Since Lord Alfred Douglas’s 1894 poem “Two Loves,”which was used at Oscar Wilde’s trial, homosexuality has been referred to as “the love that dare not speak its name.”
But that’s so 19th century.
We’re living in the 21st century now, so that was . . . like . . . 200 years ago, right?
Why, then, can’t Michael Reardon—executive director of the Catholic Schools Foundation—just come out and state the facts about a recent incident in the Archdiocese of Boston’s Catholic schools?
In a statement on the Catholic Schools Foundation website (.pdf), Reardon writes:
Dear School Administrators:
You may be aware from recent publicity about an exclusionary admissions practice at St. Paul School in Hingham, which does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation. In light of those media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation – – namely, that no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.
We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that that treats students and families in such a manner. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983.
We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students. So although this incident is disturbing, we know that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all feel welcome.
Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.
With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am
Sincerely yours,
Michael B. Reardon
Executive Director
From Reardon’s letter, you’d have no idea whatsoever was at issue in the St. Paul School case. He vaguely refers to “an exclusionary admissions practice” and ominously warns that “no school that promotes an exclusionary admissions policy or practice will be considered for support.” He speaks opaquely of “a policy or practice that denies admission to students in such a manner as occurred at St. Paul’s.” He uses lofty rhetoric about the values of the foundation, its donors, and “Gospel teaching.” He warns that they will not fund “any school that treats students and families in such a manner.” He uses touchie-feelie language about Catholic schools being “welcoming communities,” “where all feel welcome.” And he says that the St. Paul School incident “disturbing.”
So disturbing, apparently, that he can’t even speak forthrightly about the subject. The whole thing has to be shrouded with indirectness, shielded from frank discussion, and wrapped in comforting PC rhetoric.
It certainly isn’t the case that Reardon would want Catholic schools to accept any student whatsoever. If Catholic schools set no limits whatsoever on enrollment, the sheer volume of potential students would overtax the schools’ resources to the point that they couldn’t fulfill their mission. Schools must for economic reasons alone have “exclusionary admissions practices.” Similarly, some students are so disruptive that they cannot function in a normal classroom environment. Some students, frankly, belong in the juvenile justice system. So it isn’t a question of whether Catholic schools should have “exclusionary admissions practices.” The question is which exclusionary admissions practices they should have, and Reardon knows that full well. He just isn’t being forthright about the kind of exclusionary policy he has in mind.
Mr. Reardon may not understand the importance of being earnest, but let’s look at what he might have said had he chosen to be frank.
Dear School Administrators:
You may be aware from recent publicity that St. Paul School in Hingham has declined to enroll an eight-year old boy who has two lesbian “mothers.” St. Paul’s School does not receive support from the Catholic Schools Foundation, so we have no leverage over them, the way we do you. In light of the media reports, we thought it important to clarify the position of the Catholic Schools Foundation so that none of you get the idea of copying St. Paul’s example. Consider this letter a shot across your bow. Our policy is that no school will be considered for support if it either by policy or in practice declines enrollment for students with same-sex “parents.”
It does not matter how disruptive a situation such enrollments would create. It does not matter how difficult a position it would put the thus-enrolled children in. It does not matter how it would put pressure on teachers not to fully and vigorously proclaim Church’s teaching about marriage. It does not matter what other parents in the school might say about the way their children should be educated. None of these things count. What matters is that these children be admitted. This is the sine qua non.
We believe a policy or practice that denies admission to students with openly homosexual parents is at odds with our values as a Foundation, the intentions of our donors, and ultimately with Gospel teaching. Gospel teaching requires that we turn a blind eye to all the concerns named in the previous paragraph. The necessity of admitting children with openly homosexual parents trumps them all. There can be no rational disagreement on this point, and if you do disagree, you are opposing Gospel teaching.
Our concern is the education of young people. We will not fund any school that that treats students and families (note that I am classifying two homosexuals and a child as a family without qualification) in such a manner. You heard me right. We are so concerned with the education of young people that we will deny funding to all the other students in your school if even one child is not enrolled because he has openly homosexual parents. The need of the one outweighs the needs of the many. We care more about providing a Catholic education for this one student more than providing Catholic education for all the other students we would otherwise provide assistance to. This tells you what our values are. We will use financial scorched-earth tactics against any school that disagrees with us, even at the urging of the parents whose children attend the school. This policy has been unchanged since our founding in 1983. [Really? They would have yanked funds in 1983 over this issue?—ja]
We are proud that Catholic schools are known for being welcoming communities for all students except the ones who must be denied enrollment for various rational reasons that I am ignoring here. So although this incident is disturbing to politically correct sensibilities, we are thankful that it is isolated, not a policy of the Archdiocese, or indicative generally of the Catholic schools of the Archdiocese. Know that we appreciate all you do to make your schools places where all, including open and active homosexual partners but not including parents who would disagree with us, will feel welcome. And remember that if you fail in such efforts, we will withdraw all financial support from your school and the other students it has. Consider them financial hostages to this issue.
Please contact me at 617-778-5981 if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance to you.
With hope for the students we serve and the future of Catholic education, I am
Sincerely yours,
Michael B. Reardon
Executive Director
Ahhhhhhhh.
Isn’t a little forthrightness refreshing?
What do you think?
Sigh… every time I start to get confidence in my bishop, he permits something like this to happen…
More like the love that won’t shut up about itself.
So if current events are discussed, would the child of the lesbian parents hear Church teaching on marriage? Or does the Catholic Schools Foundation not approve of a Catholic school teaching Catholic doctrine either? Or maybe they’re fine with that and don’t care if the child’s parents and school undermine each other. I think Mr. Reardon would be more comfortable as a superintendent of public schools.
You know, there is a 7th grade program about sexuality which is supposed to be taught in all Catholic schools and parishes in the Archdiocese of Boston. I teach it. Every time I teach it, every single time, I get asked about why the Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is wrong or “gay marriage” is wrong or why we’re so mean to gays. Kids in Massachusetts are very confused about this issue. How much more so when they read or hear about this controversy?
I don’t think it’s a slam-dunk case that children of homosexuals or lesbians ought to be excluded from Catholic schools. But I do think that their parents ought to be told very clearly what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality, and that this doctrine will be taught to their child, and that it will not be watered down in any way due to the presence of their child. Just as Catholic schools, even those with large non-Catholic populations, ought to proclaim the teaching of the Catholic Church. And if the parents understand this, and still want their child enrolled, then the school ought to look at how the other children and parents will react. Certainly, no one asks parents whether they are using contraception, or whether they will promise not to get divorced while their child is enrolled in the school (and if you think the other kids don’t know when they do, you are wrong). So it’s not as straightforward as it might seem.
But I do think St. Paul’s decision ought to be respected, just as the decision of another school in the opposite direction ought to be respected. It is not an easy situation, and it seems to me that there is no single answer.
I am not trying to say that there is no correct Church teaching, but rather that whether to include children whose parents’ lives include a regular violation of Church teaching is not a simple one. Perhaps the schools will now look more carefully at how they teach these moral issues so as to be true to the Church rather than true to fashion.
The Catholic Foundation website prominently shows and quotes its founder, Peter S Lynch of Fidelity Financial fame. It’s likely just as easy to determine which other corporations are supporters. The TCF website brags about raising some $6 million annually for partial tuition support for over 5000 students, with which their lives “are changed forever.” By such policies such as those which the TCF attempts to enforce, are not the faith lives also irrevocably changed/damaged for these and the other 40,000 students in Boston Catholic Schools who learn that money talks, and Catholicism walks, even in ‘Catholic’ schools?
But I do think that their parents ought to be told very clearly what the Catholic Church teaches about homosexuality, and that this doctrine will be taught to their child, and that it will not be watered down in any way due to the presence of their child
I would also have them sign an acknowledgement agreeing to that and waiving any alleged right to complain about it, etc. I would not be against a similar type of acknowledgement for non-Catholics who attend – letting them know that Catholicism will be taught and not watered down. I would also add a requirement that they not make a public ruckus or try to stir up controversy, then I suppose I could live with it.
Gee this article gives me gas.
I’d like to turn the question around on the “parents.” Why are you seeking to send your “child” to a religious school whose faith teaches that your lifestyle is gravely disordered and sinful?
Sorry, but coming on the heels of the Denver case, this smells like an ORCHESTRATED controversy to me, and at the expense of the child.
This Reardon clown is either a coward or a heretic, letting the Archdiocese be used for an aggressively secular agenda.
While I appreciate the decision involved in denying admission to a child who is being cared for by a same-sex couple, I nevertheless have some reservations about how this decision could be supported but, nevertheless, misinterpreted in ways that conflict with Catholic Teaching.
To begin with, I ought to say that I see no conflict in the decision not to admit the child in question. Since such a child would very likely not be allowed baptism since the child’s home environment is not conducive to a well-founded hope that the child will be raised authentically Catholic. Obviously, if the Church is willing to risk the eternal damnation of the child, for the lack of baptismal grace, the admission of the same child into a school is a trivial matter indeed.
I also understand and agree with, to a point, the concern for placing the child in the middle of an apparent conflict. Since it is likely that this child will face ridicule from classmates, irrespective of which school he attends, it is important that such a child find safe harbor from such cruelty in the authority represented by the school faculty. While I hasten to point out that I in no way believe that the faculty of St. Paul’s school would treat the child poorly, since the faculty could not consent to the goodness of the child’s home situation, the child’s perception of the faculty’s support would be gravely compromised. Such an environment would, in the end, be hellish for the child.
My concern, therefore, lies not with the school and the regrettable decision it was forced to make, but, rather, with those individuals who have taken it upon themselves to support this decision in ways that I find repugnant. Just as the decision may ultimately be, if defended by nothing more than a chorus of clanging cymbals, its wisdom may be lost on exactly those people who need it most – men and women who experience same-sex attraction.
As I’m sure many are aware, there is a marked tendency in America to conceptualize human nature in Calvinistic terms. As such, relationships, like that of this child’s “parents,” are often described in terms that imply total depravity. It is not unusual, nor even difficult, to find the supposed motive of the same-sex couple in this or other cases described as one of calculated malice. Such a couple, it is sometimes argued, directly intend for the child to experience trauma at school so as to form the basis for a lawsuit. While I concede the possibility, to adopt such an assumption as a universal characteristic of such couples and to then create policy from it would be grossly uncharitable.
As his Excellency Bishop Chaput, has recently pointed out in a similar case, the parents who send their children to receive a Catholic education do so by paying a premium for the service and, therefore, ought to expect that this education not be compromised by elements that would contradict core Church teachings on such things as human sexuality. It seems to me that great care must be taken in making this argument, lest it be misconstrued as defining the intrinsic, moral identity of both those who experience same-sex attractions and those people who choose to associate with them. Such an argument, carried too far, is far too close to a self-serving ethic that seeks to quarantine the perceived reprobate from the elect. It invites judgment, not merely of a person’s behavior, but, in its implicit assurance of such an individual’s future behavior, the person himself.
Taken together, in tandem with the obligation to refuse baptism, which I mentioned earlier, it is far too easy for someone with same-sex attractions to perceive the Church as regarding him or her only with a wanton indifference that it cynically calls “love.” For this person, the Church can offer no friendship that is not ultimately held hostage to morbid suspicion. The lifestyle she offers is one of seclusion, an anti-sign of the Communion of Saints. She can offer no substantive hope of salvation, even in sexual continence, since the ever-present threat of failure is regarded, in “prudence,” as the inevitable end of a malformed psychology. In her preaching, what is heard is the very antithesis of the Good News, in which an ethic of despair is formed as the only reasonable conclusion.
To avoid this tragic misunderstanding, it is important that the reasoning behind decisions such as this one be explained with the utmost clarity, avoiding all color of mockery and, especially, the arrogant presumption involved in “translating” the argument of another, implying that any clear-thinking person can have a window into the heart and soul of his opponent. A necessary supplement to such explanations must be the explicit repudiation of ill-advised, yet supportive, arguments. Just as those with same-sex attraction can misconstrue silence on the subject of their behavior as implicit acceptance, so can silence on unjust and twisted formulations of the Church’s Teaching be misconstrued as affirmation of such arguments.
Except of course, they still don’t care call it by name — they want to throw about “love” to make everyone coo and stop thinking.