Catholic School Kicks Out Child of Gay Parents

[*********]

You made at least some of them crystal clear by refusing to call this girl's parents her parents. That was beyond rude and completely uncalled for.

 

Tara

 

You know, I think Orthodox6 was not trying to be rude by refering to the women as the girls 'guardians'. If, say, it was the girl's mother and her live-in boyfriend, I would not refer to them as the girls 'parents'. I don't see how it is any different if it is the girl's mother and her live-in girlfriend. I think Orothodox6 picked a very 'neutral' term by using 'guardian'.

 

Just another example of why this is such an explosive topic.

[Dmmetler]

I teach an early childhood music class, and one of my families, two wonderful women who have adopted two little boys with special needs, asked me what I thought of a specific parochial school for their boys. And as one mother put it, there aren't a lot of options. Their boys are in the grey area where they won't receive much support in public schools, but where most private schools don't want them (and homeschooling isn't on the table right now, for various reasons).

 

I didn't really know what to say. It's a good school, and taking their sons as the kids alone, would be a good fit. But I'm very afraid that these two ladies will face a lot of social pressure and stigma-or that their children will become a project, because while I don't believe the school will reject the boys due to their parents, there will be a LOT of families in the school who find homosexuality a major issue.

[jujsky]

Yeah, basically it's discriminating against the kid because of who her family is. Nice Christian values. I would think, at the least, the school would welcome the girl so that they could show her the error of her parents' ways ... ;)

 

Would they ever do this to a child whose parent was an alcoholic, drug addict, murderer, etc?

 

Tara

:iagree:

[hornblower]

the issue had nothing to do with our family structure and certainly nothing to do with any conflict of "values". Both the school and our family have a strong value system that include respect for all people, spiritual growth, safety of our children, service to the community, quality education...

 

Hi Momling,

thanks for sharing this positive story :)

[Haiku]

You know, I think Orthodox6 was not trying to be rude by refering to the women as the girls 'guardians'. If, say, it was the girl's mother and her live-in boyfriend, I would not refer to them as the girls 'parents'.

 

So in your example, the girl's mother wouldn't be her mother because of her choice of partner? She'd just be a guardian? Really?

 

Tara

[lionfamily1999]

Yes everyone is a sinner. As people who believe and claim the teachings of the bible we have to hold to a standard. That standard is not perfection but it is striving to be more like Christ and to hold up those teachings.

 

A person can not be striving to be more like Christ and yet blatantly, outwardly sinning as if to say "screw you God, it doesn't matter what you say". It's just not possible. It doesn't matter what the sin is. If another parent was publicly getting drunk every weekend, or picking up girls or whatever else, and refusing the correction of their priest, it would be the same thing.

 

Now, I would never hold a person to this if they did not confess to be a follower of Christ, but this is part of the package when you are one.

 

This church school is a private entity and they can uphold whatever rules they like. No one is forced to use the school and not allowing a child to attend because the parents can't adhere to a basic statement of faith is to be expected.

 

Why did the parents want their child to go to a school that would conflict with their values in the first place? That seems rather strange to me. I can't imagine any of the few gay families that I know sending their kids to a highly religious school like that, it would just cause too many problems for their kids. I only know a handful though and none of them are religious so I am sure that comes into play.

 

I went to private, religious schools for parts of my education. We always had to sign statements of faith and codes of conduct. That all seems really normal. Is it always bad to say this is allowed but that isn't? It doesn't mean the people aren't valued but there have to be standards set somewhere. How else are groups going to protect their core values? If denying entrance based on this is not ok, is there any reasons they should be allowed to deny entrance to a family? Are they allowed to have any moral or behavioral standards? How about academic standards, is it wrong to deny a kid because his test scores weren't high enough? How should private schools determine eligibility?

:iagree:

[hornblower]

I don't understand why so many folks keep coming to 'why send them somewhere where the beliefs are so different' when most (all?) Catholic schools I know of accept students who are not Catholic at all. I think around here it's up to 15% of the enrolled pupils who may be "not of the church".

[*********]

So in your example, the girl's mother wouldn't be her mother because of her choice of partner? She'd just be a guardian? Really?

 

Tara

 

Um, no, but if you were going to refer to her mother and her mother's girlfriend using one term (in order to make it less cumbersome than constantly refering to them as 'her mother and her mother's girlfriend'), then I think 'guardians' is a suitable choice.

 

Just because someone is a lesbian, and has a live-in girlfriend, does not make the live-in girlfriend a mother to her gilfriends child. At least, to my understanding.

Edited March 8, 2010 by bethanyniez

[lionfamily1999]

I don't understand why so many folks keep coming to 'why send them somewhere where the beliefs are so different' when most (all?) Catholic schools I know of accept students who are not Catholic at all. I think around here it's up to 15% of the enrolled pupils who may be "not of the church".

I would think that if someone is opposed to their teachings they wouldn't want their children learning there. Yes, the church schools are inclusive to a point, but why would you send your kids to a school that teaches things you either don't believe in or absolutely oppose?

[hornblower]

You made at least some of them crystal clear by refusing to call this girl's parents her parents. That was beyond rude and completely uncalled for.

 

Tara

 

:iagree:

[MBM]

I don't understand why so many folks keep coming to 'why send them somewhere where the beliefs are so different' when most (all?) Catholic schools I know of accept students who are not Catholic at all. I think around here it's up to 15% of the enrolled pupils who may be "not of the church".

 

Many Catholic schools do accept non-Catholics, but they often require the students to attend Mass and participate in Catholic religious ed. They don't all do this, though; some allow non-Catholics to opt out of both.

[Haiku]

Just because someone is a lesbian, and has a live-in girlfriend, does not make the live-in girlfriend a mother to her gilfriends child. At least, to my understanding.

 

And that is the crux of the issue. Orthodox6 clearly disapproves of a lesbian family, so she chose a term intended to invalidate that family. Ask that little girl who her parents are. They are the people who are parenting her. And it is entirely possible that both of these women are legally this girl's mothers, because, as I said, some states allow second-parent adoption by a parent of the same gender.

 

if you were going to refer to her mother and her mother's girldfriend using one term (in order to make it less cumbersome than constantly refering to them as 'her mother and her mother's girlfriend'), then I think 'guardians' is a suitable choice.

 

If you refer to a child's mother as her "guardian" simply because you don't want to include another person living in the home, you are being offensive.

 

Tara

[FaithManor]

This kind of thing makes my blood boil and I am a conservative Christian!

 

"Cast the first stone......Judge not lest ye be judged!" No, I don't agree with the lifestyle....so what! God makes it very clear in the New Testament that our first reaction to anything is "Love". First Corinthians chapter 13 says "The greatest of these is LOVE!" Verse 1 of chapter 14 says "Make Love your Aim!"

 

What an unloving thing to do! Instead of reaching out to this family and bringing them the gospel message of grace and salvation, they were rejected. This poor child will probably grow up with a very dim view of Christianity.

 

The only legitimate reasons to put the child out of school would have been the same as for any other student ie. failure to pay tuition, violations of behvioral code, dress code, etc.

 

Sigh,

Faith

[Parrothead]

I don't understand why so many folks keep coming to 'why send them somewhere where the beliefs are so different' when most (all?) Catholic schools I know of accept students who are not Catholic at all. I think around here it's up to 15% of the enrolled pupils who may be "not of the church".

Just because something is allowed doesn't make it right for either party. When dd almost went to outside school last month, we toured the local Christian school. Dd would have been accepted by the school, no problem. But we are Catholic. During the interview I found that the school uses blatently anti-catholic curriculum for some of their studies (Bob Jones for one). At that point I was done. Why would I send dd to a school that was harmful to dd. And yes, I think that to be constantly bombarded with anti-Catholic materials would have been harmful.

 

In the same light I believe that the child of homosexual parents would be harmed going to any Christian school, be it a Catholic school or a Protestant Christian school like the one I toured last month. The child would be constantly bombarded with anti-homosexual propoganda. I really wonder if the parent of this kid thought their decision through. Otherwise I have to wonder if there was an agenda, and the kid is being used as a pawn.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Parrothead

[SonshineLearner]

I think "guardian" was more like mom and step.... where she just combined it. Obviously one of them is the mom..... (at least the pregnant one who pushed her out.) Where to go from there is not obvious. Perhaps the other adopted her, perhaps she came into the girls life after... which is more like a "step"... perhaps it was her bio child... and the other the pregnancy part.... With this..... OR, perhaps the little girl has a dad that's involved... and her parents are a bunch of people. I thought "guardians" was just referring to the people in the story.

[lionfamily1999]

This kind of thing makes my blood boil and I am a conservative Christian!

 

"Cast the first stone......Judge not lest ye be judged!" No, I don't agree with the lifestyle....so what! God makes it very clear in the New Testament that our first reaction to anything is "Love". First Corinthians chapter 13 says "The greatest of these is LOVE!" Verse 1 of chapter 14 says "Make Love your Aim!"

 

What an unloving thing to do! Instead of reaching out to this family and bringing them the gospel message of grace and salvation, they were rejected. This poor child will probably grow up with a very dim view of Christianity.

 

The only legitimate reasons to put the child out of school would have been the same as for any other student ie. failure to pay tuition, violations of behvioral code, dress code, etc.

 

Sigh,

Faith

Christ showed great love to the money changers at the temple when he threw them out. I'm not being sarcastic. He did. He drew the line and said, this cannot be tolerated here, in God's house, in a place of worship.

[hornblower]

I think "guardian" was more like mom and step....

 

but, but, but - possibly this child is actually not biologically related to either of these women but she's still their CHILD. We do not discriminate like this to hetero couples or single parents with adopted children, right? We don't say 'guardian' in those cases. We say parent/mother/father. This is no different. I don't need to know who birthed this child or how she came to be in their care. They're her parents.

[lionfamily1999]

but, but, but - possibly this child is actually not biologically related to either of these women but she's still their CHILD. We do not discriminate like this to hetero couples or single parents with adopted children, right? We don't say 'guardian' in those cases. We say parent/mother/father. This is no different. I don't need to know who birthed this child or how she came to be in their care. They're her parents.

Actually, most people I know use the term guardian so that they don't offend people. If the parent looks like a sibling, it's easier to say, "are you their guardian?" Grandparents that adopt their grandchildren tend to go by "guardian." Single parents' partners (unmarried) are, ime, normally referred to as guardians, if they've been given guardianship.

 

Isn't that why most applications that are filled out for minors say "parent OR guardian?"

 

Especially in cases where biological parentage is unknown, guardian is (or at least used to be) the safe word to use.

[SonshineLearner]

but, but, but - possibly this child is actually not biologically related to either of these women but she's still their CHILD. We do not discriminate like this to hetero couples or single parents with adopted children, right? We don't say 'guardian' in those cases. We say parent/mother/father. This is no different. I don't need to know who birthed this child or how she came to be in their care. They're her parents.

I guess that part of it, is they are "parents"....., but it's like my husband and me with my 11 year old.... there's another person involved... and many times... I distinguish that he's her step dad. We live around my (step) children's mom.. many times we've been all together.... and relationships are expected to get complicated.... (my husband and her... me.... before her current husband..... he was their...hmmm) I'm just saying... it's not like it's not hard all the time to try to decide what to call everyone. I happen to not agree with family structures with 2 legal moms. That's just me. But, if I were to have a friend with "two moms" and that's what they called themselves... (both moms) then yes, I'd say... "Parents"... It's not like I would be agreeing that the lifestyle is the best... it's just that they would both be "parenting" the child.

[Haiku]

We do not discriminate like this to hetero couples or single parents with adopted children, right?

 

THANK YOU!

 

I am, however, savvy enough to know that many Christians would argue that only a family with a mom and a dad is an actual family.

 

Tara

[FaithManor]

I agree... He did draw lines! However, He made it very clear that it would be better to commit suicide (throw yourself in the lake with a mill-stone tied around your neck) than put a stumbling block - spiritually harm - a child. He was very clear about that.

 

The way this was handled was unloving and confusing to the child. This is a child not likely to have any respect for Christianity from here on out. If there was a policy concerning which kinds of sin are acceptable and which ones are not, why wasn't this brought up during the enrollment process?

 

I'm not trying to be controversial. I personally believe the lifestyle is Biblically defined sin and we do have to draw lines with adults. However, I have serious problems with how this was handled with a child involved. I also have problems with the church, no matter what denomination, picking and choosing whom to discipline and whom not to. There is a SERIOUS amount of other sin that the church (worldwide - not aiming for any one denomination here) looks the other way on. The double standard is amazing. I can handle that amongst adults - we aren't perfect. But the disparaging parental authority in front of the child.....not right! Using the child as a means of "disciplining" the parents, not acceptable.

 

Christian schools should be more up front during their admission's process about clarifying what is and is not allowed in the home and deny admission based on this in a private, adults only meeting. Don't involve the child.

 

The parents do bear some fault here. I can't imagine that they didn't know the Catholic Church's beliefs on this subject. They should have enrolled the child in a secular private school or charter school.

 

Faith

[Jana]

What if the priest had taken this same action against a woman who was divorced and remarried?

 

A literal reading of the gospels are clear about this issue: if a woman is divorced from a man for any other reason other than physical abuse and then remarries, her second marriage is adulterous.

 

This is precisely the kind of bias that makes my blood boil. If you hold the position that homosexuality is a sin, how do you get around divorce?

 

I'll tell you how, you have come to the conclusion that the biblical stance on divorce and remarriage is a cultural relic from first century and has little to say to us today about God and ourselves.

 

I would have no problem with this whole issue, if the "standards" to which everyone is referring were consistent. They aren't.

[Crimson Wife]

In the same light I believe that the child of homosexual parents would be harmed going to any Christian school, be it a Catholic school or a Protestant Christian school like the one I toured last month. The child would be constantly bombarded with anti-homosexual propoganda. I really wonder if the parent of this kid thought their decision through. Otherwise I have to wonder if there was an agenda, and the kid is being used as a pawn.

 

I suspect that what the child's mom and her partner probably thought was that this particular school was one of the highly secularized parochial schools that are only nominally Catholic. Nancy Pelosi's daughter Alexandra has been quoted as saying not once during her entire K-12 OR college experience at "Catholic" schools did anyone ever teach her that abortion or homosexuality is wrong.

 

Those of us Catholics who actually make a serious attempt to live in accordance with ALL the teachings of our Church rather than picking which to follow & which to ignore have been let down by FAR too many of this country's parochial schools. :thumbdown: That's why so many of us have chosen to homeschool our children, so that we can provide them with an authentically Catholic education...

[Ellie]

Not quite. The Church recognizes that there may be cause for a legal divorce, but it does not release the husband and wife from their marriage covenant. I could legally divorce and still receive the Eucharist. However, if I were to remarry, I would be refused (if they knew, but regardless I would be in mortal sin.)

Sometimes the Church grants annulments.

[Ibbygirl]

It is, really, but the last line says they become children of God if they believe; which this family does, so why are they not God's children too? I am asking honestly, not snarky or trying to start debate-- just trying to understand.

 

If a person believes that Jesus is who He claimed to be (Messiah), that He died on the cross to be the payment for their sins and rose again on the 3rd day and they truly and honestly receive Him into their hearts as their Lord and Savior then they become a child of God.

[Karenciavo]

I give the priest a big :thumbup: and the yet unheard of Zorro snap, in Z formation!

[Parrothead]

I suspect that what the child's mom and her partner probably thought was that this particular school was one of the highly secularized parochial schools that are only nominally Catholic. Nancy Pelosi's daughter Alexandra has been quoted as saying not once during her entire K-12 OR college experience at "Catholic" schools did anyone ever teach her that abortion or homosexuality is wrong.

 

Those of us Catholics who actually make a serious attempt to live in accordance with ALL the teachings of our Church rather than picking which to follow & which to ignore have been let down by FAR too many of this country's parochial schools. :thumbdown: That's why so many of us have chosen to homeschool our children, so that we can provide them with an authentically Catholic education...

We've not lived anywhere near a parochial school since dd's been school age so I never had the opportunity to familiarize myself with any. All I can say is wow. Sounds like Catholic schools aren't what they used to be.

[Melinda in VT]

What I find particularly puzzling about the current prominence of homosexuality as an issue in Christian churches is that as near as I can recall, Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.

 

Yes, he spoke about lust and sin. But I find it odd that many Christians today seem to make a bigger issue of homosexuality than Jesus himself did.

 

Frankly, I'm plenty busy with the things he did emphasize.

[Haiku]

They should have enrolled the child in a secular private school or charter school.

 

 

Perhaps they have gay friends whose children attend Catholic schools without problem so didn't suspect this would be an issue. It has been posted in this thread that people know gay families who send their kids to Catholic schools. A friend of mine in college went to Catholic school, and her mother was a lesbian with a partner.

 

Tara

[Jana]

What I find particularly puzzling about the current prominence of homosexuality as an issue in Christian churches is that as near as I can recall, Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.

 

Yes, he spoke about lust and sin. But I find it odd that many Christians today seem to make a bigger issue of homosexuality than Jesus himself did.

 

Frankly, I'm plenty busy with the things he did emphasize.

 

What she said.

[*********]

What if the priest had taken this same action against a woman who was divorced and remarried?

 

A literal reading of the gospels are clear about this issue: if a woman is divorced from a man for any other reason other than physical abuse and then remarries, her second marriage is adulterous.

 

This is precisely the kind of bias that makes my blood boil. If you hold the position that homosexuality is a sin, how do you get around divorce?

 

I'll tell you how, you have come to the conclusion that the biblical stance on divorce and remarriage is a cultural relic from first century and has little to say to us today about God and ourselves.

 

I would have no problem with this whole issue, if the "standards" to which everyone is referring were consistent. They aren't.

 

You are correct, and IMO, the priest *should* take the same action in the case of a woman being divorced and remarried, seeing as that would not be in line with the Catholic Chrurch's teachings.

 

Can't have it both ways; either enforce the rules for everyone, or they're not really rules, now are they?

[Haiku]

You are correct, and IMO, the priest *should* take the same action in the case of a woman being divorced and remarried, seeing as that would not be in line with the Catholic Chrurch's teachings.

 

Can't have it both ways; either enforce the rules for everyone, or they're not really rules, now are they?

 

You're right that the rules should be enforced across the board, but on the other hand, do we really want to get into visiting the sins of the parents on the children?

 

Tara

[*********]

You're right that the rules should be enforced across the board, but on the other hand, do we really want to get into visiting the sins of the parents on the children?

 

Tara

 

So should a private, church-run school only have the right to deny a student entry based on soley the actions and beliefs of the child, and not take in to account the actions and beliefs of their parents? I don't think so. Since most Christians believe that the FIRST place a child should learn his value-system is at home, and that parents should be their primary teachers, I think it is reasonable for private, church-run schools to expect parents to adhere to their standards, as well as the students, if they wish for their children to attend there.

[Haiku]

I think it is reasonable for private, church-run schools to expect parents to adhere to their standards, as well as the students, if they wish for their children to attend there.

 

I think it's a fine line to walk, and in this case, I think the priest messed up by refusing readmission to an already-enrolled child.

 

Tara

[dsacco]

Ok - I skimmed over a lot of the posts.

 

I am wondering if at the K level at the school you may have to sign a statement of faith/belief. I know at a church run K here we would have had to and I didn't want to - so child didn't go there. At the PRE-K level, same school, you didn't have to because they didn't DO any religious schooling.

 

They might also need to state that they are a "Catholic in Good Standing" to attend the school. These things we do not know.

 

Then - who contacted the media? The parents I bet. That smells fishy to me. Honestly - the school probably states they can turn down applicants based on beliefs and conflicts of interest. That's just me....

[Crimson Wife]

You're right that the rules should be enforced across the board, but on the other hand, do we really want to get into visiting the sins of the parents on the children?

 

Tara

 

It isn't about punishing the child for the sins of the mom, it's about trying to maintain some semblance of a Catholic culture at the school. This child's mom is rejecting the teachings of the Church in a very public manner. If she were a prominent advocate of legalized abortion like Mrs. Pelosi, I would also not want her child in my child's class. Or if she were publicly involved with one of the dissident groups trying to "reform" the Church from EITHER the right (like SSPX) or left (like Call to Action).

 

It isn't about the specific nature of the sin, it's the "f*** what the Vatican teaches" attitude.

[TravelingChris]

I agree with the posters who said it was probably a difference because in pre-school, they are not doing any specific religious education except very general like hearing some Bible stories or learning that one addresses the priest as Father So and So.

 

I see it as much more troubling that the gay parent/girlfriend of parent wanted to subject their child to publicity. Why were they sending their child to a church that disagrees vehemently with their family structure? Catholic schools sometimes have field trips to protests. Some of them go to the Right to Life march in DC. I suppose that if there is some Sanctity of Marriage movement in CO, they might bus the kids for that. That is just one of many reasons they feel it wouldn't be the right environment for the child.

 

In my one daughter's soccer team many years ago, one of her teammates had a lesbian mother. We never mentioned it to our daughter. This league has a Fall session then a winter break and then spring session. In the Fall session the mom had one girlfriend and in the spring it was another. Although I gathered that the mother lived with them, I don't think it would have been right to call the girlfriends parents just like I don't call some heterosexual's live in friend a parent unless they actually are. We haven't come up with commonly used terms for these relationships.

[delaney]

Okay here is my rant...

they can do that and it's okay to get married, have sex for 5 years, then decide it didn't work and get an annulment for $150 fee? My FIL did. Yeah that makes sense.

[Dmmetler]

Ok - I skimmed over a lot of the posts.

 

I am wondering if at the K level at the school you may have to sign a statement of faith/belief. I know at a church run K here we would have had to and I didn't want to - so child didn't go there. At the PRE-K level, same school, you didn't have to because they didn't DO any religious schooling.

 

They might also need to state that they are a "Catholic in Good Standing" to attend the school. These things we do not know.

 

Then - who contacted the media? The parents I bet. That smells fishy to me. Honestly - the school probably states they can turn down applicants based on beliefs and conflicts of interest. That's just me....

 

 

That's a good point-the preschool at my DD's parochial school uses a Christian curriculum, but it's a general one. Starting in K, it is much more doctrinally LCMS, and the application paperwork is different.

 

I also wonder if it's more that the child wasn't admitted to K when the parent assumed it would be a cakewalk. I know that my DD's school does not guarantee admission to K just because a child goes to pre-K. Preschool requires no specific tests other than "Is your child at least 3 years old and potty trained". K admission is a whole different kettle of fish. And I do know at least one parent who's child is in preschool now who was turned down for K-which, I believe, has a lot to do with her mother (who would drive me CRAZY if I had to teach her child), because there's no way the little girl isn't capable academically.

Edited March 8, 2010 by Dmmetler2

[lionfamily1999]

I agree... He did draw lines! However, He made it very clear that it would be better to commit suicide (throw yourself in the lake with a mill-stone tied around your neck) than put a stumbling block - spiritually harm - a child. He was very clear about that.

Who is guilty of this in this situation???? The priest who says, 'this is against God's will,' or the parents that are doing it????? A stumbling block can be taking part in someone's sinful lifestyle by NOT condeming it. How much greater is the stumbling block that says some sins aren't just alright, they're what God wants! How much greater is a stumbling block that says, it's okay to do whatever you want, God loves you anyway, so no worries! Go and sin some more!

 

Stumbling blocks can often be showing people the wrong path and saying it's the right one.

The way this was handled was unloving and confusing to the child. This is a child not likely to have any respect for Christianity from here on out. If there was a policy concerning which kinds of sin are acceptable and which ones are not, why wasn't this brought up during the enrollment process?

Precisely, you'd think her parents would have cared enough to protect her from this sort of situation. Thank God there was an adult looking out for her emotional interests.

 

As another poster pointed out, it could very well be that for Pre-K they have no SoF or familial standards. However, past that point the child starts to get their religious training as well. How wonderful would it be to be the child of homosexuals and get to hear about how condemned that is in the Bible.

I'm not trying to be controversial. I personally believe the lifestyle is Biblically defined sin and we do have to draw lines with adults. However, I have serious problems with how this was handled with a child involved. I also have problems with the church, no matter what denomination, picking and choosing whom to discipline and whom not to. There is a SERIOUS amount of other sin that the church (worldwide - not aiming for any one denomination here) looks the other way on. The double standard is amazing. I can handle that amongst adults - we aren't perfect. But the disparaging parental authority in front of the child.....not right! Using the child as a means of "disciplining" the parents, not acceptable.

I don't attend this particular church, so I don't know what they do in relation to sinful lifestyles in their congregation. I do know that Corinthians is clear, we should not take part in another's sin by condoning it. We should be grieved when the body of Christ becomes diseased, not celebrating. When Christ threw out the money changers, he did not condemn them, he condemned their actions. If they wanted to repent then they would be welcome back.

 

Again, though, have you considered at all how painful a situation it would be for their child to continue her education there? What, the teachers aren't supposed to teach some things, because it could hurt that child's feelings or scare her? Do you really think her fellow students wouldn't have something to say about her home life? Do you really believe the other parents that might just be looking for a Bible based education for their children wouldn't take issue with this?

Christian schools should be more up front during their admission's process about clarifying what is and is not allowed in the home and deny admission based on this in a private, adults only meeting. Don't involve the child.

It didn't sound to me like they included the child at all. It sounded like a letter was sent home. The child's attention would've only been drawn to this by her parents, especially considering that she's so young.

The parents do bear some fault here. I can't imagine that they didn't know the Catholic Church's beliefs on this subject. They should have enrolled the child in a secular private school or charter school.

 

Faith

I agree with your last statement.

 

I give the priest a big :thumbup: and the yet unheard of Zorro snap, in Z formation!

:iagree: and love the Zorro snap ;)

[Laurie4b]

What I find particularly puzzling about the current prominence of homosexuality as an issue in Christian churches is that as near as I can recall, Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.

 

Yes, he spoke about lust and sin. But I find it odd that many Christians today seem to make a bigger issue of homosexuality than Jesus himself did.

 

Frankly, I'm plenty busy with the things he did emphasize.

 

 

Would you be willing to be consistent with the standard that if Jesus didn't mention something, then we're not to concern ourselves with it? For instance, he since he only mentioned specifically adultery and other forms of sexual immorality between adult men and women, would you be willing to say that the church should look the other way if a priest preyed on a young boy or an uncle preyed on his niece? If you use the "Jesus didn't say anything about it" argument, then those things should be off limits as well.

 

Jesus did use the term sexual immorality, of which homosexual sexual contact was one of several subtypes (see Matt 15:18 for instance.)

[Melinda in VT]

Would you be willing to be consistent with the standard that if Jesus didn't mention something, then we're not to concern ourselves with it? For instance, he since he only mentioned specifically adultery and other forms of sexual immorality between adult men and women, would you be willing to say that the church should look the other way if a priest preyed on a young boy or an uncle preyed on his niece? If you use the "Jesus didn't say anything about it" argument, then those things should be off limits as well.

 

Jesus did use the term sexual immorality, of which homosexual sexual contact was one of several subtypes (see Matt 15:18 for instance.)

 

I should have stayed out of this topic, because I am realizing it could take up more of my time than I have to spare today.

 

But I do think the examples you gave both fall under Jesus' teachings on loving our neighbors as ourselves and on how we should treat children.

 

And I don't see Jesus exhorting us to accuse others of sexual misconduct or judge them for it. I do see him as exhorting us to examine our own behavior and heart and make changes where needed.

[Diane in NH]

Tolerance has to work both ways... Many are saying the school is not showing acceptance and tolerance of this child's family. It can just as easily be said that many are not showing tolerance of the Church's teachings. People believe as they will. In this particular case, it was a Catholic school, so their beliefs should be paramount. I really don't know how it was handled. The priest may have told the family in private and it wouldn't have even have been a big deal for the child as most kids don't continue with the same class from preschool on to kindergarten. At least none of them that I know do. Kindergarten usually starts in a new school. Who made this all public?

 

If I wanted to start a school where the beliefs were that only bald people should be allowed to be parents, and that is what I preached in the classroom, then so be it. Those who didn't believe that teaching, probably shouldn't go to the school. It is far better for the children not to go there, than to be in a classroom where the teacher goes on about the beauty of the bald parents' family and says that that is all who should be allowed to live together and raise children. How would the child of other parents feel?

 

I really think the priest could have been looking out for the best interests of the child. He may have known that due to some of the curriculum coming up, that the child would be hurt in some way. Just think of the reactions of the protestors when the child would have been taught in school, that gay couples shouldn't be married let alone raising a child! Would you all be okay with that being taught in the school. Whether you agree with it or not, that is the Catholic teaching, so isn't it best that the child find a more suitable school? Couldn't the child being in that school have caused issues for them?

 

The fact that some Catholic schools don't teach Catholicism is neither here nor there. The fact that some schools might accept various other beliefs is neither here nor there. That particular Archdiocese stated, "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." And, yes, I think that can be extended to couples not being married or what have you... It could be extended to anyone outwardly not following the teachings of the church.

[LG Gone Wild]

Tolerance has to work both ways... Many are saying the school is not showing acceptance and tolerance of this child's family. It can just as easily be said that many are not showing tolerance of the Church's teachings. People believe as they will. In this particular case, it was a Catholic school, so their beliefs should be paramount. I really don't know how it was handled. The priest may have told the family in private and it wouldn't have even have been a big deal for the child as most kids don't continue with the same class from preschool on to kindergarten. At least none of them that I know do. Kindergarten usually starts in a new school. Who made this all public?

 

If I wanted to start a school where the beliefs were that only bald people should be allowed to be parents, and that is what I preached in the classroom, then so be it. Those who didn't believe that teaching, probably shouldn't go to the school. It is far better for the children not to go there, than to be in a classroom where the teacher goes on about the beauty of the bald parents' family and says that that is all who should be allowed to live together and raise children. How would the child of other parents feel?

 

I really think the priest could have been looking out for the best interests of the child. He may have known that due to some of the curriculum coming up, that the child would be hurt in some way. Just think of the reactions of the protestors when the child would have been taught in school, that gay couples shouldn't be married let alone raising a child! Would you all be okay with that being taught in the school. Whether you agree with it or not, that is the Catholic teaching, so isn't it best that the child find a more suitable school? Couldn't the child being in that school have caused issues for them?

 

The fact that some Catholic schools don't teach Catholicism is neither here nor there. The fact that some schools might accept various other beliefs is neither here nor there. That particular Archdiocese stated, "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." And, yes, I think that can be extended to couples not being married or what have you... It could be extended to anyone outwardly not following the teachings of the church.

 

Thanks for all the points you made. I wanted to make the same ones but hadn't the clarity of thought. I would have just come off as unhinged.

[sarawatsonim]

I went to a Catholic high school where a teacher was gay. It never occurred to me that he could have lost his job over that. I am glad is was never an issue (at least not openly) because he was an amazing history teacher. It was the only 1.5 hours of my day I enjoyed.

Edited March 8, 2010 by sarawatsonim

[mommaduck]

Earlier in this thread there was some comment about how this isn't going to make people want to go to the Catholic church or whatnot. Christianity is not a "let's see what all we can do or give them to make them want us"...it's more of a "this is what we are and they either will come and want to be part of that or not".

[dirty ethel rackham]

Okay here is my rant...

they can do that and it's okay to get married, have sex for 5 years, then decide it didn't work and get an annulment for $150 fee? My FIL did. Yeah that makes sense.

Ummm, that is a simplification of how an annulment works. My BIL did it - it was a 2 year process for a 6 month mistake of a wedding when he was 17. He said it was a lengthy process with no guarantee of receiving one. They have to come to the conclusion that a sacramental bond did not take place. Unfortunately, some bishops granted them rather leniently.

[calandalsmom]

Earlier in this thread there was some comment about how this isn't going to make people want to go to the Catholic church or whatnot. Christianity is not a "let's see what all we can do or give them to make them want us"...it's more of a "this is what we are and they either will come and want to be part of that or not".

 

if that were true you ppl with the powerpoint and rock music would still be lined up in pews doing things the old fashioned way.;)

[lionfamily1999]

if that were true you ppl with the powerpoint and rock music would still be lined up in pews doing things the old fashioned way.;)

I have to disagree here. While our church does some more modern praise and worship, it's because we had people already in the body that wanted to and even the older folks had to agree that praising God is praising God (things got pretty crazy in David's day with the leaping and loud music). As for the power point, it's something to fill in the moments waiting for church to start, as well as filling in the blanks for the people that refuse to check the calendar or their bulletins.

 

I've never heard of someone joining a church because of their power point presentations of upcoming events or song lyrics.

[Momling]

Earlier in this thread there was some comment about how this isn't going to make people want to go to the Catholic church or whatnot. Christianity is not a "let's see what all we can do or give them to make them want us"...it's more of a "this is what we are and they either will come and want to be part of that or not".

 

 

I thought that the family came and wanted to be a part and were turned away?