Is the Roman Catholic Church Persecuting a Child?

[blackout]

A few of you have hit it.

It now follows that any child whose parents
live in such a way as to contradict Catholic teaching
should not be admitted to Catholic schools.

Were the lesbian parents of this child Catholic?

Certainly any parents living together unmaried,
or Single/Divorced, bringing home dates for the night,
Catholic parents who remarried without an annulment,
Catholic parents who do not regularly go to mass on Sunday.

If the lesbian couple was NOT catholic,
really it reasonably stands to follow that NO non catholic students
should be accepted for enrolment into a catholic school.

 

[Mister Emu]

I think this action only makes sense if it's based on one of two motives:

- the people making the decision don't really feel that the Church hold any special claim on truth, so they think it actually is better for her to hold views with certainty that go against Church teaching.
- it really is about using the child as a way to express their displeasure over the actions of her parents.

I'm not saying that it is the motive, but I believe you are missing a possible one:
The decision makers do not believe that the child should be taught the truth if it is detrimental to his/her psychological health.

I think the state should investigate as to whether or not other children in the pre-school have parents who have not lived up to the catechism.

If it requires investigation, is it "open"?

Why would lesbians want their child to be educated in a conservative and religious setting?

Often the religious schools are the best academically...

 

[footprints]

Is the Roman Catholic Church right to exclude the child of a lesbian couple from its school? Why or why not? Is the Church's action persecution? Why or why not?

Groups protest decision not to re-enroll child of lesbians - CNN.com

By the way, a church group in the USA, is not the entire Roman Catholic Church. I think you are letting your perception get a bit ahead of yourself by claiming it is The Roman Catholic Church.

A Roman Catholic Church, would have been a better way to describe it, a division of the Roman Catholic Church may have been another way, a small sect of the Roman Catholic Church may have been another way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

1. Since when is a school a daycare?

When the child involved is a "preschooler", as stated in the article. The implication is that the child was enrolled in a daycare program at the school.

2. They are not obligated to provide daycare services to any child that desires it.

No, but they, like any business that offers services to the public, are obligated to provide those services on an equitable basis.

I'm not saying that it is the motive, but I believe you are missing a possible one:
The decision makers do not believe that the child should be taught the truth if it is detrimental to his/her psychological health.

That's the one that the archidiocese seemed to suggest, and that's the one that I don't think makes much sense. If we assume for a moment that Catholic teaching is all true, moral and correct, then wouldn't the net damage to the child be greater if she were deprived of it than if she received it, effect of the confusion included?

 

[Xafwak]

If I was one of those parents I wouldn´t let the child anywhere near a catholic priest.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

In the first place, I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Church to change its teaching on the morality of homosexual relationships, nor do I think it would be right to force the Church to repeal this belief or make it inconsequential by the hand of the State.

At first I felt quite let down by this decision of the Archdiocese. A great many Catholics are divorced and re-married, contrary to Church doctrine. Even a greater number use artificial birth control, also contrary to Church doctrine. How often, I wonder, do they warn the parents that these things can get their children removed if they persist? My guess, from my experiences in Catholic education, would be not very often. It suggests, possibly, that homosexuals are becoming the punching bag for a broader cultural tension between the Catholic Church and North American culture. In the past, I think the Church has let people "draw outside the lines" and let a broad range of people into her care, hoping that the magnetism of her light will draw them in closer conformity to Christ. Not affirming where people are "off the mark", but also not using that to inhibit them from drawing from the Church what it is they can.
I think it is more of a modern style of thinking, especially with the Reformation's critique against monasticism and clericalism, that has the Church saying one either must practice the Catholic faith down to the letter or be gone. This, in my mind, is dangerous and not in tune with the real nature of any religious system. You only end up with a small, arrogant, probably personally frustrated "elect". Anyways, to get back to the point...

However, we have to understand that a Catholic school will teach that sexual intercourse belongs only within an indissoluable marriage between a man and woman.

The Archbishop wrote this:

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.

If this education is going to teach this child that her parents are in an immoral relationship, is it really in her best interests that she attend this school?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the first place, I don't think it is reasonable to expect the Church to change its teaching on the morality of homosexual relationships, nor do I think it would be right to force the Church to repeal this belief or make it inconsequential by the hand of the State.

OTOH, I think it's quite reasonable for a school - i.e. a business that offers a service to the public - should be required to offer that service equitably just like any other business.

If the Church finds the normal requirements of equality and fairness to be too onerous, then maybe they should reconsider their decision to sell services to a paying public. Nobody's forcing them to run a school.

If this education is going to teach this child that her parents are in an immoral relationship, is it really in her best interests that she attend this school?

Yeah, that's the part where I'm a bit confused. Now... without knowing the parents' other options, I can't say for sure, but I can imagine a few situations where a Catholic daycare would still be the best option available (albeit imperfect).

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

OTOH, I think it's quite reasonable for a school - i.e. a business that offers a service to the public - should be required to offer that service equitably just like any other business.

This is troubled waters. Can the Church not run its own schools and decide on its own criteria for a Catholic education? Or just because it offers a service, is it to be subsumed into the ideology of the State? If people keep thinking like this, I suspect it will not be long before Catholic schools are no longer permitted to teach a Catholic view of marriage because it will be understood as discriminatory.

Nobody is forcing the Church to run a school, but it is an important component of Catholic culture and community.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is troubled waters. Can the Church not run its own schools and decide on its own criteria for a Catholic education? Or just because it offers a service, is it to be subsumed into the ideology of the State?

Let me put it this way: a private school (even a church-run private school) should no more be able to refuse a student on the basis that her parents are homosexual than a Denny's restaurant should be able to refuse service to a customer on the basis that he is black.

Religion should not provide an "out" for businesses to escape their normal duty to provide the public with fair and equitable treatment.

If people keep thinking like this, I suspect it will not be long before Catholic schools are no longer permitted to teach a Catholic view of marriage because it will be understood as discriminatory.

The Catholic view of marriage is discriminatory, however, I'm not talking about curriculum, just admissions.

Nobody is forcing the Church to run a school, but it is an important component of Catholic culture and community.

And it's an important component of secular culture that people are not discriminated against unfairly or unreasonably. When the Catholic Church decides to insert itself into the secular sphere, it takes on secular obligations as well.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The Catholic Church has not inserted itself into the secular sphere. It has been educating well before there was a secular sphere.

The Catholic view of marriage is discriminatory, however, I'm not talking about curriculum, just admissions.

The State of view of marriage that does not recognize polygamy is discriminatory as well.

And what if the school feels that the cirriculum is going to be excessively burdensome to the child, because it teaches a conception of marriage and family life that is not congruent with her home life?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Catholic Church has not inserted itself into the secular sphere. It has been educating well before there was a secular sphere.

I didn't see the name of this specific school mentioned in the article, but the archdiocese of Denver was created in 1887. There was certainly a secular sphere before then.

The State of view of marriage that does not recognize polygamy is discriminatory as well.

Yes, it is. And IMO, that discrimination is justified.

And what if the school feels that the cirriculum is going to be excessively burdensome to the child, because it teaches a conception of marriage and family life that is not congruent with her home life?

In what way would it be excessively burdensome to the child? Remember, the girl is a preschooler - apparently, the program she was in was some sort of daycare or nursery school. What aspect of a preschooler's curriculum do you think would present an issue?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I didn't see the name of this specific school mentioned in the article, but the archdiocese of Denver was created in 1887. There was certainly a secular sphere before then.

In terms of this specific school, perhaps. Not in terms of the origins of secularism itself, which was a sphere within the Christian society and within the Christian imagination that steadily gained emancipation.

From a historical point of view, it is the secular that is inserting itself into the religious sphere by making demands on the limitations of religion. I view this process as valid, to a reasonable degree.

Also, the secularism of that day, 1887, was a different breed. It permitted freedom of religion, for a community to be obedient to its own standards, generally without state interference. I think that was basic idea of America. The voices of a certain secularism today want to place religion on its knees before a secular ideology that permits religion to be itself only in the totally private sphere---which would be the virtual death of religious integrity. It wants to say that "the only place you can be loyal to your own criteria for your communtiy is when you are offering tea in your living room".

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I would imagine pre-school is the entry level into the school itself, no? Should they permit the child only to remove her years down the road?

Again, this is probably not the path that I would take were I in charge. It is the question of legality, of the integrity of Catholic culture and community that has me possibly taking the Archdiocese's side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In terms of this specific school, perhaps. Not in terms of the origins of secularism itself, which was a sphere within the Christian society and within the Christian imagination that steadily gained emancipation.

This specific school is the only one in question.

From a historical point of view, it is the secular that is inserting itself into the religious sphere by making demands on the limitations of religion. I view this process as valid, to a reasonable degree.

I disagree with your "historical point of view". Regardless, the question is where a reasonable boundary between the religious and the secular should lie. IMO, this boundary lies at the freedom of the individual: each person should be free to believe as they see fit and act on those beliefs, subject only to reasonably justifiable laws, and that's it. No legal exemptions for churches that don't apply to other non-religious organizations or collections of individuals.

Also, the secularism of that day, 1887, was a different breed. It permitted freedom of religion, for a community to be obedient to its own standards, generally without state interference.

Sure, and at that time, a school would've been able to do as it pleased with regard to fire safety as well. Is a requirement for the building to have proper fire exits and extinguishers "state interference"?

The voices of a certain secularism today want to place religion on its knees before a secular ideology that permits religion to be itself only in the totally private sphere---which would be the virtual death of religious integrity.

What do you think is necessary for religion to "be itself"?

Personally, all I want is for government to be blind to religion: no persecution, but no special status, either. Under such a system, a business would receive no preferential treatment just because it happens to be church-owned.

Do you think such a system would cause the "virtual death of religious integrity" you refer to?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would imagine pre-school is the entry level into the school itself, no? Should they permit the child only to remove her years down the road?

I'm not sure. I know that many schools run their daycare programs separately from their "official" school programs. I'd think that a large proportion of the children in the daycare program would not go on to formal education at the same school... especially given that public schools are available free of charge starting with kindergarten or grade 1, but daycare below that age is not. Typically, many parents will put their children in private daycare until they're ready for public school.

Again, this is probably not the path that I would take were I in charge. It is the question of legality, of the integrity of Catholic culture and community that has me possibly taking the Archdiocese's side.

In terms of the actual law, sure, what the archdiocese did may be legal. I know that several US states have laws that permit businesses from refusing service to anyone they please for any reason at all (or no reason). I was speaking more to the moral and ethical principles involved, as well as what I'd consider to be an ideal legal situation.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

On what basis would you disagree that, in the history of West, it was the secular, as a category of Christian thought, that was gradually emancipated from the sacred and gradually took precedence in the public mind? It was the Church that ran schools and hospitals, and the State that later took over them.

What I actually have a problem here is the constant appeal to this dialouge of "rights", forcing everything by the hand of the State, which in my mind bears little fruit from the heart. It forces a polarization within religious communities, and does not permit them to actually reconcile these problems within themselves through their own language, effecting a change of heart. It is the same with the discussion surrounding the Equality Bill in England.

Religion is not a business, it is not that kind of institution. Religion is inherently tied to culture and belongs to the identity of a community, and therefore has necessary public manifestations. Something like a school goes to the very heart of this question. It is not a mere "public service", it is the place where we educate our children in our way of life and faith. It is the place, along with the home, for the beginning of a formation of Catholic identity, it is part of the building block of our communities.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

The very word secular is Christian in origin, with the religious clergy in monastic communities and the secular priests in communities of lay persons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

On what basis would you disagree that, in the history of West, it was the secular, as a category of Christian thought, that was gradually emancipated from the sacred and gradually took precedence in the public mind? It was the Church that ran schools and hospitals, and the State that later took over them.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I agree that there have been many religiously-founded institutions... although it should be acknowledged that the dividing line between church and state was not always as clear now as it is then: historically, the Holy See was as much of a political player as any other European kingdom, and religious affiliation of the people was something that would often sway back and forth based on which monarch happened to be on the throne.

And a significant number of ancient institutions were founded by the state; Cambridge University and the Royal Society both come to mind, both founded by royal charter. The origins of the oldest English-speaking university, Oxford, are rather murky - there's certainly no indication that I'm aware of that it was founded by any church.

What I actually have a problem here is the constant appeal to this dialouge of "rights", forcing everything by the hand of the State, which in my mind bears little fruit from the heart.

As opposed to throwing a little girl out of her nursery school, which is an act of charity, right?

It forces a polarization within religious communities, and does not permit them to actually reconcile these problems within themselves through their own language, effecting a change of heart. It is the same with the discussion surrounding the Equality Bill in England.

Wait... so are you saying that if we leave the Catholic Church alone on the issue of homosexuality, it will come to a satisfactory resolution itself in its own way?

Religion is not a business, it is not that kind of institution.

When an entity, e.g., a school, charges fees to its customers and provides goods or services in exchange for those fees, it is a business. It may be more than "just" a business, but what business isn't?

Religion is inherently tied to culture and belongs to the identity of a community, and therefore has necessary public manifestations.

And necessary public responsibilities?

Something like a school goes to the very heart of this question. It is not a mere "public service", it is the place where we educate our children in our way of life and faith. It is the place, along with the home, for the beginning of a formation of Catholic identity, it is part of the building block of our communities.

A school, even a Catholic school, is part of the building block of the larger secular community as well. It's not just Catholics who have a stake in it.

 

[RomCat]

If there is discrimination it is the couple
who are the child's guardians. Every child
has the right to have a father.

 

[gnomon]

If there is discrimination it is the couple
who are the child's guardians. Every child
has the right to have a father.

So it's illegal to send fathers off to war?

It's illegal to divorce? Single mothers are illegal?