A reader writes:
AikinAkin (spell it "Aikin" and you won’t be able to get to the blog 😉 –
With the greatest respect and appreciation for everything that you do for the Catholic Faith and evangelization,
Thanks! I appreciate the compliment!
I respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding the Orange County school that has children with homosexual "parents."
Okay. I operate on the principle that not everybody has to agree with me.
Please keep in mind that I can’t remember a time where I have ever previously disagreed with you. Also keep in mind that I am a "conservative" Catholic that attempts to follow the Magisterium teaching completely without exception. I am in avid opposition to same-sex unions or marriage and I have been active in my diocese prodding pastors to speak out against such unions.
Good for you!
Here are my thoughts on what you posted on your blog:
I don’t believe you should draw a line on the children because of the sins of their parents – ever. It is not right. It is not just. It sets terrible precedent. It appears exclusive and unwelcoming. It is in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For example, what if one of the children had a parent that had committed murder? That would certainly be number 20 or so on the scale. We could not visit the murderer in prison but refuse to educate his child. You can’t compromise the Gospel.
But – you can oppose the compromising of the Gospel by priests, sisters, and Bishops – that is where the problem is – go after the true problem.
I do understand that this situation is different in light of the promotion of the lifestyle by the homosexual couple and that they may be in teaching situations. That is a problem – but it is a separate problem – it has to do with what is being taught, by whom, and how. To me, it is the same problem that liberal, dissenting pastors provide. In both cases, scandal is present and it must be remedied. When I was faced with a severely dissenting pastor, I did not demand alll parishoners that agree with him vehemently leave. I went to the Diocese and strongly made the case for truth being taught.
Once again, good for you.
I also believe in dealing with the problem where it is, but I think that in this case there is a problem not only with those in the Church who do not speak out against homosexuality but also a problem created in the classroom by the situation of having two homosexual "parents" putting a kid in a class of sexual innocents who shouldn’t be confronted with the existence of homosexuality at their age.
Let’s set the issue of homoexual parents aside and do a thought experiment involving a different and more extreme situation:
Suppose that there are two parents (male and female) who are nudists and who insist on walking around all day long–in public–buck nekkid. Suppose also that they live in Southern California and that the crazy laws of the state permit them to do so (as well as its warm climate). Is it their child’s fault that he has parents who are nudists? No. But, whenever he interacts with other children, he’s going to have a lot of them asking him about the fact that his parents are nudists.
As a result, he’s going to go back to his parents and ask them what to tell the other kids. They’ll tell him that being a nudist is an okay thing and that he should tell the other kids that. He thus, little by little, is going to become an apologist for public nudity, even though he may or may not be a nudist himself.
Now this family decides to put their kid in a Catholic school’s kindergarten class. What is the school to do? The other kids are going to become aware of the fact that the kid’s parents are nudists. They’re going to see it when they pick him up from school. They’re going to ask questions about his family and, kindergartners being terrible at keeping secrets, this fact is going to come out. The kid will then (a) be picked on and (b) be questioned and (c) respond by launching into nudism apologist mode.
Kids at this age level should not be faced with a knowledge of nudism, much less see people who insist on picking up kids from school while nude (or playing a role taking care of the class while nude). They should not have to deal with a nudist apologist in their midst at this age. They shouldn’t at this age even be aware of nudism.
It therefore seems to me that the school would not only be reasonable but required not to admit this kid under these circumstances. The basis for doing this is the fact that the school has to take into account the interests of all its students. It cannot allow the interest of a single student (having a Catholic education) to outweight the interests of all the other students (having a Catholic education and not being exposed to the reality of nudism and nudist apologists).
The thing to do would be to not admit the kid and to arrange for him to get instruction in the Catholic faith through some other means (e.g., private tutoring).
I think that if a school did make the mistake of admitting such a child then the parents who have kids there would be (a) entirely justified in protesting and (b) entirely justified in yanking their kids out of class to prevent them from being exposed to nudists and nudist apologists.
If you’re willing to go with me this far (leaving the above described conditions of the thought experiment in place) then it seems you should be willing to admit that there are at least some circumstances (and we can make the above conditions even more extreme if needed; say, nudists who insist on engaging in the marital act in public when they are picking up their kid from school and who are allowed by the state to do this) in which the most prudent thing to do is to not admit the kid to school and to take care of his religious education in another way.
That’s not compromising the gospel. It’s upholding the gospel by not
allowing its message to be watered down for a whole class (or a whole
school) by the flagrant scandal of people living in open defiance of
basic gospel values.
If you agree to that principle it could be seen as a judgment call as to whether having two homosexual parents fall into that category.
In my opinion, it does.