nearly every case, a sin is simply placing one natural good in th eplace of something that is naturally superior to it. For instance, I might want a new car but lack the money to buy it, so I simply take it. I get the car (a good thing) but at the cost of respecting my neighbor’s ownership of the car.

    This advocacy of depravity and concommitant hostility to the basic foundations of human life, though, lacks any good. It’s sheer hostility to everything good in the world. Then it hit me. The fallen angels are more intelligent than mere mortals. They’ve been around a very long time and they’re industrious. It’s taken them a long time to lay the groundwork for this complete of an embrace of evil.

  105. Archbishop Chaput’s letter is just excellent.
    This has nothing to do with condemning sinners; it has to do with public espousal of a lifestyle that is inimical to Catholic teaching. Period. And “Public” is the word here.
    This is just political nonsense, attempting to attack the Catholic Church’s moral teachings.

  106. And as a further comment: the blogosphere (?) is ‘burning up’ with this whole event…lots of folks are taking the side of the “children” being deprived of a Catholic education…the whole issue is being distorted, I believe.

  107. historyb says:

    Voted and Prayed and will continue to pray

  108. thecount says:

    Would that we had some bishops,and priests, here in Ireland,with the courage to face matters head on,thought, there are excellent priests attached to the Extrordinary Form, at St.Kevins,Dublin,and, the congregation is steadily growing,year on year.We are fortunate to have such dedicated priests.
    In Ireland,the flock,nationwide,is without real guidance,and leadership.

    I hope that God will send us a leader who is not afraid to say thing as they are.
    Pray for us in your prayers.

  109. Charivari Rob says:

    Luke – “…what if the parents were told that and agreed to the full scope of the education?”

    Given Church teaching on the nature and form of the family, I wonder if that would require the couple to agree that only one of them has parental rights with respect to the child and dealing with any institutions of the Church.

    If both of these people have full parental rights under the laws of the state…
    If the authorities in the school/parish/diocese have cause to suspect that someone might use the situation to harass the Church in court…

    That might be another reason for such a policy.

  110. Willebrord says:

    Kudos to Fr. Breslin! He’s in my prayers!

    BTW, would this be the same Boulder Colorado that the show “Mork and Mindy” takes place in?

  111. Luke says:

    Charivari Rob, It is a complicated issue that could bring with it the very circumstances you mention. The parents could never be trusted because their very lifestyle choices are grounded in selfishness. I’m just curious here, and because of my curiosity I believe this deserves further consideration, but what particular factor is the decision maker? Is it the child’s feelings? The threat of a gay couple having a foothold of sorts in the Catholic school? Is it regard for the other Catholic parents and children? I believe it is important to answer these questions so that we can ascertain a plan of action in the future. Because this is an issue that will come up at an increasing rate in our society and if we have the opportunity to instruct young people in the faith then I think we should know whether it is most prudent to turn them away or to accept them as a student, and based on what particular factors. It is easy to say that we don’t want a same-sex family hanging around and easy to say they defy moral law, but where should the focus be? It sounds good to say that Catholic education encompasses the students whole life, but for the last how many years has catechesis been lacking? I don’t think that many people have been properly catechized. Any exposure to the faith is an asset in any life.

  112. relee54 says:

    The Vatican needs to reward Archbishop Chaput with a red hat and the sooner the better. The Church in America needs more prelates like him who are courageous enough to take bold and firm public stances on such key moral issues.

  113. MAJ Tony says:

    Wed, 10 MAR 10, 1913 GMT update

    Yes 10.69 %
    Yes, and I’m Catholic 37.21 %
    No 35.95 %
    No, and I’m Catholic 14.94 %
    I don’t know 0.326 %
    I don’t care 0.857 %

    Roughly 38% of the votes support the decision
    Roughly 51% of the votes opposed
    Neither know/care 1%

    Where’s the other 10%?

  114. MAJ Tony says:

    BTW, there were, ironically, EXACTLY 9800 votes at 1913 GMT (1413 Eastern/1113 Pacific). What are the odds?

  115. MAJ Tony says:

    And I can’t add, apparently. Should be

    48% support, not 38, there’s my 10 percent. DOHHH, BART

  116. Fr Z: Thank you for this information and for your “talking points”…it’s helped me very much on other blogs where I needed to state the “essence” of the whole issue without going on, and on, and on, and on…anyway. Prayers.

  117. An American Mother says:

    Prayers, votes (one for each of us), and a short Email of prayer and encouragement to Fr. Breslin.

    In days of yore, Catholic schools might be able to afford to admit a few lambs of strayed sheep, because the Church itself and society at large were agreed that the sheep had strayed.

    Now the Church is standing more or less alone in defending traditional morals and faith against a society that has abandoned moral standards and proclaims that sin is not sin. And far too many “Catholic” schools and even parishes are willing to compromise with sin – what was it C.S. Lewis said in The Great Divorce, the false pity that has cheated many a woman out of her virginity and many a statesman out of his honor . . . .

    By admitting the child – and hence the “parents” – into the school, the school puts at risk the Catholic education that the children of faithful parents can receive nowhere else, and that is no longer supported by society at large.

  118. SophiaGrace says:

    Prayed… and voted.
    Total Votes = 10071
    Yes 10.65 %
    Yes, and I’m Catholic 38.29 %
    No 35.21 %
    No, and I’m Catholic 14.67 %
    I don’t know 0.317 %
    I don’t care 0.834 %

  119. SophiaGrace says:

    Prayed… and voted.
    Total Votes = 10071
    Yes 10.65 %
    Yes, and I’m Catholic 38.29 %
    No 35.21 %
    No, and I’m Catholic 14.67 %
    I don’t know 0.317 %
    I don’t care 0.834 %

  120. MaryMaria says:

    Prayed and voted and will continue to pray for Holy Priests who will do what is the right even though it may be unpopular.

  121. LaudemGloriae says:

    I support the priest and his obedience.

    I understand the policy of the archdiocese but respectfully disagree with excluding from Catholic education all children from homosexual households without any consideration of circumstances.

    I could envision a scenario of gay/lesbian parents who realizing their failings, still treasure a Catholic identity they wish to pass on to their children. All depends on the good faith of the parents. If they are using the child to cause trouble, remove them, otherwise I think it is wrong to exclude them. As others have mentioned I do not know of any Catholic school that requires proof of a valid marriage, or NFP, or even Mass attendance. Many accept non-Catholics. How does this archdiocese deal with a situation in which only one parent is in a same sex relationship/household?

    Many Catholic families go through divorces, affairs, and various other scandals. Do we want to communicate that these children somehow comtaminate the purity of the school?

    My father was Catholic and my mother was not. I attended Catholic school and practice the faith. One of my best friend’s parents divorced. His mother lived with a lesbian partner with whom he lived half of the time during Catholic high school. I have other friends who were not Catholic, but admitted to Catholic schools and converted, then converted half of their families. We knew of families and parents in Catholic school in every imaginable sinful lifestyle – it didn’t confuse us or dilute the Catholic education we received.

    I support the priest, but would encourage the archdiocese to compassionately work to distinguish the wheat from the tares.

  122. eMVeeH says:

    Thank you, Father for pointing out the Alinksyite tactic being used in this case. Saul Alinsky loathed the middle class; however, he knew how to take advantage of moral mindset of middle-class people. Alinsky told his followers to integrate themselves into the middle class in order to destroy it.

    Sooo…marry like “they” do. Go to church like “they” do. Get involved in community, church, and school boards like “they” do. In short, act like “them” so that you [an Alinskyites], can get control of and undermine their institutions.

    Although the couple in this case is same-sex, they are passing themselves as normal because they want a values-based education. And what parent wouldn’t want that for their child?

  123. Frank H says:

    Finally, at 9:08 pm EST, the good guys pull ahead, 49.65% to 49.19%

    Keep up the pressure!

  124. New Sister says:

    Frank, yes, but the 14+% “No, and I’m Catholic” category still irks me!

  125. ssoldie says:

    Much love and prayers to Fr. Breslin, another true shepherd, may your tribe increase.

  126. You’ve done it! You have turned the poll around.

    Keep up the good work!

  127. Melody says:

    I usually agree with you Father, but not on this one.

    Just because the “parents” are living in sin is no reason to exclude the children from a chance at a moral education. If anything, those poor kids need to be in that school to get a dose of what they would never hear at home. Would you risk condemning these poor kids to hell?

    I’m the child of a completely lapsed Catholic and an probable agnostic. I found out only a year ago that they were never actually married. (I thought they had been and got divorced). They did many things offensive to the faith. Would you have excluded someone like me from a Catholic school?

  128. viennaguy says:

    Tradmom, I completely disagree. I was raised by parents who had nothing but derision for the faith but my Catholic school taught me otherwise, and I grew up loving the faith. I agree completely that their ‘mothers’ should not be doing what they are doing, but what about the child’s soul? Are we saying, well its having a bad moral start in life, let’s condemn him further by not allowing him a Catholic education?

    The point is, its parents’ way of life is not the child’s choice. Why should the CHILD suffer?

    Is it really a matter of, ‘let’s sacrifice this child, his education and very likely his salvation for the greater good’?


  129. Denis says:

    This isn’t at all like the situation of a child of merely sinful or lapsed Catholics going to a Catholic school. These parents are very obviously activists, and if the child had been admitted to the school, the parents would have protested any hint of “heterosexism” in the curriculum. “You can’t tell my kids to read the Beezus and Ramona books–they are biased in favor of heterosexual families!” and that sort of thing.

  130. trishamtan says:

    Good heavens, I step away from the computer for a few days and the world erupts!

    I have only one thing to add:

    Fr. Z., regarding your second comment in your own post, I should REALLY like to see the protestors trying to mess with Abp. Chaput. Just for entertainment value. (Though, that’s probably some serious schadenfreude speaking…)

  131. Hans says:

    Since we’re in a polling mood, there was an ad (from an outfit called; it shows upon their front page) at the ‘Adam and Steve’ story that was for a poll about whether “Gay Marriage” should be legal or not. I thought though, it being poll-related, that this might be a better place to mention it. I’m never sure just what to make of these sort of polls, so I’m not putting a direct link in.

  132. LaudemGloriae says:

    @ Denis your point is well taken, and in this particular case, perhaps this student should be excluded. However, the poll is in regards to the archdiocese having a blanket regulation to exclude all children from samesex households without regard for intention or circumstances. To this, I must say “No, and I’m Catholic”. I prefer to see a case by case review and having the parents sign a statement that they understand Catholic teachings and agree for their child to receive those teachings.

    There will always be those who will abuse the good will of the Church (global warming, healthcare, Acorn …) As Mother Theresa said “love them anyway”. I am really astounded at the good guys v bad guys mentatlity here. All are God’s beloved children. Jesus came for sinners, choosing even to enter their homes and dine with them. Are we to imitate our Master or be like the Levites from the Good Samaratian — avoiding the “unclean” lest our righteousness be spoiled.

    Do not misunderstand me, I do not object to excluding those cases where agendas are clear, but assuming that all such families operate from ill will is an unjust conclusion.

  133. avecrux says:

    Laudem –
    If a parent does sign a statement saying he or she understands Catholic teaching and agrees that the child will receive Catholic teaching, yet continues to live in a way that Catholic teaching states is gravely immoral, in a relationship which causes scandal – how can that kind of thumbing of the nose at Catholic moral teaching come from good will?
    The woman caught in adultery was saved from public stoning by Our Lord, but He did not leave it at that: He told her “Go and sin no more.” To follow through on this command, a same sex couple would have to split up.
    I don’t think anyone here would advocate refusing medical care to lesbians who had been beaten (Levites) – and while Jesus did associate with those in sinful lifestyles, it does not mean that kindergarteners should have to – but that is exactly what happens in a case of public, gravely immoral lifestyles… everyone knows about it, including little children who have a right to a latency period of innocence and protection from such things.

  134. Denis says:


    I just don’t see how it’s possible for a same-sex couple not to be actively and openly opposed to Church teaching. It’s quite obvious that such a couple objects to what a Catholic school teaches (or should teach) children about the family.

    It’s also reasonable to assume that they’d act as a married couple at family gatherings at the school. How could the priest and teachers avoid acting as if they affirm their status as a married couple without being rude?

Comments are closed.