Well, once again, or should I say, as per usual, the NCR has come down on the side that opposes the Church. Secularists, atheists, abortionists, liberal Protestants, ex-Catholics, anti-Catholics, de-mythologizers, socialist revolutionaries, "fertility experts," Hollywood and the MSM, all of them seem to have a better take on things, a better way of doing things, that we as a Church ought to emulate, according to them. If we only followed the lead of those forces that are opposed to the Catholic Church, and did what they said, we'd be a lot better church, which is to say, we'd be no church at all!

What a strange and unconvincing article. If you remove the first paragraph, then you wouldn't know that the article had anything at all to say about Winters or even Chaput. The article merely summarizes a list of the positions many conservative Christians hold. If Saunders wanted to show how Winters misunderstands Chaput, then he needed to examine the arguments that Winters actually made. But he doesn't.

The one virtue of Saunders' article is the link to Winters'. Winters has written a fine article that provides some compelling contrasts between Chaput's style of conservative leadership and the leadership styles of other conservatives. Thus Winters is attacking not conservative bishops but a certain kind of leadership style. The bishops Winters lauds would agree with the stands that Saunders promotes, and that is Winters' point. There is good conservative leadership and bad conservative leadership. If Saunders disagrees, he could at least address the particulars of Winters' argument. Unfortunately, he is invested in the culture warrior model Winters critiques.

Michael Sean Winters’ critique of Archbishop Chaput's expelling of the two children of lesbian parents from Catholic school goes unanswered here. What sense does it make for some in the Church to baptize children on the condition that they will be raised Catholic, and for others in the Church to deny the children the right to attend Catholic school? Winters says, "Chaput’s decision only makes sense if the objective is to score a point in the culture wars." I think many Catholics, no matter how strongly they oppose same-sex relationships, were at best puzzled by Archbishop Chaput's logic even if they did not consider his handling of this matter as the act of a culture warrior.

I read MSW's piece when it first came out, and while it is thoughtful in many ways, I think his argument really precludes anyone from telling anyone else "what Catholicism really teaches." When it comes to proclaiming the faith, we can all think of people who we wish would shut up -- from internet pundits all the way up to bishops. MSW has some very good reasons why they should do just that. Unfortunately, if we all (including our bishops) refused to judge what the Catholic Church really teaches, and who is really following what it teaches, then we pretty much end up with what we have right now. I get the feeling that's okay with him, but it's not okay with me. He is setting up a false dichotomy. So-called "culture warriors" are not the only alternative to a "whatever you want to do" culture. Unfortunately, such a culture often produces them, because when anything goes, many people are desperate for certainty and clarity.

Hello, Mr. Saunders,

All good thoughts and well put. I am a fan of Chaput though, so I may be biased in my opinion. ;o)

One comment of yours struck me:

And anyone with eyes to see will notice one thing: on all these matters, legal changes were acquiesced in, if not lead by, self-identified “Catholic” politicians.

Any bishop who calls attention to these things is not a “warrior,” as Winters asserts; he is merely being honest. If a man sees his home ablaze and cries, fire, he is not being reactionary; he is merely reacting properly, for there is no way to put out the fire—and eventually to re-build the house—unless someone calls attention to the fact that it is now burning down.

I am not so sure we don't need a “warrior.” Consider the words of Thomas Madden, author of What the Crusades Were Really Like.

From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.

In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities — these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.

And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest.

Christianity needs to defend itself or simply succumb to conquest by secularism and rule by “atheocracies.” Churches attended by members whose beliefs, far from being orthodox, are indistinguishable from those of their politically correct, completely secularized neighbors, members who contracept and abort at the same rate as their secularized neighbors, who have no problem with same-sex marriage like those neighbors, are heterodox for all practical purposes – even if they are “officially” orthodox and their members continue to fork over the money to build awesome parish buildings.

It is easy to see why church attendance is down: One can stay home and watch Sunday morning news talk shows and be challenged in their beliefs as much as they are at church. (That is obviously not true of all churches – but it is of way too many.) It is possible for the buildings to remain and for Christianity to be long gone. We are a long way towards losing “not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.”

So, it is just fine with me if Chaput is a warrior. It is entirely appropriate given the circumstances the Church finds itself in today. May he become another Urban II, addressing the multitudes with a Spirit-filled exhortation for them to respond to Christianity's dire situation realistically. When that happens all of orthodox Christianity will enthusiastically respond with the same Spirit-filled reply as before: God wills it!

Exactly wrong.

Regarding the "murder" of "children" in abortion for example? The Magisterium, from St. Augustine to Augustine, affirmed that the very young embryo is not well-enough formed to have a spirit or rational soul; and is therefore not a human being. Therefore? Abortion of very young embryos is not "murder." Of a "child."

As noted in countless discussions in this forum already.

Thank you. I share your views.

This is a great irony: our society creates categories of victims but condones abortion.

The Church is technically teaching against abortion in words but the Church does not act against Catholic politicians going back to Cuomo and Ferraro and that later spawned over a hundred legislators at the Washington DC level who joined them.
So is the Church really teaching against abortion in every sense if she can excommunicate two unauthorized Chinese bishops lickety split but won't excommunicate Catholic pols for decades now. I sometimes think Rome is trying to act non authoritarian in the public square in the West so that Protestants return to Rome under a soft image of Peter. But is that a greater good (and isn't it manipulative?) than opposing abortion in actions so that she is teaching in a whole sense not just in documents. Benedict made several alterations to date in the canons. Why not add the pols to the actual partakers in abortion for the latae sententiae excommunication. Then you would be teaching in a document sense and an action sense. Ironically, centuries ago Portuguese picked Bishops under the padroado system...and in China if one of my books was correct on that. Chinese advisors probably know that. We are better off being tough here in the West on the non negotiable...than there in China on an issue that has precedents for negotiation.

In Denver, Archb. Chaput was a pastor to something less than half the entire flock--just the part that veers hard right at every intersection. His support of the Spanish-speaking segment of the Diocese and immigration reform has been tepid and perfunctory at best. His expulsion of the Boulder children from Catholic school was nothing short of disgraceful, as Mr. Nickol pointed out above.

In short, Philadelphia may get an adequate, toe-the-line disciplinarian that follows directions from Rome, but a pastor that can actually hear the cries of the downtrodden and poor? Not likely.

Hello, Dr. Vendermann,

You wrote:

>

In the first century a Catholic "catechism," the Didache (The Teaching), explicitly condemned taking the life of the of the child in the womb. The Church always condemned taking its life or interfering with its coming to birth, even if it didn't yet understand its humanity in biological terms. That understanding increased over time as scientific knowledge advanced. The principle was always there. We now know that human life begins at conception, so the Church, quite appropriately and consistently, condemns killing innocent human beings from the moment of conception.

By the way, where were you when Jesus died for you? You weren't even a fertilized egg at the time. When you finally arrived in this world in your mother's womb, did Jesus then say, "Well, he doesn't really matter to me for the next nine months. I will resume loving him at birth." I don't think so. There is no nine month gap in the eternal love God has for each and every human being. Every abortion, every child killed by abortifacient contraception, destroys someone precious to God, someone for whom He has already heroically and passionately demonstrated his love.

David N,

If the lesbian couple was not so publicly defiant of church teaching, it probably wouldn't have been a problem. And Chaput's role was just to support a decision already made by the school. I don't blame the school for not wanting to send mixed messages. There are enough mixed messages being sent already, when the children step outside.

Randy,

You need to inform yourself on the case. The lesbian couple was not publicly defiant of Church teaching, unless you consider the mere fact of being a lesbian couple public defiance of Church teaching. They did nothing to precipitate the action against their children. The assumption among many is that they MUST have done SOMETHING, which I take as evidence that deep down, people recognize they were treated unfairly. Clearly, people think, if their children were expelled from school, the lesbian mothers must have done something provocative. If you can tell me what they did—and there was a fair amount of news coverage you can look back to—instead of what they "must have" done, I would be happy to be informed, and I might even change my opinion. But from reading extensively about the case, I conclude that the lesbian mothers did nothing but quietly live as a couple and send their baptized children to Catholic school, fulfilling their promise to raise the children Catholic. Cardinal O'Malley of Boston faced a similar situation and articulated a policy of nondiscrimination against children of same-sex parents in his diocese.

The comparison between the actions of Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal O'Malley is misplaced. Cardinal O'Malley permitted the daughter of a deceased woman, albeit a madame, to attend a Catholic school. That is nothing like the challenge of dealing with a child with "my two moms" who expect to attend PTA and wait in the car pool line - and hopefully attend Sunday Mass. Foregiveness and tolerance are not the same, yet Mr. Winters (and others) make no meaningful distinction and assume the result in each case should be the same. It is the same old "hate the sin, love the sinner" dilemna. We must forgive every sin, and love every sinner, but must we approve the behavior? If not, how do we disapprove in a pastorally appropriate way? One decision felt good, the other felt stern and disapproving, but feeling good is a poor rationale for critical judgment. I applaud both choices and the bishops who made them.

I don't have a basic problem with Archbishop Chaput's theological positions. He is certainly faithful to Catholic theology. It is how he teaches those doctrines, his emphasis, his spirit of leadership, that is open for crtiticism. He was more like a CEO than a bishop. He brooked no opposition, drew lines in the sand to say you are either with me or against me. As noted above, he was the bishop for the right wing conservative, and constantly dabbled in politics. He fought legal battles and wrote articles about elections. And his story line was always the same, that there was one moral issue that rose above all others. For this emphasis he had no authority other than his own which was delivered as though he wrote the holy book himself.

But mostly he was not a bishop with any real care for real people. He simply loved his doctrine. He destroyed my church because he objected to the "ecumenical" nature of it. His agent, a priest from Vail, came into our church and called people names and made clear he was in charge and things would be done his way. It was the worst event I have ever witnessed in a lifetime of Catholicism. And it was Chaput's doing.

Harry
I don't agree with Dr. Vendermann because that "formed" "unformed" later life belief of Augustine and Jerome seems to have been based on a mistranslation in the Septuagint of an Exodus passage which frankly the Church should fix and not leave in its still extant form if critics of the translated passage are correct.
However the extension by Catholics of the parameters of abortion to include preimplantation could be something that could hurt the anti abortion movement as an all or nothing position that has scientific problems in that the cell mass can divide into identical twins up til c.14 days after fertilization. If the cell mass can divide, it was not an individual with a rational soul even though the matter was human as to DNA.
There was the further problem of the chimerical embryo wherein two fertilized eggs that would have been fraternal twins otherwise are too close physically in the first day(s) after fertilization and they fuse to become one cell mass....ie two become one cell mass and therefore again souls could not have been present in the original two and merged into one soul.

This debate raged in the Jesuit periodical "Theological Studies" whose back issues are online and here is a link in which the author is summarizing the debate:

http://www.ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.1/54.1.6.pdf

If you read it, you'll see that the matter is more complex than combox brevity permits. What we need is for Rome to have Rome based a think tank working on this 24/7 ( rather than scattered Catholic scholars debating) if Rome wants to
convince an increasingly scientific world that she is doing her homework in a professional manner and subject to accountability.

"They did nothing to precipitate the action against their children."

I have asked you this question before, specifically about this case, and you have never come up with an answer, but I will ask it again: Then how did it happen?

Hello, David Nickol,

You wrote:

"I conclude that the lesbian mothers did nothing but quietly live as a couple and send their baptized children to Catholic school, fulfilling their promise to raise the children Catholic."

Actions speak far louder than words. Raising children in a same-sex "marriage" is blatantly incompatible with raising the children Catholic.

Although I must admit that homes where the children know Mom and Dad contracept, and are Pro-Choice and vote for candidates precisely because they are Pro-Choice, are not homes where the children are being raised Catholic either, and for the same reason: Actions speak far louder than words.

The taking of innocent human life is as much of a serious violation of Church teaching (if not more so), as same-sex "marriage." There is definitely a problem when the children of same-sex "marriages" can't attend Catholic schools but flaming -- everybody at Mass knows they are -- advocates of abortion rights are given communion. This is not to say that the children of same-sex "marriages" should then be allowed to go to Catholic schools. It is to say that allowing Pro-Abortion politicians to receive communion is wrong for the same reason (as well as for many other reasons) as allowing children of same-sex "marriages" to attend Catholic schools is wrong. Allowing those things teach far louder and clearer than the Church is teaching its official doctrine. See my first post.

Mr Saunders writes: "It is difficult to imagine a time when Catholic teaching was as challenged as it is now. "

No, it isn't difficult to imagine such a time, just ask Perpetua, Felicity, Polycarp, and the Martyrs of Lyon and Vienne.

Here are different views of O'Malley's actions:

http://bryanhehirexposed.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/boston-archdiocese-backs-lesbian-couple/

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/when-a-pupil-has-2-daddies/

Note the Education Foundation's threat to deny funding to any school that did not accept the children of same-sex couples.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/6483/Samesex-parents-and-Catholic-schools.aspx

Here is another reasonable analysis of the competing interest in these situations, in contrast to Winters' hysterics.

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/when_a_student_has_2_mommies/

Ed,

Thanks for providing a better analysis and argument than Saunders did. The distinction you make between the cases is a sound one and should force Winters to rethink his argument.

I’m still puzzled by the choice Chaput made, however. Should all Roman Catholic schools expel children who have gay parents? Are there other kinds of parents who reject Roman Catholic teaching whose children should be expelled?

---

Brian,

In the last article you link to, Fr. Wood makes an interesting distinction. He says he would accept gay parents as long as they “are willing to be low profile and fly under the radar. But the minute somebody starts to put a spotlight on their adult lifestyle behaviors that could send a mixed message, or a counter-ecclesial message, to the kids or to anybody else involved in our school community, that is where we’ve got to immediately step in.”

Is that a distinction you accept, or do you feel that the children of all gay parents should be expelled?

I’m with Saunders and Chaput on this one. Winter’s piece is indeed beautifully written, but that doesn’t make him right. Williams seems to have no concept of the difference between failings that are violations of natural law, e.g., living a homosexual lifestyle or running a brothel, and failings that are primarily intellectual, e.g. being Protestant—Catholics would say; or being Catholic—Protestants would say. It is one thing to disagree about how to interpret Scripture and tradition. It is another thing altogether to live a lifestyle that is contradictory to human nature. Chaput is understandably much more critical of the latter tendency, and he is with the Church on this.

As far as the children go, and the pity for the children that Chaput is supposed to be lacking—it is very easy to feel for the child with the lesbian parents. But anyone who focuses solely on what that child might suffer in moving to another school is missing the point. (To move from one school to another, incidentally, is a fairly normal occurrence; it happens to most people at some time in their lives, and it doesn’t seem to cause excessive trauma in most cases.) The point for Chaput (and the pastor who made the decision that Chaput confirmed) was the OTHER children (and this should have been the point for O’Malley as well), and what they might learn, or fail to learn, by seeing lifestyles that are objectively wrong be implicitly accepted.

Archbishop Chaput:
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3560

"If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.

Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents. That isn’t fair to anyone—including the wider school community. Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will. They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children."

--------
By Father Bill Breslin, pastor at Sacred Heart of Jesus, Boulder:
http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3559

"If a child of gay parents comes to our school, and we teach that gay marriage is against the will of God, then the child will think that we are saying their parents are bad. We don't want to put any child in that tough position-nor do we want to put the parents, or the teachers, at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Why would good parents want their children to learn something they don't believe in? It doesn't make sense. There are so many schools in Boulder that see the meaning of sexuality in an entirely different way than the Catholic Church does. Why not send their child there?

The core issue for us Catholics on this question is our freedom and our obligation to teach about marriage and family life as our Faith teaches. If parents see the cultural interpretation of what tolerance has become as more important than the teachings of Jesus, then we become unfaithful to the Lord and we lose the meaning of the beatitude, “Blessed are you when they insult you for My sake, for the Kingdom of Heaven is yours.” Many of Jesus’ teachings were not popular. In fact, He was crucified for His teachings.

Glossing over differences on essential matters, and pretending that crucial issues are irrelevant, is not tolerance. It is relativism, meaning that nothing is important anymore and everyone can have their own interpretation of what is goodness and truth. This kind of tolerance, which is a decidedly secularist invention, seeks to separate all moral discourse from public life. However, those who embrace this kind of tolerance do not, of course, acknowledge that they are imposing their own moral judgments upon society."

Michael,

EdSchoen is comparing the actions of Archbishop Chaput to the actions of Cardinal O'Malley that the Cardinal relates (in May of 2010) about an experience he had when he was a young bishop in the West Indies!
http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/2010/05/19/on-the-hingham-school-situation/

Cardinal O'Malley includes the anecdote in a blog entry about a contemporary case in which a pastor in the Boston Archdiocese refused to let a child of lesbian parents attend the parish school. O'Malley backed the pastor, but you will note in his blog post that he thanks Dr. Mary Grassa O’Neill, Secretary for Education. She stepped in and found another Catholic school in a different parish in the Archdiocese for the boy to attend.

The pertinent comparison is between the policies the Archbishop and the Cardinal have set for their archdiocese. The policy of nondiscrimination for the Archdiocese of Boston was put forward in January 2011 and can be found here:
http://articles.boston.com/2011-01-13/news/29346455_1_pastors-and-principals-parochial-school-admissions

The Cardinal and the Archbishop have articulated two very different approaches. And acted quite differently in two similar situations. The Cardinal, in backing one pastor's decision to exclude a child of lesbian parents, did not articulate a policy of exclusion, as did Archbishop Chaput. Another Catholic school was found for the boy, and at the beginning of this year, Cardinal O'Malley formally announced a policy very different from Archbishop Chaput's policy for Denver.

Winters quotes at length part of Chaput's response - which I don't think reinforces the image of Chaput that he wishes to present in the rest of his article. I find the following paragraph to be well explained and argued. Where's the venom?


"“The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves. Our schools are meant to be ‘partners in faith’ with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.…Most parents who send their children to Catholic schools want an environment where the Catholic faith is fully taught and practiced. That simply can’t be done if teachers need to worry about wounding the feelings of their students or about alienating students from their parents. That isn’t fair to anyone -- including the wider school community. Persons who have an understanding of marriage and family life sharply different from Catholic belief are often people of sincerity and good will. They have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.”


But Winters chooses to respond: "Hmmmm. ... Set aside the paternalistic, “Bishop knows best,” quality to the assertions about what is best for the child and the family. I am wondering about this claim..."


The 'parternalistic'... what? Because he's teaching? It's unfortunate that Winters starts his rebuttal that way, because on one hand I find he brings up some good points. Winters might be surprised to know that. But at the same time I wonder if he recognizes how much he writes just like the same thing he hates. He slips easily into using the term "Them," and then goes on to give - more than just a little self-righteously - his full caricature of Chaput, and what and how the Archbishop must think:


"Last week, as I sat at Mass listening to the Gospel, I wondered how Archbishop Chaput would preach on that text. The Master is quite explicit – ...One of the problems with culture warriors is that they always think ... and they also mistake themselves .... They are always trying to .... So focused on the weeds, and so focused on their own role in the divine economy, so absent of trust in God to deal with the weeds in His own way and in His own time, they are unable to recognize...."


An awful lot of use of the word "They", there. And 'absent of trust in God to deal with the weeds in his own way and time"? Really? Is Winters the arbiter of what qualifies as God's way and time? And more importantly, does he recognize *any* role of the bishops in this matter?

Is there really such a thing as lesbian "parents"? Isn't that just another figment of LGBT newspeak?

Homosexual couples confuse children about the nature of the family, and there's no good reason to have to introduce young children to homosexuality. We were a better society when we sheltered *adults* from hearing of such unnatural vices, so the innocence of children deserves even more protection.

Public morality is part of social justice, after all.

Really, the only same-sex couples with some claim on Catholic schooling are, perhaps, those who have abandoned their sins. A same-sex couple living in chastity possibly deserves the same consideration as anyone else, but definitely not those who are impenitent. A chaste couple would still witness to the mission of Catholic education, without serving as a tool for LGBT activism.

"The lesbian couple was not publicly defiant of Church teaching, unless you consider the mere fact of being a lesbian couple public defiance of Church teaching. "

*Sigh*

The Pope, Magisterium, the Church Fathers, the Church Doctors, all the Saints and just about anyone who understood Catholic teaching would consider a lesbian couple rearing children to think two moms are not only normal but Christian to be most definitely public defiance of Church teaching.

"Although I must admit that homes where the children know Mom and Dad contracept, and are Pro-Choice and vote for candidates precisely because they are Pro-Choice, are not homes where the children are being raised Catholic either"

The "public" defiance of a lesbian couple attempting to rear children in the Catholic Church is in some ways apples to oranges comparison to the "public" defiance of a contracepting Pro-Choice voting heterosexual couple. Votes aren't public. They are private. So is the use of birth control. A lesbian couple can't hide their defiance as it is public. Especially when they show up for parent teacher conferences, Daddy -daughter dances, Cub Scout meetings or First Communion classes.

I understand the Archbishop's position on matters of life and death, but can not accept the same promotion is a public good on lesser matters. For example, that kind of thinking led to Blue Laws, which abuse the government by granting it the power to enforce of religious laws. Therefore policies on gay marriage, divorce, contraception, etc. must be broad enough to protects the civil liberties of every individual - hence they must be secular.

St. Athanasius would have chosen exile rather than be associated with the heretical catholicism of abortion supporting Catholic politicians and weak acquiescing Bishops.

I know Church leadership recognises that liberal Catholicism is demographically doomed: e.g. there are no replacements for it in the seminaries, party politics or activism substitutes well enough it today for those who collapse in the face of tension with orthodoxy and so do not pass on the faith to their children (if they get that far); orthodox committed Catholics have much larger families and pass on the faith (if God is not Lord of our sexual nature then where?); so perhaps Rome is just biding its time?

Perhaps, being ultimately assured of victory in a few decades, Bishops don't excommunicate disgusting catholic politicians to avoid their vindictiveness?

The problem is young people who might see the cross of Christ now in self sacrificial Bishops like Archbishop Chaput see it are too rarely throughout the Church. They don't see disciples of Christ, counter cultural disciples, they see bureaucrats who want to stay cosy with Caesar. What about these young people walking around today, what about them?

Let them exile us - our enemies are passing away in every sense - and besides we owe a duty of charity, let them know we know they are doomed with the willingness with which we accept exile.

I'm sure Archbishop Chaput is more than happy to receive the criticism of individuals like MSW and the Jesuits, who as RRReno pointed out, long ago made the choice of the liberal catholic project and so chose extinction. God have mercy.

Yes, women with a lesbian sexual orientation who are raising children are parents. Their sexual behavior (or lack thereof) does not define their ability to be a biological or adoptive parent. Parenting is a series of actions independent of biology, as evidenced by "adoptive parents" who are still mothers and fathers although they did not give birth to the children they raise. Our church's teachings on recognizing the dignity of persons with homosexual tendencies do not strip such persons of basic human rights; on the contrary, they insist on such rights.

The controversy in this case was largely over the decision to refuse the children a Catholic education. Their souls are distinct from those of the women raising them. Regardless of a Catholic's stance on the "sins of the parents," many of us in the archdiocese believe that a child's access to Catholic formation and a quality religious education should not be restricted because of the faults and foibles of their parents, or their legal guardians if you must. The commenters above have largely focused on the "sins of the parents" --what about the rights of the children as young Catholics? All children have sinners for parents; where, then, is the line that some children should be refused a Catholic education, while others are not?

"Is that a distinction you accept, or do you feel that the children of all gay parents should be expelled?"

That is a distinction I accept. A pastor running a school has to consider the interests of all the children and families in the school, and is in the best position to make a determination on this type of issue.

"An awful lot of use of the word "They", there. And 'absent of trust in God to deal with the weeds in his own way and time"? Really? Is Winters the arbiter of what qualifies as God's way and time? And more importantly, does he recognize *any* role of the bishops in this matter?"

Good point. Winters condemning someone as a culture warrior is laughable.

Brian,

Have you read Winters’ piece? To describe it as “hysterical” mischaracterizes the emotional valence of the piece.

Still, what caught my eye in the article you linked to is that Roman Catholic schools used to deny admission to students from broken homes. Today, many Roman Catholic schools proudly minister to such children, though I doubt that the schools inquire into or monitor whether the custodial parent adheres to Roman teaching on marriage and family. Do you think parochial schools should revert to their old admissions policies? Should schools require adherence to Roman teaching on marriage and family?

---

JDD,

I grimaced when Winters used “paternalistic,” too. Bishops have to teach, after all. There’s no way around it. But I think that Winters does recognize a role for bishops, and that’s why he provides examples of what he thinks are some good tactics bishops have employed. Although you’re right that Winters resorts to a similar kind of “they” language, I take Winters’ point that the gospel urges Christians to be patient and let God do the sorting.

---

Kevin,

One gay couple I’m close to raised two boys they adopted after the boys had shuttled from one foster home to another. The couple has worked hard to keep the eldest boy’s biological family in his life, but his biological mother was an addict and his biological grandmother was cruel. The biological father and grandfather are long out of the picture.

It has been their biological kin that has confused these young men about the nature of the family. Their gay adoptive parents, on the other hand, have shown them what it means to be part of a loving, committed family. One reason my friends have been such good parents is that their parents have been so loving and supportive. Another reason is my friends have had the support of our church.

I am not familiar enough with Archbishop Chaput's actions as bishop to offer an opinion here, but it has always been my understanding that the Church's teaching on Catholic education is that every child has a right to a Catholic education, regardless what his/her parents' beliefs are. The problem, of course, as happened in a parish I belonged to 25 years ago, is that the pastor, school administrators and teachers begin from a charitable impulse to water down its religious instruction, actually accommodating the non-Catholic students by engaging in heretical views (for example, at the parish I belonged to, in religious class it was taught that there was no Virgin Birth or Immaculate Conception, that they were part of a dead mythology, amounting to nothing more than superstitious nonsense). This was not the fault of the non-Catholic parents, but of the pastor, administrators and teachers who placed themselves on higher ground than the magisterium in their perceived moral authority and advanced doctrinal understandings.

Secondly, in every generation there will be a cultural war transpiring for every Catholic, for every Catholic in every age will necessarily be counter-cultural. This is not a political phenomenon, including a conservative v. liberal, but a moral-ethical one. The Catholic Church exists not only for the purpose of conversion, but to also instruct the larger culture on important moral issues, and precisely why the Church will always be at odds with the larger culture already established in opposition to the Church on some or many moral issues. The Church cannot shy away from its moral responsibility here. And it at least seems Archbishop Chaput is being true to his office in this respect.

David Nickol:

"You need to inform yourself on the case. The lesbian couple was not publicly defiant of Church teaching, unless you consider the mere fact of being a lesbian couple public defiance of Church teaching." Um, yes, being a lesbian couple and adopting would be defiant of Church teaching. What non-Catholic orb are you living on, anyway? As for the poor and downtrodden, so glad you are their professed defender. Sheesh.

Kevin,

You say: "Is there really such a thing as lesbian 'parents'? Isn't that just another figment of LGBT newspeak?"

One lesbian is the biological mother of the first child, and the other lesbian is the biological mother of the second. So they are both parents and lesbians. Calling them lesbian parents is not newspeak.

The perfectly reasonable question few attempt to answer is why, if Catholic schools accept the children of sacramentally married, civilly divorced, and civilly remarried parents who are unrepentant, do they reject the children of same-sex couples? Or for that matter, why baptize the children of same-sex couples who promise to raise the children Catholic, and then turn around and refuse to let the children go to Catholic school?

If hard liners want to say such children shouldn't be baptized and shouldn't go to Catholic school, at least that would be consistent. But what sense does it make to extract a promise to raise the children Catholic and then claim they can't go to Catholic school because they would be hearing one thing at home and another in school? It's saying the children should be raised Catholic, but that they shouldn't hear Catholic teaching because it might confuse them.

"It has been their biological kin that has confused these young men about the nature of the family." Utter bunk. It has been the kids family that has let them down, but not confused them about the definition of 'family.' That honor goes foursquare to the adopting gays, who are impostors in that there is no such thing as having TWO dads, no matter how nice they are to the kids. That's not being combative, it's being factual.

Thanks JDD for quoting Archbishop's Chaput's reasonable response (I missed it before writing my last post), for, in fact, it is bizarre that there are many parents who reject the moral teachings of the Church and still send their children to Catholic schools, confident that the pastors, administrators, and teachers will accommodate their sensitivities, i.e., being offended by Catholic moral teaching. And they have been correct in this assumption. That has been my experience. In fact, the former Archbishop of Seattle, Alex J. Brunett, approved as pastor an openly gay priest of the Catholic school my grandson attended, a priest who vacationed at "gay sexual healing spas". Of course the administrators and teachers accommodated this pastor’s views, reflected in religious teaching. And when I insisted to Archbishop Brunett that the gay pastor be reassigned to a parish that didn't have a school, the Archbishop's response to me was that he had received no complaints about the pastor trying to engage children sexually. The Archbishop totally missed my point. But obviously Archbishop Chaput would have understood.

Kevin:

You say: "A same-sex couple living in chastity possibly deserves the same consideration as anyone else, but definitely not those who are impenitent. A chaste couple would still witness to the mission of Catholic education, without serving as a tool for LGBT activism."

How in the world do you know whether two women are living in chastity or not? Can you tell by looking at a same-sex couple whether they are having sex? Do they wear a scarlet L on their blouses?

Michael,

I've been asking myself the same question: When should students be refused a Catholic education because of their parents' rejection of Church teaching? Single, pregnant teachers are (sometimes) dismissed, but not non-Catholic students. The issue of teachers is perhaps easier given their clear role as instructors in the faith. I suppose the Church's word would be "scandal" and, at least for me, that is instructive, be it openly-gay parents or pro-abortion candidates. But it is not dispositive. Dennis Prager often diferentiates between public and private sin, and that too seems helpful. It explains why a bishop or pastor may need to dismiss the child of a pro-choice politician, but not the chid of parents who seldom see the inside of the church.

"Have you read Winters’ piece? To describe it as “hysterical” mischaracterizes the emotional valence of the piece."

Yes, I have, and I will stick with my characterization of the piece. Archbishop Chaput set forth a completely reasonable interpretation of Church policy in this area, and Winters wails about it as if Chaput was calling for the burning of gays at the stake.

", many Roman Catholic schools proudly minister to such children, though I doubt that the schools inquire into or monitor whether the custodial parent adheres to Roman teaching on marriage and family."

With no-fault divorce, there is a recognition that faithful Catholics can have divorce imposed upon them by an unfaithful Catholic spouse. The discarded spouse is not in conflict with the Church's position on marriage. With any gay couple, you are dealing with people who reject the Church's condemnation of homosexual acts. They, along with people like Winters and his cohorts at the National Catholic Reporter, think the Church's teachings on homosexual acts should be changed. You really don't see a difference between those two situations?

"One lesbian is the biological mother of the first child, and the other lesbian is the biological mother of the second. So they are both parents and lesbians. Calling them lesbian parents is not newspeak."

Of course it is, because we have for all of recorded history and undoubtedly before that understood parents to be a couple, not a pair. These women are not the parents of their family. Instead, they have put both their single motherhoods under one roof. Their children have fathers, but everybody is pretending that they do not.

The more I think about it, the more I wonder about men who "donate sperm" one way or the other, knowing they are creating children who they are abandoning before the fact. At least the women in this example are really trying to emulate a family and think they are doing their best for their children.

Archbishop Chaput was correct in backing up the school's decision not to allow the children of two lesbians to attend. Their lifestyle is in direct conflict with the teachings of the Church. Catholic schools should also refuse admittance to cohabiting couples living in fornication. These relationships can't help but be public scandals. Couples in invalid marriages should be encouraged to straighten things out, but their situation is murkier since they may be trying to straighten out their situation and practicing the faith in the meantime.

As a former teacher, I believe the archbishop's actions were the most charitable given the situation. How damaging to both the schools and the families to make the parish the center of a cultural battle with the children in the middle.

How many sensible parents would let their kids go visit a lesbian household? Should they have to explain why "Heather has two mommies?" If they stand for the truths of the Church, they have to explain that Heather's mommies are living in a sinful situation. If they say nothing, they are approving the behavior by their silence. Everyone is put in conflict. What a perfect storm for destroying the unity of a parish.

The pastor and the archbishop did the right thing. Thank God for their courage!

@Joe,

You say: "Um, yes, being a lesbian couple and adopting would be defiant of Church teaching. What non-Catholic orb are you living on, anyway? As for the poor and downtrodden, so glad you are their professed defender. Sheesh."

First, the children were not adopted. They were the biological children of the two women. Second, "publicly defiant," to me at least, does not mean living quietly (if openly) in a relationship not approved by the Church. I would make a distinction between disobedience (or dissent) and defiance. The lesbian couple were not "activists." A sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried couple is, in my opinion, at least as publicly disobedient as a lesbian couple—in fact, more so, since the divorced and remarried couple had one wedding where they swore vows, and a second wedding in which (in the eyes of the Church) they made a public declaration to live in adultery.

@Brian English,

You say, "With no-fault divorce, there is a recognition that faithful Catholics can have divorce imposed upon them by an unfaithful Catholic spouse. "

The question to my mind is this: What about sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried parents? Should their children not be permitted in Catholic school? They have broken their vows, entered into a marriage not recognized by the Church, and they are living in adultery. Many in the parish are likely to be aware of their situation. If they wish to raise their children as Catholic, should those children be excluded from Catholic school?

And what about children of prominent organized crime families?

EdSchoen wrote:

"When should students be refused a Catholic education because of their parents' rejection of Church teaching?"

I would think never unless the parents (or the students) were living openly and unashamedly in serious violation of Church teaching. Word that a child of a same-sex "marriage" was attending the parish school would quickly get around. Too many people, especially children, take silence on the part of the Church as consent and approval, or at least as the Church saying implicitly that adherence to its official teaching is not all that important.

I don't think removal from school should ever be punishment for a teenager because she is pregnant. The Church needs to show forgiveness and compassion. Removal from school or refusal of communion should be to avoid sending the wrong message in the case of blatant, serious, ongoing violation of Church teaching where there is no repentance.

David Nickol wrote:

"... why, if Catholic schools accept the children of sacramentally married, civilly divorced, and civilly remarried parents who are unrepentant, do they reject the children of same-sex couples?"

Unless everyone knows about the situation, which in most parishes would not be the case, it would not be a matter of the Church sending the wrong message as I mentioned above.

David Nickol wrote:

" ... why baptize the children of same-sex couples who promise to raise the children Catholic, and then turn around and refuse to let the children go to Catholic school?"

Here is an excerpt from the Code of Canon law:

"... there must be a founded hope that the infant will be brought up in the Catholic religion; if such hope is altogether lacking, the baptism is to be delayed according to the prescripts of particular law after the parents have been advised about the reason."

The complete text can be seen here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2X.HTM

I am not sure that there was a realistic hope that an infant would be brought up in the Catholic religion if the child was presented to the Church for baptism by same-sex "marriage" parents. In that situation it seems to me that it is questionable whether the child should have been baptized in the first place according to Canon law. Maybe some expert on Canon law will help us out on that one.

Thanks, Mr. Saunders. When we invite pagans in to play with our children, we should not be surprised if our children become confused. (I have more than once had to politely disassociate myself and my family from folks who in most ways appeared to be "good citizens" but who exhibited behavior or evidence of a lifestyle that was irreconcilable with Christian morality. And we were forced to homeschool our children in large part because of the concessions and compromises our local Catholic schools makes to "modern social mores.")

The libertines not only want us to leave them to their bizarre and depraved behavior, they want to normalize it, and to make sure our kids find it normal. Just look at the opinions of different age brackets—the younger they are the more they buy in to the Oprah/Hollywood morality, which continues to define degeneracy down. We need to resist, and we need more modern-day Elijahs like His Excellency to protect our little ones.

Thank you, Archbishop Chaput, and may God be with you as you take on your new and clearly very challenging assignment in the "City of Brotherly Love."

†

David, it is physically impossible for the children to be "the biological children of the two women." They could be biological children of one or the other, certainly not the two. Despite all the crazy things going on in the lab, I don't think anyone has yet created a biological child from "two women."

Mary Ann Kreitzer,

So you believe Cardinal O'Malley of Boston is wrong?

You say: "Couples in invalid marriages should be encouraged to straighten things out, but their situation is murkier since they may be trying to straighten out their situation and practicing the faith in the meantime."

It it is often argued that couples in "irregular" marriages are different from same-sex couples, because they have a number of ways of "regularizing" their situation. (Of course, same-sex couples can easily regularize their situation. They can stop having sex.) But why should couples in invalid marriages get special treatment BEFORE they resolve their situation. They are living in adultery, after all. They are disobeying the Church just as much as any other couple in an illicit relationship, even if they are actively seeking annulments of their previous marriages. If you expect gay people to be celibate for a lifetime, can't the divorced and civilly remarried remain celibate until they are validly married in the Church? Adultery is still adultery, even if you are looking for some way to have a valid relationship in the future.

The conclusion I draw from these kinds of discussions is that heterosexual cohabitation, fornication, and adultery are more tolerable than homosexual relationships. In times past, the divorced and remarried were in no way welcome in the Church, but times have changed, and now they are. Is the reason perhaps that divorce and remarriage is now just so common that there is no stigma any more? Somewhat the same thing is true of cohabitation before marriage. If the future head of the Church of England can live with his girlfriend before they are married, who can't?

harry,

From the USCCB document "Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination:
Guidelines for Pastoral Care," November 14, 2006:

**********
Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion. In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies. Also, in preparing the baptismal record, a distinction should be made between natural parents and adoptive parents.
**********
http://www.usccb.org/doctrine/Ministry.pdf

Mary Ann Kreitzer,

You say: "David, it is physically impossible for the children to be 'the biological children of the two women.'"

Everyone in this discussion knows about the birds and the bees (and the fertility clinics). Let's not quibble about semantics. As I explained elsewhere, one partner is the biological mother of the first child, and the other partner is the biological mother of the second child. They are the women's biological children. They were not adopted.

The basic point, as the Catechism makes clear, is that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered, contrary to natural law, and under no circumstances morally approved. This lesbian couple wish to continue their sinful relationship and take advantage of the excellence of a Catholic education. David Nickol absurdly plumps for their case with little understanding of Christ's forgiveness of the adulterer along with His admonition to go and sin no more.

Archbishop Chaput on this issue has shown just the right balance between the reality of the sin and forgiveness while protecting the integrity of the Catholic school involved.

Hi again, David Nickol,

From the USCCB document you cited:

"Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion."

I am not sure how there can be a reasonable hope that the child will be taught the faith in a credible manner. It is kind of like expecting that slave-holding plantation owners will credibly teach a child they are raising that slavery is wrong.

The Christian view of marriage is based on the truth about our being made in God's image:

"So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it'"

Same-sex "marriage" is not fruitful, it is barren. It is unnatural. It is not in the image of God as is fruitful marriage as God intended it. Homosexual fornication is clearly condemned in the scriptures. (Heterosexual fornication is condemned in the scriptures as well, but is not considered unnatural in the way homosexual fornication is.)

I can't help but think that there is not a "well founded hope" that the children will be brought up being credibly taught these truths of the faith.

Don't misunderstand me. Being sexually attracted to members of the same sex is quite obviously not natural, but to admit that is not a condemnation of such attraction. In so far as it may have been inevitable for one to have such an attraction, it is morally neutral – homosexuality in itself is no more immoral than is heterosexuality. If it is a state brought about by one’s choices, then once one is in that state, that state is morally neutral, regardless of the morality/immorality of the choices one made to get there. It is the actions/omissions of homosexuals and heterosexuals that are sinful, not their sexual orientation.

Homosexuals can become saintly Christians as well as anyone else. They should be welcome and warmly received in the Church -- but not if they openly and blatantly work at legitimizing homosexual fornication, just as those who openly and blatantly worked at legitimizing heterosexual fornication would not be welcome in the Church.

Brian,

“That is a distinction I accept. A pastor running a school has to consider the interests of all the children and families in the school, and is in the best position to make a determination on this type of issue.”

I’m inclined to agree with you and give pastors the latitude to decide whether to admit into school a child with lesbian parents as well as other kinds of parents that the pastor might deem unacceptable or imprudent for his school. The problem would be that outsiders—pastors and bishops from other areas—might second-guess the pastor’s decision.

“Yes, I have, and I will stick with my characterization of the piece. Archbishop Chaput set forth a completely reasonable interpretation of Church policy in this area, and Winters wails about it as if Chaput was calling for the burning of gays at the stake.”

Where exactly do you see him “wailing”? Your characterization seems over-the-top.

“With no-fault divorce, there is a recognition that faithful Catholics can have divorce imposed upon them by an unfaithful Catholic spouse. The discarded spouse is not in conflict with the Church's position on marriage. With any gay couple, you are dealing with people who reject the Church's condemnation of homosexual acts. They, along with people like Winters and his cohorts at the National Catholic Reporter, think the Church's teachings on homosexual acts should be changed. You really don't see a difference between those two situations?”

If you look back at the article you cited, it was talking about the past, not our current era of no-fault divorce. So yes, I do see a difference, but I think we’re talking about two different things.

---

Joe,

“Utter bunk. It has been the kids family that has let them down, but not confused them about the definition of 'family.' That honor goes foursquare to the adopting gays, who are impostors in that there is no such thing as having TWO dads, no matter how nice they are to the kids. That's not being combative, it's being factual.”

Nice to the kids? Neighbors and grocery store clerks are “nice” to kids. Parents *raise* kids, discipline them, fight for them, teach them how to be moral, hardworking, kind, and generous. These gay men raised their children just like I’m raising mine, and I’m hoping I do as good a job.

---

Ed,

“Dennis Prager often diferentiates between public and private sin, and that too seems helpful.”

It’s a useful distinction, but I think it also points to what has changed over the last century. When most Americans lived in small towns or in tight, ethnic neighborhoods, there was very little private life. A pastor could know when parents were moral or immoral, and rejection from school or church meant rejection by the whole community. But now most people in most parishes are almost strangers. Unless you’re close friends, you don’t know who’s being adulterous, who’s had an abortion, who repents of their remarriage, etc.

We live in larger, more anonymous communities than we used to, and I think we’re nostalgic for a time when the pastor could reject a family and the rejection would resonate throughout the community. I think David Nickol is onto something when he says, “The conclusion I draw from these kinds of discussions is that heterosexual cohabitation, fornication, and adultery are more tolerable than homosexual relationships. In times past, the divorced and remarried were in no way welcome in the Church, but times have changed, and now they are. Is the reason perhaps that divorce and remarriage is now just so common that there is no stigma any more? Somewhat the same thing is true of cohabitation before marriage.”

Rejecting the gay couple makes us feel like we’re finally taking a stand, but either we need to take a stand on all of it and demand traditional sexual morality from all parishioners or we need to try a different approach.

---

Mary Ann,

“How many sensible parents would let their kids go visit a lesbian household? Should they have to explain why "Heather has two mommies?”

I consider myself and my family to be blessed by the lesbian and gay households my kids have not only visited but have been warmly accepted in. What makes it work is that our family only visits moral families.

I am happy to see that homophobia (harry) is not, for once, sweeping all before it on a conservative Christian website. For once, humanity is prevailing.

David Nickols writes in response to another writer:

Another Writer: "David, it is physically impossible for the children to be 'the biological children of the two women.'"

davidn: "Everyone in this discussion knows about the birds and the bees (and the fertility clinics). Let's not quibble about semantics. As I explained elsewhere, one partner is the biological mother of the first child, and the other partner is the biological mother of the second child. They are the women's biological children. They were not adopted."

"They" aren't "the women's children." One of them is the child of one of the women and her male sexual (or conceptional) correspondent, and the other is the child of the other woman and her male correspondent.

It isn't semantics; it's the interplay of the facts of life unsullied by the semantics of identity politics. It is not a quibble to say that the lesbian "partner" of a woman giving birth is not the other parent of the child being born. No matter how hard or often they copulate with one another, their sex will not create babies. The woman giving birth had to have gone outside the "wedlock" of their "union" to get pregnant. That may have been with the knowledge of the "partner" but there was no way on God's good earth that the mother was going to get pregnant simply by engaging in sex with the lesbian partner.

"Wedlock" is a concept that has to be thrown out if "gay marriage" (or perhaps"state-recognized marriage") is to be deemed the equivalent of traditional marriage. The state had eventually gotten involved in the pre-existing institution of marriage because of its incredible potency. When men and women of child-bearing age get married, children (usually) follow. Even kids know that: "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes ___ and her baby carriage." In truth, the state didn't invent marriage; it simply got involved in a pre-existent institution. Although historical revisionists suggest that the state by law created marriage to encourage affectional closeness among people of the same or opposite sexes with tax breaks and the like, the plain fact is that men and women were getting married and creating children long before the passage of the Income Tax Amendment; long before the Constitution; long before the creation of law courts in Britain and even long before Moses drew up those laws on divorce found in the Torah.

By immemorial custom and the (late-to-the effort) law, heterosexual marriage has traditionally been supported by the variety of sanctions and taboos that had enforced the concept of "wedlock" so that the adultery laws could insulate the presumption of legitimacy that attached to children born of an existent marriage. The laws of inheritance (including dower and intestacy distributions) also derive from the pre-existing institution of marriage. If the father can be irrebuttably presumed to be the other parent of whatever comes out of the mother's womb during the course of the marriage, then the laws of intestacy can presume that the mother's children will get a share of the "father's" estate when he dies without a will.

Now, though, a bunch of Albany legislators seek to create a little "semantic magic" by overturning all that carefully built up "surround" for "wedlock." Try as they might, though, not even Albany pols can find a way to make their "state-recognized marriages" actually work to create children that are the product of the coitus of the two "married" persons within the wedlock. Governmental fiat can only go so far.

In truth, a same sex couple cannot create a conception from their pooled together genetic material without the introduction of a third person's opposite sex genes. NOTICE: it isn't just any third person's genetic material that is needed; it must be the genetic material of a person of the opposite sex! That is because as God Himself said (Matt. 19:4-6): "Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,' For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two, but one flesh."

Why am I not surprised that the Lord God of the Universe has a better understanding of the facts of life than a bunch of Albany pols?

David Nickols writes: "The perfectly reasonable question few attempt to answer is why, if Catholic schools accept the children of sacramentally married, civilly divorced, and civilly remarried parents who are unrepentant, do they reject the children of same-sex couples? Or for that matter, why baptize the children of same-sex couples who promise to raise the children Catholic, and then turn around and refuse to let the children go to Catholic school?"

It's quite likely that the Church today is too easy on divorce. But just because the Catholic school is making some concessions to the present disaster of divorce, must it therefore make concessions to the disaster that is homosexuality?

Do you grant the existence of any moral duty to shelter children from homosexuality? Why should the rights of Catholic parents who recognize that duty be trumped by the rights of impenitent homosexuals?


On a different topic, earlier Charles Lee said +Chaput's support for immigration reform had been "tepid at best." Yet he did back immigration reform in 2006-07, to the point where at least two immigration restrictionists pompously announced in letters to the local major paper that they would no longer be contributing to the Catholic Church because of his stand.

Obviously they did not think his stand was "tepid."

patricksarsfield,

The issue here isn't same-sex marriage or the nature of homosexuality. The issue is the treatment of children being raised by same-sex couples. The USCCB has articulated a policy that says they may be baptized, "but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion." Archbishop Chaput's position is that these children may not attend Catholic schools. Cardinal O'Malley's position is that they may. Cardinal O'Malley's position makes more sense to me. I just don't understand a policy that says, "We will baptize your children if you assure us you will raise them Catholic, but you can't send them to Catholic school."

harry,

You say: "I can't help but think that there is not a 'well founded hope' that the children will be brought up being credibly taught these truths of the faith."

Well, then, the USCCB has a self-contradictory policy, doesn't it? If the children are baptized based on a well founded hope that they will be raised Catholic, but there can *be* no well founded hope that they will be raised Catholic, then they shouldn't be baptized. It's like something out of Catch-22.

Kevin J,

You say: "Do you grant the existence of any moral duty to shelter children from homosexuality?"

I am not sure what you mean here. Archbishop Chaput's principal justification for excluding the children from Catholic school was because they would hear something different in Catholic school than they did at home. Better, he said, for them to go to a school that won't contradict what their lesbian mothers would allegedly teach them than to learn what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality.

Kevin J. says:
David Nickols writes: "The perfectly reasonable question few attempt to answer is why, if Catholic schools accept the children of sacramentally married, civilly divorced, and civilly remarried parents who are unrepentant, do they reject the children of same-sex couples? Or for that matter, why baptize the children of same-sex couples who promise to raise the children Catholic, and then turn around and refuse to let the children go to Catholic school?"

It's quite likely that the Church today is too easy on divorce. But just because the Catholic school is making some concessions to the present disaster of divorce, must it therefore make concessions to the disaster that is homosexuality?
==============
It is not true at all that few have attempted to answer this question. It's been answered time and time again.

It was even answered and discussed at length in a recent thread just a few days ago. Since Nickols lacks sound arguments for his position, he just ignores all the answers and continues to repeat the question from square one, without being able to advance any thoughts on the matter.

Homosexualists like Nickols are incapable of facing the meaning of the word "disoriented," much less "dysfunctional." For them, to ask why a person would develop a profoundly disoriented and deformed sexual psychology as homosexuality in the first place is not permitted, much less are they capable of answering the question.

One of the conceptual bases for homosexualists is then to affirm that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality (in EVERY way), no matter how glaringly false and illogical the statement is.

Second, they must affirm that homosexuality, because it "is equal to heterosexuality," must be accepted and thought of as heterosexuality. Third, they must twist and deform everything the Bible says on the subject of homosexuality to warp it to their dogmatic homo-hetero equality claims.

Instead of trying to understand why a person developed a homosexual problem, and how they could potentially solve their homosexuality problem, homosexualists insistently (and blindly) try to make society as ignorant and irresponsible as they are concerning the matter.

What I found almost funny in Nickol's arguments in the last thread was his insistence that because these two women were going against everything the Church teaches about marriage and personal relationships and sexuality in thought, attitude, and behavior, in what he called a "quiet" way, that is, they were not giving interviews on television or holding political rallies about it, that it should be accepted. And that it should be seen as legitimate, as if it were different than if they had been going against the Church in a less quiet way. The fact that they completely deplore what the Church teaches about sexuality and marriage is immaterial to a fanatical homosexualist.

For homosexualists, going against the Church in their own lives, as long as it is not advertized on TV, obviously makes everything OK. The issue for Nickols is not transgressions and the complete disrespect for the Church's teaching, it's just how much of a racket one makes about it. If the people in question keep it "quiet," it's A-OK.

Another irrational point in Nickol's discourse was that as long as the women say they think the Church's teaching on homosexuality is correct enough to be taught to their children at school, but practice everything contrary to it at home, there was no problem at all with their attitude nor to what consequences this would have on the children. Because they really do think of the children...

Curiously enough, Nickols is certainly trying his best not to keep quiet about the subject. If keeping a quiet demeanor is a requirement for legitimizing whatever goes through someone's mind, no matter how contrary to the teaching's of the Church that may be, Nickol's certainly fails grandly in that respect.

The Church can speak for herself on the matter of divorce and "remarried" couples, but in my view it has become more tolerant in that respect because it is the closest a couple could come to forming an original couple (which can only be heterosexual as far as a healthy and wholesome sexual psychology), once the initial couple has been undone.

"The conclusion I draw from these kinds of discussions is that heterosexual cohabitation, fornication, and adultery are more tolerable than homosexual relationships. "

Well, first, there is a conceptual problem with the statement above. A homosexual relationship like the two women in question entails cohabitation and fornication. So it's not a question of being more tolerable, since it is a false assertion that there is a distinction between the "homosexual relationship" and "cohabitation/fornication." That is exactly what the homosexuality relationship revolves around: cohabitation and fornication.

Second, you don't see the Church advocating and normalizing adultery like you are advocating and trying to normalize homosexuality, do you? Why should it?

"The question to my mind is this: What about sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried parents? Should their children not be permitted in Catholic school?"

It depends on the circumstances. Did one or both of the spouses have their earlier divorce forced upon them? If they didn't, do they walk around at Church functions telling everyone how wonderful divorce is and that the Church really needs to get with the times?

"And what about children of prominent organized crime families? "

Once again, it depends on the circumstances. Does the mobster attend Church functions and proclaim that the Church really has to change its position on murder, drug dealing, and prostitution? You keep assuming that this situation is about the indirect punishment of the parents; it is not. It is about preserving the Catholic character of the school for all the students.

Alessandra,

I'm trying to figure out where you stand on the actual issue—whether or not children being raised by same-sex couples should be allowed to go to Catholic school. Do you disagree with Cardinal O'Malley's policy of nondiscrimination in Boston? He has by no means given his blessing to same-sex couples. His policy is based on what is in the best interest of the children involved.

If you or anyone else agrees that decisions should be made based on what is best for the children of same-sex couples, should those children be admitted to Catholic schools?

"The problem would be that outsiders—pastors and bishops from other areas—might second-guess the pastor’s decision."

Which is exactly what happened in both Denver and Boston.

"Where exactly do you see him “wailing”? Your characterization seems over-the-top."

Actually, I think Winters' rhetoric is over the top--Winters is "overcome" by a need to pray for the people and priests of Philadelphia because big, bad Archbishop Chaput is coming to town; Philadelphia needs a balm, and all Chaput does is throw bombs--those types of statements don't strike you as wailing?


"If you look back at the article you cited, it was talking about the past, not our current era of no-fault divorce. So yes, I do see a difference, but I think we’re talking about two different things."

But the point is, the Church's treatment of divorced people changed because faithful Catholics were having divorce imposed upon them, not willingly choosing to get divorced.

Hi, David Nickol,

I wrote:
"I can't help but think that there is not a 'well founded hope' that the children will be brought up being credibly taught these truths of the faith."

You wrote:
"Well, then, the USCCB has a self-contradictory policy, doesn't it? If the children are baptized based on a well founded hope that they will be raised Catholic, but there can *be* no well founded hope that they will be raised Catholic, then they shouldn't be baptized. It's like something out of Catch-22."

The USCCB wrote:
"Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern. Nevertheless, the Church does not refuse the Sacrament of Baptism to these children, but there must be a well founded hope that the children will be brought up in the Catholic religion. In those cases where Baptism is permitted, pastoral ministers should exercise prudential judgment when preparing baptismal ceremonies."

No, the USCCB statement is not a self-contradictory policy. It acknowledges that there is a serious problem. It is saying there can be a situation where the baptism of children of same-sex "marriages" can be allowed if there is indeed a well founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion.

I am just saying that I find that situation hard to imagine, as the same USCCB document says:

"... the Church does not support so-called same-sex “marriages” or any
semblance thereof, including civil unions that give the appearance of a marriage. Church ministers may not bless such unions or promote them in any way, directly or indirectly. Similarly, the Church does not support the adoption of children by same-sex couples since homosexual unions are contrary to the divine plan."

If raising a child in a same-sex "marriage" cannot be approved of by the Church because it is contrary to the divine plan, so much so that such a situation cannot be blessed or promoted in any way, it is quite reasonable to wonder how there can be a "well founded hope" that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. Thus, the "Baptism of children in the care of same-sex couples presents a serious pastoral concern." Indeed.

Hello, Patrick O'Leary,

You wrote:

"I am happy to see that homophobia (harry) is not, for once, sweeping all before it on a conservative Christian website. For once, humanity is prevailing."

I am just wondering, my friend, if you would mind telling me if you find the teachings on homosexuality in the Catechism of the Catholic Church to be "homophobic"?

Thanks

Hi, Bill Bannon,

I would have responded to your post sooner but I just now noticed it was addressed to me.

You wrote:

“If the cell mass can divide, it was not an individual with a rational soul even though the matter was human as to DNA. … There was the further problem of the chimerical embryo wherein two fertilized eggs that would have been fraternal twins otherwise are too close physically in the first day(s) after fertilization and they fuse to become one cell mass....ie two become one cell mass and therefore again souls could not have been present in the original two and merged into one soul.”

Well, the omniscient God would have foreseen these situations from all eternity and, I think we can safely assume, would have created souls appropriately. We just can't say with certainty that “it was not an individual with a rational soul ...” or that “souls could not have been present in the original two and merged into one soul.” Maybe there are two souls, one for each of the fused human beings. However God handled the situation we can be confident that it was done perfectly. We can also be confident that these situations make no difference whatsoever regarding the truth that all human life, from its very beginning, deserves our respect and the protection of law.

harry,

It seems to me you are questioning the USCCB policy by saying that the reality of the "well founded hope" they speak of is questionable. Would you at least agree that it should be left up the the priests who are asked to baptize the children to decide if there is a "well founded hope" that those children will be raised Catholic?

Is it so difficult to imagine that those you presumably consider bad Catholics, or even non-Catholics, can agree to raise their children Catholic? My father was not Catholic, but when he married my mother, he agreed to raise the children Catholic, and my father footed the bill for a Catholic education for four kids.

What does it mean, by the way, to raise children as Catholic? Are two lesbians who attend Mass weekly and send their children to Catholic school not raising their children Catholic, and is a heterosexual married couple who don't send their children to Catholic school and attend Mass sporadically raising the children Catholic?

What does it mean, ultimately, to be Catholic? And as I asked previously, what is in the best interests of the children?

I am not familiar with all the facts, but on a cursory reading, I must say that I believe the school and the archbishop made a mistake. The school has an obvious duty to accurately present Catholic teaching on the matter of homosexuality (as it does on all matters). If, for some reason, the mothers of these children[1] were unaware of the Catholic teaching, it was the duty of the school (and ultimately, the archbishop) to inform them. If the mothers then continued to want to enroll the children in the school, they should have been allowed to do so. Yes, this would mean that the children would be hearing different things at school and at home. This could be hard, certainly, but life is hard. Part of an education is how to handle and resolve disparate viewpoints. Enrollment at a Catholic school does not (not only should not, but as a practical matter, cannot), in my view, imply endorsement by the school of the parents' lives, beliefs, and mores—my wife, who was raised Lutheran, went to a Catholic high school in New Orleans. I don't think anyone would suggest that that somehow means that the Catholic Church endorses Lutheranism!

Handling the children with compassion and love does not mean acquiescing to what is not Catholic teaching. If the administrators and teachers could not handle both affirming Catholic doctrine and having the children in classes, then it is they who should have been asked to leave, not the children.

[1] I say "mothers of these children" because, as noted above in someone else's comment, each woman is the biological mother of one child. I do not mean to imply that either woman is the mother of the other's child.

Michael,


"I grimaced when Winters used “paternalistic,” too. Bishops have to teach, after all. There’s no way around it. But I think that Winters does recognize a role for bishops, and that’s why he provides examples of what he thinks are some good tactics bishops have employed. Although you’re right that Winters resorts to a similar kind of “they” language, I take Winters’ point that the gospel urges Christians to be patient and let God do the sorting."


I would submit that the teaching of the bishops *is* part of the sorting. But our authority-adverse society tends to want the bishops to *only* teach, not make governmental decisions within the church to carry out the practical implications of that teaching. This reduces anyone in a position of authority to the role of pleading.


I know and agree that some, let's say many, people improperly self-appoint themselves as the sorters - and make it their full-time and lifetime occupation. But the other extreme is to insist that *no-one* should sort, or that a season of sorting is *never* upon us. I think that's an incomplete summary of the Gospel. By that reasoning, John the Baptist and Saints Peter and Paul greatly overstepped.

First, I am delighted that so many persons of intelligence and good will are so actively engaged in this discussion. God bless us all.

Second, David Nickol raises that pesky question: "What does it mean to raise children [or generally live] as Catholic?" An underlyung current in all of this, at least in some part, seems to be our tendency to become "cafeteria Catholics." I wonder if that is unique to the U.S.? But to me, someone who proclaims to be Catholic, then openly and defiantly opposes the Church, has forced on us all a considerable dilemna. While I have a libertarian streak, I tend to favor religious orthodoxy. The only alternative seems to be religious anarchy. And if that's what you want, there's probably a church for that, too.

"If the mothers then continued to want to enroll the children in the school, they should have been allowed to do so. Yes, this would mean that the children would be hearing different things at school and at home. This could be hard, certainly, but life is hard. Part of an education is how to handle and resolve disparate viewpoints."

What about the other children in the class? You appear to be forgetting about them. Why should their classroom be turned into a sociology experiment?

"my wife, who was raised Lutheran, went to a Catholic high school in New Orleans. I don't think anyone would suggest that that somehow means that the Catholic Church endorses Lutheranism!"

You seriously think that having a Lutheran child in a class raises the same issues as those raised by having the child of a gay couple in the class?

"If the administrators and teachers could not handle both affirming Catholic doctrine and having the children in classes, then it is they who should have been asked to leave, not the children."

Enlighten us, O Wise One, how would you handle it when the child of the lesbian couple starts talking in class about her two mommies? Or what about when the school has its open house for observation of students in the class, and the two mommies walk in together--how do you handle the questions from the kids afterwards?

Brian,

You say: "What about the other children in the class? You appear to be forgetting about them. Why should their classroom be turned into a sociology experiment?"

Are you saying the children of same-sex couples should not be allowed to go to school AT ALL?

Would you say categorically that Cardinal O'Malley of Boston is just flat-out wrong? Or would you say this is a difficult issue and each side has some good arguments?

Please note that I am not a Catholic. If I misstate the position of the Catholic Church anywhere, I would appreciate correction.

@Brian English: You write:

What about the other children in the class? You appear to be forgetting about them. Why should their classroom be turned into a sociology experiment?

I'm not forgetting about them at all. But to use your terminology, the whole US culture is now a "sociology experiment"—and not just with regard to homosexuality, either. Thinking that removing these two children from the school insulates the other students from that is, at best, naive. Provided that orthodox Catholic teaching continues to be affirmed, willfully ignoring reality serves no one.

You seriously think that having a Lutheran child in a class raises the same issues as those raised by having the child of a gay couple in the class?

In a certain sense, yes: both deny the teaching authority of the Catholic Church. Is it easier for teachers to deal with a Lutheran child than the child who lives in a gay household? Yes, of course. Lutheranism has been accepted in the culture for much longer.

Or what about when the school has its open house for observation of students in the class, and the two mommies walk in together--how do you handle the questions from the kids afterwards?

Since the Church does not recognize same-sex unions, as someone said in a previous comment, they women are, effectively, single parents living in the same household. I see nothing wrong with saying that "That's child #1's mommy" and "That's child #2's mommy."

The children's souls and salvation are distinct from their parents' (or legal guardians). How do you handle questions from children about any parents who are living in sin? With clarity about the Church's teachings, and acknowledgment of those parents' human dignity, regardless of their sexual orientation. Every child has sinners for parents. This truth doesn't "turn the classroom into a sociological experiment." It ensures that children being raised by persons with a homosexual orientation will be exposed to all the teachings of the Catholic Church, will be prepared for Confession, the Eucharist, and Confirmation, and will have the opportunity to encounter Christ for themselves, rather than being barred from Catholic education because of the sins of their parents. When teachers, pastors, and the archbishop were willing to punish these children because their mothers are not acting in concert with the Church's teachings, it goes against the teaching of Catholicism that sins are not heritable. Catholicism in that sense is an individual religion: children of homosexual persons are not born into some separate caste that makes then unsuitable for Catholic education.

My apologies, apparently the commenting system didn't respect my <blockquote&rt; tags. I assumed that since the First Thoughts blog did, On the Square would also. I'm sure it's clear what are my words and what are Brian English's, but I do like to do things properly.

"Are you saying the children of same-sex couples should not be allowed to go to school AT ALL?"

Yes, Nickol, I am saying that the children of gay couples should not be allowed to go to any school, and that they should be forced to work 16-hour days in coal mines. Good grief.

"Would you say categorically that Cardinal O'Malley of Boston is just flat-out wrong? Or would you say this is a difficult issue and each side has some good arguments?"

O'Malley is flat-out wrong for tying the hands of his pastors in dealing with this type of issue. Every situation has to be dealt with on its specific facts.

Would you say categorically that Archbishop Chaput is just flat-out wrong?

On further thought, I retract part of what I said: I think only the school made a mistake. On balance, I think less damage was done by the archbishop affirming the school's action than would have been done by the outcry which reversing it would likely have caused.

"I'm not forgetting about them at all. But to use your terminology, the whole US culture is now a "sociology experiment"—and not just with regard to homosexuality, either."

Why should a pastor in a Catholic school willingly make a classroom in the school part of the experiment?

"Yes, of course. Lutheranism has been accepted in the culture for much longer."

Now we are getting somewhere. This is about acceptance of gay couples, not the education of the child.

"Since the Church does not recognize same-sex unions, as someone said in a previous comment, they women are, effectively, single parents living in the same household."

Single parents who happen to be having sex with one another.

"I see nothing wrong with saying that "That's child #1's mommy" and "That's child #2's mommy."

And is that followed up by an explanation of the Church's position on homosexuality? Why should young children in a Catholic school have to deal with that?

Brian English,

You say, "O'Malley is flat-out wrong for tying the hands of his pastors in dealing with this type of issue. Every situation has to be dealt with on its specific facts."

Actually, as I understand O'Malley's approach, the pastor is perfectly free to exclude a child from his school, including a child of same-sex parents, if he feels the presence of the child will cause a problem. Decisions are to be made on a case-by-case basis based on actual circumstances, rather than based on a general rule that children being raised by same-sex parents must be, or must not be, excluded.

You say: "Would you say categorically that Archbishop Chaput is just flat-out wrong?"

Yes, the policy he articulated appears to me to be based on prejudice. (How it is applied in Denver, if it is applied at all, is another matter.) He made a general case that *no* child being raised by *any* same-sex couple should be permitted in *any* Catholic school. Surely, no matter what one's position on the issue, this kind of thing should be handled on a case-by-case basis.

By Archbishop Chaput's reasoning, I don't even see how children of same-sex parents would be permitted to attend CCD (youth formation) classes for students attending public schools. After all, the Church would be teaching them one thing, and their parents would (allegedly) be telling them another. So what Archbishop Chaput seems to be arguing for is a situation where children are baptized Catholic on the understanding that they will be raised Catholic, but it would be forbidden for the Catholic Church to attempt in any way to educate them.

Carson,

Recall, though, that when a similar incident occurred in Cardinal O'Malley's diocese, the Cardinal also backed the pastor, but the secretary for education of the archdiocese found another Catholic school for the expelled child to attend. The Archdiocese of Boston then spent a good six months formulating a policy to handle such issues in the future instead of shooting from the hip.

" It ensures that children being raised by persons with a homosexual orientation will be exposed to all the teachings of the Catholic Church, will be prepared for Confession, the Eucharist, and Confirmation, and will have the opportunity to encounter Christ for themselves, rather than being barred from Catholic education because of the sins of their parents. "

Very dramatic, but the great majority of Catholic children do not go to Catholic schools, yet they still manage to get prepared for the sacraments, and have an opportunity to encounter Christ for themselves.

"I don't even see how children of same-sex parents would be permitted to attend CCD (youth formation) classes for students attending public schools. After all, the Church would be teaching them one thing, and their parents would (allegedly) be telling them another. So what Archbishop Chaput seems to be arguing for is a situation where children are baptized Catholic on the understanding that they will be raised Catholic, but it would be forbidden for the Catholic Church to attempt in any way to educate them."

I would suggest you go back and read Archbishop Chaput's entire statement, not just what Winters quotes. The Catholic School context is critical to Chaput's approach.

“The policies of our Catholic school system exist to protect all parties involved, including the children of homosexual couples and the couples themselves,” Chaput writes. “Our schools are meant to be ‘partners in faith’ with parents. If parents don’t respect the beliefs of the Church, or live in a manner that openly rejects those beliefs, then partnering with those parents becomes very difficult, if not impossible. It also places unfair stress on the children, who find themselves caught in the middle, and on their teachers, who have an obligation to teach the authentic faith of the Church.”

It is Catholic teaching that the parents are the main educators of children, and that the Church supports them in this effort. In the past, if a man and a woman married, one a Catholic and the other a non-Catholic, the Church would sanction the union ONLY if the non-Catholic partner agreed to his/her children being taught Catholic doctrines, which includes moral teaching. It does seem that two parents living out a rebellion at the deepest level against Church teaching poses a problem. And although the Church has had an open-door policy in educating all children, regardless of their religious beliefs, never before in the past has a rebellion involving sexual ethics posed a problem. And the root of the problem is that the major assault on the Church in our time involves sexual ethics, and if one takes seriously John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”, this problem looms large.

I have been arguing for years that the major assault on culture has been the sanctioning of sexual identity. If parents with homosexual or heterosexual orientations do not make their sexual practices that are sinful public, those practices would not be a challenge to Catholicism: they would just be sinful practices best dealt with in the confessional. In any way normalizing the lie of sexual identity, which includes the sanctioning and encouragement of sinful sexual practices, is harmful to all parties involved. My sense is that this is what Archbishop Chaput is confronting.

One must realistically imagine that at some point a child might come home in tears, telling his parents that either a priest, teacher or student had told him by implication that his parents were involved in immoral behavior that is harmful to all involved, and that certainly would end in a law suit, and, as in Canada, the state would begin dictating what Catholic schools can and cannot teach based on discrimination laws. It's inevitable, isn't it?

At my parish many of the conservative Catholics have ostracized me, including the godparents of my child, because I wouldn't tow the conservative line, whereas many liberal Catholics at my parish ostracized me because they view me as conservative. But I don't see myself as conservative or liberal. I see myself as an orthodox Catholic. And from all that I read about Archbishop Chaput, it seems he, too, is not a conservative or a liberal, just an orthodox priest.

Holding fast to Church teaching on abortion and other agendas of sex liberationists is not from a Catholic perspective conservative or liberal.

Brian English - I appreciate all your thoughtful comments here and elsewhere. Just want to thank you for fighting the good fight, most importantly for the children.

"Actually, as I understand O'Malley's approach, the pastor is perfectly free to exclude a child from his school, including a child of same-sex parents, if he feels the presence of the child will cause a problem. Decisions are to be made on a case-by-case basis based on actual circumstances, rather than based on a general rule that children being raised by same-sex parents must be, or must not be, excluded."

Right. Read the press coverage in Boston on the new admissions policy and the quotes from the cast of characters who had protested the original decision. NO PASTOR is going to refuse admission to any child, even if the "parents" show up at school functions wearing rainbox sashes and hand out pamphlets demanding the Church change its position on homosexual acts.

Gil -- Beautifully said. I concur.

Gil Costello,

You say: "It does seem that two parents living out a rebellion at the deepest level against Church teaching poses a problem."

It's interesting that you consider having a same-sex relationship "rebellion at the deepest level." Could you tell me what you think about using artificial birth control? About remarriage without an annulment?

It seems to me that Catholicism isn't primarily about sexual behavior. I don't deny the Church's teachings are very serious, but what about things like the Real Presence, the Resurrection, Apostolic Succession, the Virginal Conception? The assumption of most people who have written in this thread has been that people in same-sex relationships are so fundamentally at odds with the Church that it is laughable that they would attempt to practice Catholicism or would send their children to Catholic school. I really don't see the Church's teachings about homosexuality to be at the core of Catholicism. At the core of Catholicism, it seems to me, is Jesus.

I think it is not impossible that in 20 or 50 or 100 years, the Catholic Church will see human sexuality in a new light. But I don't think the Church's teachings on humility, or helping the poor, or caring for the sick will ever change.

From what I have heard about the two lesbian mothers, they faithfully attend Mass every week. A great many Catholics don't. They send their children to Catholic school, or tried to, anyway. A great many Catholics don't. I believe they are both very religiously well educated women. Recent surveys found that a great many Catholics don't even know the basics of their faith or believe in fundamental doctrines.

I ask again, what does it mean to be Catholic? If it is primarily about obeying the sexual teachings of the Church, there are almost no Catholics in America. If you rule out the people who cohabit before marriage and use contraceptives during marriage, perhaps 5% of children in Catholic schools belong there.

Brian, David, and Gil,

One of the reasons that I am not a Catholic is that it seems to me that the Catholic Church just has to have an official position on pretty much any and every question anybody anywhere has asked ever. So I was fairly sure that if I looked in the right place, I would find something addressing the issue, at least generally. And on the Vatican's website, I did: "The Religious Dimension of Education in a Catholic School: Guidelines for Reflection and Renewal" issued by the Congregation for Catholic Education in 1988 and, issued nine years later, "The Catholic School on the Threshold of the Third Millennium". From the former (citations removed):

"Not all students in Catholic schools are members of the Catholic Church; not all are Christians. There are, in fact, countries in which the vast majority of the students are not Catholics—a reality which the [Second Vatican] Council called attention to. The religious freedom and the personal conscience of individual students and their families must be respected, and this freedom is explicitly recognized by the Church. On the other hand, a Catholic school cannot relinquish its own freedom to proclaim the Gospel and to offer a formation based on the values to be found in a Christian education; this is its right and its duty. To proclaim or to offer is not to impose, however; the latter suggests a moral violence which is strictly forbidden, both by the Gospel and by Church law. "

I submit that this is exactly what I said in my first comment in this thread.

And from the latter, the following is listed as one of the "difficulties" Catholic schools face:

"The Catholic school is thus confronted with children and young people who experience the difficulties of the present time. Pupils who . . . lack authentic models to guide them, often even in their own families. In an increasing number of instances they are not only indifferent and non-practising, but also totally lacking in religious or moral formation."

Despite the fact that this is a "difficulty," notice that it presupposes that the children and young people will be students at a Catholic school. Why else would their lack of authentic familial models be the school's concern?[1] The approach taken by Cardinal O'Malley and his secretary of education (caveat: I have not read the formulated policy; I'm referring just to finding another Catholic school for the child) seems to me to do a better job of balancing the need of the school to affirm the Gospel, the need of the Church to avoid scandal, and the pastoral and educational needs of children and parents.

[1] Yes, all Catholics would and should be concerned about such a question on a personal level, of course. But given the source and the title, I think we can take it as a read that it is addressing the Catholic school as community (following Gravissimum educationis).

Brian English,

You say: "NO PASTOR is going to refuse admission to any child, even if the "parents" show up at school functions wearing rainbox sashes and hand out pamphlets demanding the Church change its position on homosexual acts."

With all due respect, this is entirely a fantasy on your part unless you can cite some kind of evidence that anything resembling this has happened in the Boston Archdiocese. It's in the same mental ballpark as assertions that the inevitable consequences of permitting same-sex marriage will be polygamy, marriages of brothers and sisters, and people marrying children or even dogs.

Carson Chittom,

Your message of 7.27.2011 | 10:49 pm makes the case so well that I doubt further discussion would get us any further. I simply don't see how Archbishop Chaput's policy can be reconciled with the documents you cite, or with the idea that where Catholic education is involved, what is of primary importance is the best interests of the children.

"The assumption of most people who have written in this thread has been that people in same-sex relationships are so fundamentally at odds with the Church that it is laughable that they would attempt to practice Catholicism or would send their children to Catholic school."

And that assumption is completely valid. You still have never explained to me how the issue in Denver (or Boston for that matter) arose. You are credulous enough to believe that puff-piece interview with the lesbian couple in Denver that appeared in the National Catholic Reporter. However, their "we were minding our own business when this bigoted pastor and his evil archbishop came after us for no reason" story rings false.

"I really don't see the Church's teachings about homosexuality to be at the core of Catholicism."

It isn't, but gay rights advocates cannot tolerate the Church's teachings on that subject, so it is at the core of attacks on the Church.

"With all due respect, this is entirely a fantasy on your part unless you can cite some kind of evidence that anything resembling this has happened in the Boston Archdiocese."

(1) How do you expect me to prove a negative?

(2) The fantasy here is that you believe any pastor would refuse entry to any child of a gay couple after the deluge of criticism the original decision in Boston received, especially from two major sources of funding for Catholic schools. I am sure the message has been received.

Brian English,

You insist on evaluation the incident in Denver based on what you *imagine* must have been. You imagine that the lesbian couple must have done something objectionable to precipitate the expulsion of their children from Catholic school. But there is absolutely no evidence that whatever it is you insist must have happened actually happened. And there is nothing in Archbishop Chaput's policy statements that require any precipitating incident in order for children to be refused admittance to Catholic schools. You seem to be implying that if the lesbian mothers had just kept a low profile, nothing would have happened. But you and others here have made the case that the very act of living together as a couple is a public act of defiance of the Church, and couples who do such a thing should not be permitted to have their children in Catholic school. So your implication that the couple did something to precipitate the incident makes no sense to me.

The pastor involved, Father William Breslin of Sacred Heart Church, said that expelling the children was “the most difficult decision of my life.” And you are convinced it's a no-brainer! At least he was conflicted about it. Why can't you acknowledge there might actually have been *some* arguments in favor of letting the children stay? You seem to be utterly certain that in each and every case, no matter what the circumstances, children being raised by same-sex couples must not be allowed in Catholic schools. Given that opinion, what do you suppose was necessary to precipitate the expelling of the children other than someone calling up the pastor and saying, "You know, there's a lesbian couple with kids in our school. Do something about it." According to Archbishop Chaput, it would seem that the only thing that a pastor would need to know to take action was that a same-sex couple had children in the school. As you seem to agree, that is unacceptable. So why do you insist I come up with an explanation for what happened? What happened is that the pastor found out that the situation existed. It was not necessary for the lesbians to picket the school and demand the Church not teach homosexuality is wrong, and they did no such thing. Their offense was living together as a couple.

"One of the reasons that I am not a Catholic is that it seems to me that the Catholic Church just has to have an official position on pretty much any and every question anybody anywhere has asked ever."

Well, some of us simple folk are incapable of the analytical thinking that keen intellects like yours are capable of, so we have to be told exactly what to think. Perhaps you should vist some specifically Catholic websites where Catholics routinely verbally bludgeon each other over all kinds of issues to see how silly that statement is.

"I submit that this is exactly what I said in my first comment in this thread."

And as I pointed out to you, there is a fundamental difference between Lutheran children or, as is the case in my children's school, Hindu children, attending a Catholic school, and the children of a gay couple, whose very relationship contradicts Church teachings and can never be brought into line with those teachings.

"The approach taken by Cardinal O'Malley and his secretary of education (caveat: I have not read the formulated policy; I'm referring just to finding another Catholic school for the child) seems to me to do a better job of balancing the need of the school to affirm the Gospel, the need of the Church to avoid scandal, and the pastoral and educational needs of children and parents."

The pastors in both Denver and Boston determined that it was in the best interests of the gay couples' children and the children already in the schools to not allow the gay couples' children to attend the schools. What makes you and Nickol think you two have a better understanding of those situations than the two pastors? Do you really believe that the two pastors in those cases knew nothing about the documents you found on the Vatican website? And by the way, Fr. Rafferty, the pastor in the Boston case, was part of the committee that put together the "new" admissions policy.

You two both also keep missing the point that both Chaput and O'Malley agreed with their pastors. O'Malley only started back-pedaling when the political heat started.

James Flynn, a canon lawyer who lives and works in Denver, does a great job on the Catholic Thing website of hammering Winters' article:

http://www.thecatholicthing.org/

"You imagine that the lesbian couple must have done something objectionable to precipitate the expulsion of their children from Catholic school. But there is absolutely no evidence that whatever it is you insist must have happened actually happened."

Then how did it happen?

"You seem to be implying that if the lesbian mothers had just kept a low profile, nothing would have happened. "

I am directly stating that if the lesbian mothers had just kept a low profile, nothing would have happened.

"So your implication that the couple did something to precipitate the incident makes no sense to me."

Your insistence that the incident just magically happened makes no sense to me.

"The pastor involved, Father William Breslin of Sacred Heart Church, said that expelling the children was “the most difficult decision of my life.” And you are convinced it's a no-brainer!"

Where do I say it is a no-brainer? The fact that I think he was right doesn't mean that I think the decision was easy. Archbishop Chaput himself called it a "painful situation."

@ David Nichol - "It's interesting that you consider having a same-sex relationship 'rebellion at the deepest level.' Could you tell me what you think about using artificial birth control? About remarriage without an annulment?

My impression that a same-sex relationship is a rebellion at the deepest level is the result of reading John Paul II's "Theology of the Body", a book that should be required reading for all priests, and for anyone like yourself who wants to understand in depth the reason why a same-sex relationship is a rebellion against God's plan for ever person at the deepest level. Adam and Eve fell after their rebellion, and one curse that followed was the man and woman being severed from each other, and with Jesus’ arrival man and woman could now be restored in fullness and once again be the image and likeness of God. From a Trinitarian perspective, the severing of man and woman is the worst thing that has ever occurred since the dawn of time, for God (from a Christian perspective) is a relationship between father, son and spirit. And the Church has long held that the domestic church best exemplifies the image and likeness of God, and why man and woman in union is the image and likeness of God, which reveals best our godlikeness. And a child being born completes the Trinitarian image, and it is obvious to a Christian parent that a child is the best guru (spirit of truth) an adult will ever encounter, for to respond in love to the many needs of a child means daily sacrifice, and the deepest revelation from God is the son sacrificing himself on the cross out of love for every human being. Our true identities are discovered in the image and likeness of God, and that can occur only from a nuptial perspective, and why the nuptuality of man and woman in union (becoming who they really are, the image of the radically deep relationship that is God, so much so that they become one, imaging the oneness of the three persons of the Trinity). To be one with an other requires complimentarity, for without it the other is a reflection, a narcissistic image that makes complimentarity impossible. Therefore, a same-sex union is not union at all, and in sexual terms it is an elaborate form of masturbation. Even my daughter at the young age of 15 got this: "You don't understand, dad: it's easier for a man to be with a man than a woman, because the man is just like him. Being with a woman is threatening because in that relationship one fears losing oneself." Exactly: one dies and is born again more whole, more of who one genuinely is, the Trinitarian image of God. To rebel against being the image and likeness of God has to be the deepest rebellion of all, for it is a rebellion against one’s real identity in the image and likeness of God. In other words, it is a question of identity, to be or not to be oneself, who one genuinely is.

And yes, remarriage without an annulment or using birth control are forms of rebellion (when a Catholic rebels against the Magisterium, he/she rebels against God), but from what I described above it should be clear that that rebellion doesn’t go as deep as a same-sex relationship.

The most important thing to understand about same-sex relationships is that the identities of the persons in relationship are constituted by sexual expression, and why their sexuality has to be made public if they are to be affirmed, and why a low-profile on the dynamics of sexual expression that is common in heterosexual relationships is not possible for same sex couples if they are to be who they claim they are: persons fulfilled by sexual expression. In other words, we cannot be who we are if we cannot be ourselves in public, and persons with a sexual identity must find public expression of their sexual identities, and thus gay pride parades and the persistence of having sex in public places, or at least making it a public issue.

Brian,

You write, "Well, some of us simple folk are incapable of the analytical thinking that keen intellects like yours are capable of, so we have to be told exactly what to think." In an earlier comment, you called me "O Wise One"; I let it pass then, but I will not now: why the—frankly uncharitable—sarcasm? I am only presenting my opinion, the same as any other commenter; that's the point of having these comments, after all. I certainly have not intended offense to anyone, and if I have inadvertently given it in my tone or words, I ask your—and everyone's—forgiveness.

You write, "Perhaps you should vist some specifically Catholic websites where Catholics routinely verbally bludgeon each other over all kinds of issues to see how silly that statement is."

No, thank you—I get quite enough of that sort of infighting elsewhere. But in any case, such websites are not "official positions." That's why I took care to quote from documents contained on your Holy Father the Pope's own website at http://www.vativan.va One knows that information there will reflect actual Catholic teaching.

You write, "And as I pointed out to you, there is a fundamental difference between Lutheran children or, as is the case in my children's school, Hindu children, attending a Catholic school, and the children of a gay couple, whose very relationship contradicts Church teachings and can never be brought into line with those teachings."

I think we will simply have to disagree here. I *do* agree with you that a gay couple's relationship contradicts Catholic (and, for that matter, Christian generally) teachings; that is simply factual—but I cannot agree that it does so in some way that is somehow greater (and thus more worthy of the student's expulsion) than the way a Hindu parent teaching his children to worship Vishnu would be. If anything, it's the opposite, in my view: a gay Catholic accepts the Church (at least partially) but argues about what actions are sinful; a Hindu doesn't even accept the Church.

Put another way, homosexuals are not some special, set-aside group. If they persist in sin, then yes, that's definitely a pastoral question. But not, in my opinion, one to be visited on their children, anymore than on the children of other sinners (of whom, I hasten to admit, I am chief).

You write, "What makes you and Nickol think you two have a better understanding of those situations than the two pastors?"

I can't speak for Mr. Nickol, but I *don't* have a better understanding of the situation than those pastors do. As you'll recall I used words like "cursory" to describe my knowledge. That said, just because someone knows what's going on doesn't necessarily mean they'll make the right (or wrong) decision. Sometimes what seems to be the right decision turns out, in hindsight, to have been the wrong one, and vice versa.

That said, heavens, if we were all required to wait until we had perfect information before commenting on something, why, the entire Internet would grind to a halt. Not to mention the news, commerce, and government. I'm not claiming to be able to make decisions for either the archbishop or the cardinal, nor am I claiming that I'd have done a better job. I'm just commenting based on the information available to me. That's why this site is *here*. That's why Mr. Saunders posted his piece.

"Do you really believe that the two pastors in those cases knew nothing about the documents you found on the Vatican website?"

I have no idea at all. I do think that their actions could be seen, from one angle, as contradicting those documents.

Brian English,

You said: "How do you expect me to prove a negative?"

You had previously said: "NO PASTOR is going to refuse admission to any child, even if the 'parents' show up at school functions wearing rainbox sashes and hand out pamphlets demanding the Church change its position on homosexual acts."

I am not asking you to prove a negative. I am asking you to give some evidence that anything remotely resembling what you hypothesize has actually happened. Surely more conservative Catholics would alert the media if gay parents showed up at school functions wearing rainbow sashes and handed out leaflet demanding that the Church change its position on homosexuality.

"I let it pass then, but I will not now: why the—frankly uncharitable—sarcasm?"

Well, when you stated that Catholic school teachers (who have already made a sacrifice by taking jobs with lower pay and vastly inferior benefits) and pastors should leave their positions if they think having the child of a gay couple in class will cause problems in their classrooms, you frankly deserved some sarcasm.

Your second statement, asserting you were too smart to be a Catholic, was obnoxious, and actually unnecessary to make your point.

In any event, after those two statements, for you to accuse someone else of being "uncharitable" is laughable.

"One knows that information there will reflect actual Catholic teaching."

But those documents, which nowhere mention the children of gay couples, are statements of broad principles. They are necessarily open to interpretation.

"If anything, it's the opposite, in my view: a gay Catholic accepts the Church (at least partially) but argues about what actions are sinful; a Hindu doesn't even accept the Church."

A traditional Hindu family lives its life in conformity with the Church's teachings on the family and sexuality, even though they do not look to the Church's teachings for their morality. A gay couple obviously does not. You really don't see how in a kindergarten class (the Denver case) or a third grade class (Boston) a child of an openly gay couple creates serious issues?

"Surely more conservative Catholics would alert the media if gay parents showed up at school functions wearing rainbow sashes and handed out leaflet demanding that the Church change its position on homosexuality."

In Boston? Don't count on it.

And even if there was a stray conservative family in the school, after the funding cut-off threats by the Catholic school foundations (which you conveniently keep ignoring), how many parents would be willing to see their children's school shut down in order to make a point, when the pastor was unwilling to do anything about it in the first place?

Are two lesbians who attend Mass weekly and send their children to Catholic school not raising their children Catholic, and is a heterosexual married couple who don't send their children to Catholic school and attend Mass sporadically raising the children Catholic?
=============
I don't see why attending Mass changes anything regarding how much these women hate the teachings of the Church regarding homosexuality and marriage. Attending Mass for people who deplore what the Church teaches about homosexuality is a circus.

What if they abused their children weekly and attended Mass? Does it make them better as people compared to if they didn't attend Mass? What if a man attends Mass twice in a week, once with his wife, once with his lover? Does it make it better than if he didn't attend Mass? What kind of a nonsensical rationale is that?

What if a man brings a stash of porn every time he attends Mass? He reasons, similarly to you, that he knows better than the Church about his sexuality, his entitlement to porn, because it's how he gets his sexual kicks, so it all must be normalized and legitimized. What if a woman who is exploiting teenagers to make porn comes with the teens to hear Mass every week? Any of these people, if they attend Mass, but in their minds they are against what the Church teaches, they mock the Church and everything it stands for, and they sully it with their presence.

I think the Church should be a beacon of light in the world, not of darkness, like you and these two women with a homosexual problem are. So what to do about these people who think "I want to come to Church with my stash of porn, because if I feel some sexual urge, then it must be legitimate, and everyone just has to accept it"? We're queer and we're here, we're adulterers and we're here, we're porn lovers and we're here, we're X and Catholicism is about making the Church ignorant and irresponsible and make it simply bend over to whatever disoriented, deformed, dysfunctional sexual impulse, desire, fantasy that any person has.

I know a man who hates what the Church teaches about everything related to sex; he's an extreme liberal, yet he goes to Mass just about every week. Once I asked him why he did it, and he ran away from answering. But I know a good deal of the answer.

There are many people who go to Church to run away from their reality. To them, attending Mass equals a cheap means of bludgeoning the truth about who they are and what they think. They want the respectability, the conviviality that they can milk out of going to Church; they want to pretend and firmly believe that what they are doing in their lives is just fine, no matter how against the Church it is, because it's another way of warping their conscience about themselves. It's psychologically very convenient. Going through the motions while deploring half (or most) of what the Church stands for is not an issue for them, it's how they think of practicing Catholicism (or Protestantism, or whatever). These are the people you say are giving their children a "Catholic" education.

And in this case, these two women are using their children as political pawns for their little dysfunctional homosexuality crusade. How disgusting.

I think the Church needs to be responsible and knowledgeable about homosexuality. It needs to continue to take a stand against irresponsible homosexualists who blindly want to normalize homosexuality because they are so incapable of understanding it, dealing with it and resolving it. The Church should not encourage dysfunctional behavior, on the contrary. If homosexuals want to make a mockery of the Church, they can take their unfortunate children to schools who are just as ignorant and irresponsible as their parents.

Another thought would be to tell the two irresponsible mothers in question that if they want to put their children in a Catholic school, they have to abide by the Church's teaching regarding homosexuality. So, no fornication, no cohabitation, and, ideally they should get a good therapist to help them investigate why they have developed such a deformed relationship to men, who they can't relate to, and also to women, to whom they transfer what would be a normal, heterosexual feeling, much like a pedophile transfers to children feelings that he is too disoriented to have towards adults. But, given that these women completely mock the Church, we know they would say, sure, sure, we'll follow the Church, put the kids in the school, and continue with their deformed homosexualist lifestyle. So we can chuck this idea.

You can take a real example of a family of two women with a homosexual problem. They are homosexualists like Nickols. They have two children. One is an adolescent boy who is suffering quite a lot, not having a father and having two disoriented women claiming to be his mothers. If the boy had missed having a father earlier, it may not have been easy for him to express it in his family environment as a child. But as a teenager, his consciousness of his environment became very clear and so did his awareness of how much he really needed a father. What he ended up doing is going into a shell, having no one in his family he could even express this to. Whatever harm this boy experiences because he has never had a father -- and he has been forced to live in an environment where his primary caretakers have very deformed sexual psychologies -- will be trampled on by Nickols blowing his trumpet that homosexuality must be normalized, no matter what.

Brian,

The following is almost certainly off-topic in this thread, to the point that if I'd had your email address I would have contacted you directly. If you have something to say in response after reading it (assuming that you do read it), may I suggest that you email me at carson@wistly.net ?

At this point, it seems obvious that we are not going to convince one another. So I will drop the argument. But I did want to address your issue with me personally. I have intended nothing in this thread but a good faith exchange of views. I have no animus against you, teachers, Catholics in general, Catholic teachers, Catholic pastors at any level, or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone. Where I have failed to make that clear, it *is* a failure, and mine alone. Again, I apologize, and I ask your forgiveness, because I have clearly offended you. Particularly, I ask your forgiveness for calling your language uncharitable. Given your postings in this thread, I strongly suspect that you and I agree on more issues than we disagree on—in particular, I want to explicitly state my beliefs that homosexual actions are sinful, that a gay couple who lives openly together persists obstinately in sin, and that their actions are not, and should not, be acceptable to any church.

You write, "Your second statement, asserting you were too smart to be a Catholic, was obnoxious, and actually unnecessary to make your point."

I do see why you took my statement that way. If you'll permit a personal aside: I am an Orthodox Christian. One of the many things I love about my Church is her willingness to leave things as Mystery. To pick an obvious example, Orthodoxy is for the most part content to affirm that at the Divine Liturgy, the elements of bread and wine truly do become the Body and Blood of our Lord. Few of us are concerned with "how" or "in what way." Catholics historically *have* been concerned about such things. I did not mean to suggest that Catholic willingness to examine and document their faith is somehow necessarily wrong or unintelligent. I only meant that it is not my way.

"Again, I apologize, and I ask your forgiveness, because I have clearly offended you. Particularly, I ask your forgiveness for calling your language uncharitable."

Apology accepted. And my language certainly was harsh, so in light of your indication that you didn't have the intent that I ascribed to you, I apologize as well.

"I did not mean to suggest that Catholic willingness to examine and document their faith is somehow necessarily wrong or unintelligent. I only meant that it is not my way."

A simple misunderstanding then; something that can very easily happen in these types of exchanges.

Brian,

"And my language certainly was harsh, so in light of your indication that you didn't have the intent that I ascribed to you, I apologize as well."

Accepted, with a glad heart.

"And my language certainly was harsh, so in light of your indication that you didn't have the intent that I ascribed to you, I apologize as well."

Accepted, with a glad heart. As you say, such misunderstandings are easily possible in these types of exchanges.

Brian,

What I’ve observed is that you often ascribe intent incorrectly. Your tone is frequently harsh because you often assume that counter-arguments are done out of bad faith or with an intent to deceive.

If you go back over your comments to Carson, especially the 7/28, 2:14 post, you’ll see how much you filled in what you presumed to be Carson’s logic, and you did so by assuming the worst motives.

In my few exchanges with you, I decided it wasn’t worth the effort to clear away your uncharitable assumptions. You might consider being less combative and more inquisitive. There’s some smart commenters on this site, and some of them hold different views than yours.

Elaborating on what Michael said, what is so unfortunate about discussions in forums like this, especially when hot-button issues like abortion and homosexuality are concerned, is that some people can't even *conceive* of the fact that those who disagree with them are expressing honest opinions in good faith. Let's assume, purely for the sake of argument, that these people are actually right about the specific issue under discussion. Even then, why can't they grant that other people are simply mistaken, but arguing and acting in good faith? In these kinds of discussions, it doesn't satisfy some people to argue those who disagree with them are wrong. They must argue that those who disagree with them are evil. And of course then the argument becomes personal.

Human nature being what it is, why is it so difficult to believe that some people who were raised Catholic and discover they are gay want to stay in the Church and have gay partners? I don't agree that these people are profoundly wrong, but let's say for the sake of argument that somehow it is possible to prove here, objectively, that they are profoundly wrong. Would they be the first and only persons in the world to be profoundly wrong and believe in good faith that they are right? Or, alternatively, people can do things they know are wrong not because they are evil, but because they are not strong. Many saints called themselves miserable sinners. If they were so saintly, why didn't they stop sinning?

In another thread, someone accused me of feigning offense. I may be mistaken in many of my views, but I do know whether or not something offends me. I am, in fact, the greatest authority on earth on whether or not something offends me. So when someone accuses me of feigning offense, and I really am offended, I know for an absolute fact that they have made a false accusation.

In a criminal trial, it may be a legitimate strategy to attempt to undermine the credibility of all those who are not on your side. But in a discussion forum, particularly one of a religious character, one needn't have a scorched-earth policy.

There are many things about which reasonable people disagree, and there are many things about which people disagree that reason has very little to do with. Disagreement, especially in a forum like this, is rarely if ever because one side takes a position in bad faith and argues disingenuously and deceitfully.

I do find it interesting (although not unfortunate) that, say, Catholics who disagree on the most fundamental level with, say, Jews, have no problem accepting the good faith and sincerity of Jews who do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, but question the good faith and sincerity of Catholics who do not believe the same things they do. For a Catholic, which is the more important, the belief that Jesus is the Messiah and God Incarnate, or the belief that homosexuality is wrong? So there is no problem with Jews or atheists attending Catholic school, even though they deny the very foundational beliefs of Christianity. But a Catholic who disagrees with the Church on homosexuality or abortion is considered to be more wrong, and more of a danger, than a person who believes the Church is founded on a false premise.

"What I’ve observed is that you often ascribe intent incorrectly."

"Elaborating on what Michael said, what is so unfortunate about discussions in forums like this, especially when hot-button issues like abortion and homosexuality are concerned, is that some people can't even *conceive* of the fact that those who disagree with them are expressing honest opinions in good faith."

I have read enough posts by the both of you on this website that I have no doubt about your intent.

"In another thread, someone accused me of feigning offense."

That would be me.

"So when someone accuses me of feigning offense, and I really am offended, I know for an absolute fact that they have made a false accusation."

I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. The idea that you were actually "offended" by an article headline that referred to the queering of the Statue of Liberty was so preposterous that I assumed you had to be just engaging in moral posturing.

Brian,

How exactly would describe my intent, and what exactly would you base your description on? Do you think I would agree with your description of my intent?

It was clear in your exchange with Carson that you believed that he was trying to subvert Roman teaching. I thought he was raising fair questions, but you kept attacking what you supposed were his motives rather than directly answering his questions. It was interesting to watch the conversation unfold because I knew Carson was Orthodox while you were clearly assuming he was a liberal.

It was not until Carson said he agreed with your conclusions that you decided to make nice with him. But by that time, it was too late for you all to explore the issues he had raised. What I see in most of these forums is folks wasting time attacking each rather than exploring the issues at hand.

I don’t comment as much as I used to and I don’t comment at length anymore because I grew tired of clearing away all of the defensiveness and suspicion. Occasionally, I’ll be surprised and find someone who is willing to genuinely exchange views without the usual nonsense. I had a great conversation with Fr. Brian a couple of weeks ago. For some reason, the usual voices didn’t enter the conversation, and so we were able to have a frank, Christian discussion. We disagreed about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but our disagreement never turned ugly. There were no accusations or name calling.

I’ve had similar conversations with Ken Zaretske, Pentamom, Richard, and a couple of others. There are regular commenters, however, who are just bilious. They throw bombs and insults, constantly assuming the worst about everybody. The liberal bombthrowers have largely left the site. Liberals like Papalinton and Brettongarcia were angry trolls. The angry conservatives, however, have remained. Blake and Alessandra are the worst of these, though Blake will occasionally throw out something worth contemplating at greater length. He won’t contemplate it with you, however.

You’re fairly new to the site, so I’m curious to see whether you learn from your exchanges with people like Carson or whether you’ll go the way of Blake and Alessandra. You’ve got a lot of anger and suspiciousness to overcome.

Michael,

You write, "It was not until Carson said he agreed with your conclusions that you decided to make nice with him."

I hate to detract from an otherwise thought-provoking comment, but for the sake of clarity, a small correction: I agree with Brian's premise (that homosexual actions are sinful); however, I (still) disagree with his conclusion from that that the children should be excluded from a Catholic school.

"It was interesting to watch the conversation unfold because I knew Carson was Orthodox while you were clearly assuming he was a liberal."

People can't be both?

"For some reason, the usual voices didn’t enter the conversation, and so we were able to have a frank, Christian discussion. We disagreed about the sinfulness of homosexuality, but our disagreement never turned ugly. There were no accusations or name calling."

It is hilarious that guys like you and Nickol feel that you are entitled to lecture others on respecting differing opinions. The two of you have been defending an article that asserts that Archbishop Chaput is unfit to be the Archbishop of Philadelphia because he supported his pastor in the Denver case. As usual, tolerance is only expected to run in one direction.

Carson,

Thanks for the clarification. Instead of saying conclusions, I should have said premises. My point was that, on the larger issue of homosexuality, you all agree that it is sinful. Once Brian realized that you all share that opposition he felt free to treat you well. As far as I can tell, Brian saves his charity for those whose politics he shares.

---

Brian,

“People can't be both?”

You’re right that I should have said that Carson was both Orthodox and orthodox. I felt that my entire comment covered both bases.

“The two of you have been defending an article that asserts that Archbishop Chaput is unfit to be the Archbishop of Philadelphia because he supported his pastor in the Denver case”

If you read my posts carefully, you’ll find that I don’t promote the idea that Chaput is unfit because he supported his pastor. In my first post (7/26, 3:41), I said I liked the contrast Winters between two different leadership styles. I still like that contrast, and I’ll add that I think it applies to liberals as well.

In my second post (7/26, 10:27), I thanked Ed for his correction to my information. Ed’s post was conservative, but I thought his information was sound. I then asked him questions about how he sees the issue. I would say that my approach to conservatives is respectful and inquisitive.

In the same post, I replied to you. I had read the links you had suggested, and I asked you a follow-up question. Again, my approach to these conflicts is respectful and inquisitive.

In my third post (7/26, 1:00), I asked you why you described Winters’ article as “hysterical.” I then asked you again how you would approach the question of admission, even though you hadn’t replied to my earlier inquiry.

In the same post, I told JDD that I agreed with his part of his criticism of Winters, and I explained that I agreed with Winters’ larger point about leadership.

In my fourth post (7/26, 8:26), I agreed with you, saying, “I’m inclined to agree with you and give pastors the latitude to decide whether to admit into school a child with lesbian parents as well as other kinds of parents that the pastor might deem unacceptable or imprudent for his school. The problem would be that outsiders—pastors and bishops from other areas—might second-guess the pastor’s decision.”

I think that my statement here makes very clear that I don’t do what you have accused me of doing, namely, declaring Chaput an unfit bishop for defending his pastor. I have questioned his leadership style, and I’ve inquired into how others on this site see the issues. In the meantime, you have felt free to ascribe to me motivations of your own invention.

"I think that my statement here makes very clear that I don’t do what you have accused me of doing, namely, declaring Chaput an unfit bishop for defending his pastor."

The compilation of your comments makes it very clear you were defending Winters' article in which he states Chaput is unfit to be the Archbishop of Philadelphia because of his leadership style. You can try to be cute and say you never state Winters' conclusion yourself, but don't you think that is junior-high debate team level tactics?

Brian English,

You say: "It is hilarious that guys like you and Nickol feel that you are entitled to lecture others on respecting differing opinions. "

I would argue more in favor of respecting the motives and the good faith of people who hold different opinions than ones own. I think Archbishop Chaput and Cardinal O'Malley both acted in good faith, adopting the policies they think are correct. You believe not only that Cardinal O'Malley is wrong, but you seem to believe he caved to economic pressures. (Correct me if I am mistaken.) You question his good faith and his motives.

You say: "The two of you have been defending an article that asserts that Archbishop Chaput is unfit to be the Archbishop of Philadelphia because he supported his pastor in the Denver case."

Of course, that is not the issue at all. It is not Archbishop's support for one pastor in one case that is the issue. It is his policy and his arguments against not permitting—apparently—*any* children being raised by same-sex couples in Catholic schools, when the children were baptized on the understanding that they would be raised Catholic.

Also, I have offered no opinion on whether the selection of Archbishop Chaput to take over the Philadelphia Archdiocese is a good or a bad idea. There is a lot that I disagree with him on, but he may be just the person Philadelphia needs at the moment—a strong leader.

You say: "As usual, tolerance is only expected to run in one direction."

I am not quite sure what tolerance has to do with it. I think Archbishop Chaput's policy is wrong. You think Cardinal O'Malley's position is wrong. That, in and of itself, has nothing to do with tolerance or intolerance.

I’m not playing the games you are ascribing to me. You seem to think that I support Winters’ position that Chaput is an unfit bishop. I feel like I’ve said something different.

As you have said in your exchange with Carson, simple misunderstandings occur all the time in these exchanges. Perhaps it is possible that you continue to misunderstand what I’ve been trying to say.

Michael: What I see in most of these forums is folks wasting time attacking each rather than exploring the issues at hand.
==============
Well, well, what hypocrisy. From someone who can't discuss anything without name-calling and shamelessly attacking people he doesn't like:

Michael: "Liberals like Papalinton and Brettongarcia were angry trolls. The angry conservatives, however, have remained. Blake and Alessandra are the worst of these, though Blake will occasionally throw out something worth contemplating at greater length. He won’t contemplate it with you, however."

Michael continues lecturing: "In my few exchanges with you, I decided it wasn’t worth the effort to clear away your uncharitable assumptions. You might consider being less combative and more inquisitive. There’s some smart commenters on this site, and some of them hold different views than yours."
==============
Obviously, you are not one of them.

There's nothing that you have written in this blog that isn't uncharitable and ugly regarding any comment or issue I've raised.

You would do well to lecture others less, especially since applying to yourself the same principles you would like to see in others is not your forte, quite on the contrary.

A little less moral posturing on your part would do wonders to raise the level of quality of anything you feel you must say here that is so important.

============
Alessandra: "Whatever harm this boy experiences because he has never had a father -- and he has been forced to live in an environment where his primary caretakers have very deformed sexual psychologies -- will be trampled on by Nickols blowing his trumpet that homosexuality must be normalized, no matter what."

And we can certainly add Michael to the group of trumpet blowers, who insist to be blind to any and all harm they may cause in the world due to their views about homosexuality.

Alessandra says: " . . . will be trampled on by Nickols blowing his trumpet that homosexuality must be normalized, no matter what. . . ."

Actually, if you actually read my arguments, I have throughout the whole thread granted, for the sake of argument, that homosexual activity is sinful. That is not my personal opinion, but I have not argued that Archbishop Chaput is wrong because homosexuality should be "normalized." I have argued that Archbishop Chaput is wrong and Cardinal O'Malley is right. Cardinal O'Malley is not seeking to "normalize" homosexuality. If my point were to "normalize" homosexuality, I would argue that the difference is that O'Malley is bad and Chaput is worse. My argument is that, WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CATHOLICISM, O'Malley is right.

Alessandra,

“From someone who can't discuss anything without name-calling and shamelessly attacking people he doesn't like”

This is my ninth post on this thread. In my eight previous posts, can you show me where I have called any of my interlocutors here—Brian, Ed, JDD, Kevin, Joe, Mary Ann—names?

It’s true that I have “shamelessly attacked people I don’t like,” but I have attacked only four—Papalinton, Brettongarcia, Blake, and you—and I have attacked you all not because of your political or religious stands (the first two are liberal and the latter conservative). I have attacked you all because I don’t like you all as people. You all are loud, rude, and obnoxious. You all fling crazy accusations every which way. You all like to twist everything someone says against them. Brian seems to be heading your direction, but I saw in his exchange with Carson an opportunity to warn him about his direction.

“There's nothing that you have written in this blog that isn't uncharitable and ugly regarding any comment or issue I've raised”

You will notice that, after our first two exchanges, I haven’t responded to any of your posts. And you will notice that I don’t respond to Blake’s either. There’s too much bile and too much crazy in both of you to touch.