Lesbian Couple's Daughter Denied Admittance to School

[Belinda]

I really think there are so many facets to this issue.

1. What was the motivation of the parents to seek acceptance at this school?
2. Are there comparable or better schools in that area that are non-church related?
3. Is there a financial factor to be considered?
4. How would the parents have really felt if their child had been schooled against gays?
5. Were they prepared to deal with that eventuality or was that another battle they planned to wage?
6. Did the parents really feel this was the best choice for their child or was it a statement for the sake of making a statement?

Even now, I would probably make the same choice for my daughter. I shouldn't have said otherwise. The fact of the matter is that a Catholic education is, in many places, superior to public school. Further, the costs for a non-religious private school were prohibitive and we wouldn't have been able to manage it. At the time, that was the best choice for our daughter.

I think this truly boils down to the true motivation of the parents. I believe that any private school, religious or otherwise, has the right to select who it will admit. Even though it rubs against my grain, I still feel that they should and do have that right. I wish religious institutions were more inclusive, but it's not the nature of the beast, so to speak. I am a person that strongly dislikes for anyone to be excluded. It seems hurtful and petty.

 

[Cubby]

I really think there are so many facets to this issue.

1. What was the motivation of the parents to seek acceptance at this school?
2. Are there comparable or better schools in that area that are non-church related?
3. Is there a financial factor to be considered?
4. How would the parents have really felt if their child had been schooled against gays?
5. Were they prepared to deal with that eventuality or was that another battle they planned to wage?
6. Did the parents really feel this was the best choice for their child or was it a statement for the sake of making a statement?

Even now, I would probably make the same choice for my daughter. I shouldn't have said otherwise. The fact of the matter is that a Catholic education is, in many places, superior to public school. Further, the costs for a non-religious private school were prohibitive and we wouldn't have been able to manage it. At the time, that was the best choice for our daughter.

I think this truly boils down to the true motivation of the parents. I believe that any private school, religious or otherwise, has the right to select who it will admit. Even though it rubs against my grain, I still feel that they should and do have that right. I wish religious institutions were more inclusive, but it's not the nature of the beast, so to speak. I am a person that strongly dislikes for anyone to be excluded. It seems hurtful and petty.

I agree. I looked at the cost of tuition for this particular private school in Bedford TX and at appx 6400 per year it is far more costly than the appx 3800 per year for my sons Catholic education.

Being in the Chicago area, there are some very expensive communities - some of which property taxes on homes exceed 6 figures annually.

6400 for preschool is a lot imo. But there are also communities where preschool exceeds 14,000 a year and the waiting lists begin almost at birth for parents who can afford that kind of tuition for preschool.

I'd also have to ask myself what brought these two moms to Texas? Having been married in Canada, are they originally from Canada? Why Texas?

 

[gitana1]

Me too. Let's get back to the topic for which the thread was started.

Oh my gosh! Just as I was getting ready to roll. As a progressive Catholic, I can see both sides of the coin regarding the teachings of my church (and any church). There are many people like me who believe that much that comes from the church hierarchy is not divinely, but rather, politically, inspired. I was sickened by my church's official support of Prop. 8 here in California. I believe that goes against the teachings of Christ as well as the overall message of Catholicism (the word Catholic means universal and broad in sympathies, BTW).
My church has problems, as do many. But only on a few occasions have I attended mass when there was not something in the homily about loving one's neighbor and doing for others. Our teachings are that a relationship with Christ does not begin and end with one person and God. A true relationship with Christ includes extending our love and compassion to our fellow man.
In fact, although the Catholic clergy is well known today for all the sex abuse stuff (BTW, pedophile priests amount to only .03% of the clergy in the Church, but I acknowledge that the hierarchy's response to those priests has been criminally negligent), as well as abuses of human rights in the medieval era, they are also well known for, although not as widely reported in mass media, fighting tirelessly for civil rights and human rights around the world.
Priests have and do give their very lives for the rights of oppressed groups, like the poor and minorities, all over the world. They issue highly political and dangerous statements from the pulpit (pastoral letters) in opposition to things like apartheid, fascist dictators, etc. Tons of Catholic priests walked hand in hand with Black people for civil rights in America, and hid Jews during WWII. I am proud of so much that my church stands for and the role it has played in the modern world, in standing side by side with the oppressed. I am not proud, however, about the official church stance regarding gay rights. It is not in keeping, I believe, with the tenets of the faith.
In fact, there is not even an official debate within the Church regarding this issue and that is a difference from the Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians and Episcopalians, because those churches have at least allowed the debate. But not ours.
Nevertheless, there is a core of progressive Catholics like me who, instead of just turning our back on our beloved Church, are working from the inside to create change or at least open dialogue ( I am an RCIA facilitator and friends with other facilitators, Catholic school teachers and nuns who believe in progressive change).
But, I truly believe that the action by this school in Texas is an outfall of the debate that has been allowed within the Episcopal church. That debate has resulted in an angry schism and I think this school is on one side of that schism and expressing their disgust and displeasure about the other side by excluding a preschooler who has two moms. I don't think that is the way to do it.
My brother is a Catholic school teacher. Never once has the issue of homosexuality ever come up in his classes. It is not discussed. I worked at three Christian preschools and schools. One Lutheran and two non-denominational but Evangelical. Not once was the issue of homosexuality discussed.
I believe it is the same with Episcopal-affiliated schools. I don't think this preschooler would have been exposed to teachings in her preschool that her family is sinful. Come on! And if she stayed at that school and later came across mention in a text from religion class that: "Our faith teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman", which is about as far as I can imagine any decent religious school in America going when discussing the debate, the kid could go home and begin a discussion with her parents. She will face the same problems due to having two moms in a religious private school as she would in a public school or non-religious private school, unless the religious private school allowed or encouraged pettiness, meanness and bullying at it's school.
Bottom line is that I think this had to do with politics and anger on the part of one side of the schism. The 4 year old was the scapegoat.

 

[Cubby]

Thanks gitana1. I personally try to make these highly debatable political issues an individual situation. My preference and style.

I'm not even sure how the Catholic church came into this discussion since these two mommies were not trying to enroll this child into a Catholic church..... but since it has been included I guess we'll let it ride?

 

[Belinda]

I am finding this to be a fascinating discussion, now that we have moved past the angst. Gitana - that was a really interesting post and gave me some food for thought. I was interested in what you said about the civil rights era. It has always been my understanding that the Catholic church fought against civil rights and further has been criticized for its failure to help Jews during the holocaust. That is the only church I have ever heard directly mentioned in relation to those two issues. It could be that I am mixing things up as I have severe memory problems. This is something I will need to discover more about as now I don't know if I have it all backwards. In fact, I've never heard much of anything newswise about other denominations, other than the Episcopal schism.

 

[Cubby]

This article is already three years old but interesting.


If you're like many new parents, nothing's too good for your little genius, including $30,440 for preschool so your 4-year-old can occupy a few hours each day playing with blocks and finger painting in an organized setting.

Think that's a typo? Think again. That is the price of admission to the preschool program at New York's Ethical Culture Fieldston School. Other private schools in big American cities aren't much better. Bank Street, also in New York, will set you back $27,450; pre-K at Washington's Sidwell Friends runs $26,790. Compared to that, The Center for Early Education in Los Angeles, with its $15,400 tuition, seems like a bargain.

<snip>

But paying the tuition is easy compared with getting in. Entrance to an exclusive private preschool is a painful right of passage for thousands of upscale New York moms every year, kicking off with a mad rush of speed dialing early in the morning the day after Labor Day to secure applications before schools run out of them.

full article at link:

http://www.forbes.com/2007/09/18/education-preschool-kindergarden-biz-cx_lm_0919preschool.html




link for 2010/2011 school year for New Yorks Ethical Cultural Fieldston school.

A year of preschool will now set you back 35,915

http://www.ecfs.org/admission/tuition.aspx

 

[Belinda]

Good grief, Cubby. That all seems more than a little ridiculous for pre-school. Not that pre-school isn't important, but it's pretty much glorified daycare to my knowledge. I really dislike the whole 'my child must be in the most prestigious pre-school' mindset. Money aside, common sense should apply.

 

[Nova]

Nova, I find this part of your post very interesting considering our recent conversations regarding the Muslim faith in another thread....

That being said, being Catholic is a choice. And choosing to belong to any group means sharing responsibility for the group's actions, even when one personally opposes them.

My question, why do you not feel the same way when people question Muslims? You could replace the word Catholic with the word Muslim in your own post and I don't think (from what you have said) you would agree with your own arguement.

JMO

Great question, Kimberly, and absolutely fair.

To some extent, yes, I think the same principle applies to Muslims. But as I said with Catholics, I can understand that many Muslims don't want to abandon their faith to the extremists.

I said there is some shared responsibility; I didn't say anyone was morally obligated to renounce their faith.

And I never said all members of the group should share punishments. Obviously, we're not going to put decent Catholics in prison because some of their clerics molested children; nor should we discriminate against decent Muslims because some other Muslims flew planes into buildings.

If someone were protesting the building of a Catholic church because some child had been molested nearby, my argument would be the same as with the the downtown NYC Cultural Center.

Also, to be precise and despite the way it is often in the media, Islam has no formal hierarchy. Yes, there are imams with large and powerful followings, but a member of a mosque in Detroit may feel s/he is no more associated with Bani-Sadr's people, for example, than a Baptist feels s/he is a member of the Methodist Church.

 

[Nova]

Nova, to answer your question and get back on topic, which is a parenting topic.

First, as a parent I would have to weigh my choices and how each and every one of my choices as a parent affects my child. That not only includes choices for education but also choices for my partner as well as the neighborhood I chose to reside. In my world the child ALWAYS comes first. A parent integrates themself into the childs life not vice versa.

I think if this were only a preschool type environment the mothers relationship would not be an issue. Or at least I would like to.... Giving this individual situation consideration I would ask myself as a parent if I chose to enroll my child in a pre-k through 8th grade school

I as a parent, would like to incorporate my child into a diverse tolerant community - that I could afford -

Overall the majority of parents have no choice but to enroll their children in public school. The majority of people will choose a residence based on how well school district rates within the state.

Are we an integrated society? Not everywhere.
Do we make presumptions? Yep, all the time.

Which is why I immediately wanted to know about this couples particular situation and their choices within their community.

Hence looking at the schools site directly.

http://www.sves.org/tuition_schedule_2010-2011.pdf

http://www.sves.org/testimonials.html

looking around the site, the campus is beautiful. Very small class sizes.
Obviously a school of choice, but is this the only choice in an area with a poor choice of schools. Think of it in comparison to the Chicago Public schools which are pretty much known to be a train wreck.

The testimonials speak of other 'excellent' public schools, so was this really the only option? OR was their perhaps a better fit?

It sounds to me that perhaps the school was misrepresenting itself as an Episcipalian church when it is not and has broken away from those beliefs. Why as a parent the moms didn't learn that when reading through the school site I don't know.

Is it REALLY a matter of 'homophobia'? or is it a matter of the choices of schools in the area and if the area doesn't offer what they are looking for?

Personally I try to look at the individual situation.

Then on the other hand.... what if these were two mothers were a biological mom and a step mom who coparented succesfully and the childs bio father died? Both bio mom and step mom continued to share custody... Then we would have an entirely different situation which was not at all related to their sexual orientation. So we DO in fact have a situation of 'discrimination'. A situation, which for myself as a parent, I would have to ask myself if I wished to belong to a 'religious community' in which my child would be put in a position of shame if her mommies or daddies demonstrated affection. In which case, imo, it once again goes to the various conservative or more liberal choices within the Christian community and as a whole those choices do exist......

I hope that makes sense..... I'm in the midwest so definately a moderate.

hth

Makes perfect sense. And you and I will agree that a 4-year-old should not be used as a pawn in a political protest--no matter how much I agree with the aims of the protest.

But it appears from Nora's link that the parents simply didn't know what they were getting into. As this thread indicates, a lot of people haven't heard about the recent schism in the Episcopal church, and Episcopal schools, as a rule, "do not discriminate" (per the same cite).

It may well be the parents thought they were getting precisely the environment you and I think the child needs. The "issue" wasn't made obvious to them until Parent's Night.

 

[Nova]

Thanks gitana1. I personally try to make these highly debatable political issues an individual situation. My preference and style.

I'm not even sure how the Catholic church came into this discussion since these two mommies were not trying to enroll this child into a Catholic church..... but since it has been included I guess we'll let it ride?

Yes, let's reiterate that this controversy has nothing to do with the Catholic church or Catholic schools. (Above I mentioned that I have several friends who loved teaching at Catholic high schools. As it happens, all of them are gay. True, they didn't go around announcing that fact in classrooms; but neither were they required to keep their personal relationships secret from other faculty or administration. I don't mean to imply that every Catholic school is as tolerant; I honest don't know. I'm just saying the experiences I've heard about, while not ideally open, weren't particularly draconian either.)

 

[Nova]

Good grief, Cubby. That all seems more than a little ridiculous for pre-school. Not that pre-school isn't important, but it's pretty much glorified daycare to my knowledge. I really dislike the whole 'my child must be in the most prestigious pre-school' mindset. Money aside, common sense should apply.

I don't know about everywhere, but in some places, such as New York, getting into the right pre-school makes all the difference in later getting into the right prep school. And attending the right prep school greatly improves your chances of admission to an Ivy League school. And it certainly makes a difference in terms of whom you know when you get to Harvard.

The expensive, glorified daycare is but the first step in a long process of wanting your kid to have the right credentials and belong to the most useful "network" of contacts.

Frankly, the whole bloody business horrifies me. But everyone knows I'm practically a Communist.

 

[Cubby]

Makes perfect sense. And you and I will agree that a 4-year-old should not be used as a pawn in a political protest--no matter how much I agree with the aims of the protest.

But it appears from Nora's link that the parents simply didn't know what they were getting into. As this thread indicates, a lot of people haven't heard about the recent schism in the Episcopal church, and Episcopal schools, as a rule, "do not discriminate" (per the same cite).

It may well be the parents thought they were getting precisely the environment you and I think the child needs. The "issue" wasn't made obvious to them until Parent's Night.

TY Nova, your posts are always interesting and thought provoking.
I fully agree. IMO, the moms were 'misled' by the school indicating this was an Episcopal school. However, they must have been the ones to notify the news, in which case it is unfortunate for the child- as she may one day google her moms name and read this. I also agree with making their point via protest, or any other legal means. I only do not agree with doing so when one has minor children. Can't they wait until their daughter is finished with HS? The childs needs should ALWAYS come first and the childs needs supercede who mom chooses to sleep with regardless of gender.

jmo

Cubby

 

[Cubby]

I don't know about everywhere, but in some places, such as New York, getting into the right pre-school makes all the difference in later getting into the right prep school. And attending the right prep school greatly improves your chances of admission to an Ivy League school. And it certainly makes a difference in terms of whom you know when you get to Harvard.

The expensive, glorified daycare is but the first step in a long process of wanting your kid to have the right credentials and belong to the most useful "network" of contacts.

Frankly, the whole bloody business horrifies me. But everyone knows I'm practically a Communist.

I'll be honest, I think following the glorified schools as you described is to remain within the network more so than anything. There are plenty of very succesful people who went through average schools and made their accomplishments on their own - without having to know so and so to get them in the door. Personally I have far more respect for the self made man or self made woman who acheived without that extra hand knowing someone to get through the door. IMO that is far more rewarding and far greater to admire.

jmo

 

[Cubby]

On the note of these mommies child being denied into this particular school. In general when one wishes to become a member of or participate in any type of organization it is a requirement the person wishing to join seek to and agree to the beliefs and principles of such. The whole, how dare you deny me even though I blatently disagree with and refuse to adhere to your principals is a load of caca. You do or you don't whether you are black, white, purple, green, pink, orange, hetersexual or homosexual. If one does not wish to adhere to the principles and beliefs of any organization whether it be religious or anything else why slap the I'm being discriminated against label onto it? We all have choices, there will be sacrifices made and opportunities unavailable to us based on our choices- heterosexual, homosexual, married or single. Make the adjustments for yourself, don't demand others make adjustments to accomodate you. Make the choices that best suit your needs and beliefs. If you can't find choices of your liking adjust your needs.

for example I am a single stay at home mom. Therefore I am not going to have a 6 figure income. I don't gripe cry or complain about it, I adjusted my needs. If it was of greater importance to me to have a 6 figure income I would make different choices. I also have the CHOICE to be in a relationship as do these mothers. I choose not to at the moment because my time with my child is more important. There will be plenty of time for a relationship -with whomever I choose- when he is grown. It is all about choices and I will be damned if I expect every one of them should be available to me. As a parent, some are not and it is not because I am being discriminated against, it is because of the choices I freely made for myself.

jmo

 

[gitana1]

I am finding this to be a fascinating discussion, now that we have moved past the angst. Gitana - that was a really interesting post and gave me some food for thought. I was interested in what you said about the civil rights era. It has always been my understanding that the Catholic church fought against civil rights and further has been criticized for its failure to help Jews during the holocaust. That is the only church I have ever heard directly mentioned in relation to those two issues. It could be that I am mixing things up as I have severe memory problems. This is something I will need to discover more about as now I don't know if I have it all backwards. In fact, I've never heard much of anything newswise about other denominations, other than the Episcopal schism.

To judge by the numbers, many Catholics heeded this admonition. By the end of the war, 110,000 Dutch Jews were deported; 10,000 were helped to escape; 40,000 were hidden. Of the latter, 15,000 survived. Forty-nine Catholic priests were killed for assisting Jews

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ws.&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

From 1941 to 1944, Pope Pius and the Catholic Church were responsible for saving more Jews from Nazi persecution than any other person or institution. Some Israeli scholars estimate that as many as 860,000 European Jews were saved from death through concealment in Church facilities, issuance of fake Baptismal certificates, public appeals and other methods.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...WII&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII#cite_note-174

I kept thinking about how ten years earlier, how we were . . . just blacks [in the movement] . . . . [But the Selma to Montgomery march] had Catholic priests, and nuns, and you had other clergy, and you had a lot of white people. It was really a beautiful thing to pass Dexter Avenue Church [where King had preached while in Montgomery] and go toward the capitol marching together. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cachef89RRY53C0J:www.watson.org/~lisa/blackhistory/civilrights-55-65/selma.html+catholic+priests+march+for+civil+rights&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Dorothy Day & the Catholic Worker Movement: In houses of hospitality for the homeless a lay spiritual community, practices poverty, studies & engages in nonviolent action for justice & peace .[/FONT]

Left: Dorothy Day faces off with police at a United Farmworker picket line, Lamont, CA 1973. Right: Dorothy walking with cat at Catholic Worker Tivoli Farm, in New York, 1968.

​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Roman Catholic priests Frs. Dan & Phil Berrigan: Viet Nam anti-war activist members of the "Catonsville 9" who removed & burned draft files from a Catonsville, MD Selective Service office.[/FONT]

Left: Dan in Handcuffs flipping peace fingers, 1970. Right: Phil hugging Dan in underground hideaway while on the run from the FBI, 1970.​

http://www.bobfitchphoto.com/

​

Long before the historic march and the violent confrontation at the Edmund Pettus Bridge, Ouellet and his Catholic mission of mostly white priests and nuns had been working directly with those suffering the worst effects of a segregated Selma.
iReport: Share your memories, photos from the civil rights movement


The Society of Saint Edmund had come to Selma in 1937 to set up its mission. Ouellet joined in 1952. The Edmundites faced intimidation from local officials and constant death threats from the white community as well as the Ku Klux Klan.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/03/07/selma.march.anniversary/index.html


I could go on and on. I haven't touched on Africa or Asia or latin America and the Catholic movements there. Catholics and the church give more charity than any other church on earth.



But, we don't have a gay rights debate. Look up the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc, and gay rights, gay marriage. You will see they are all debating the issue. We are not.

​

 

[Nova]

...But, we don't have a gay rights debate. Look up the Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc, and gay rights, gay marriage. You will see they are all debating the issue. We are not.

And shame on you for that.

(I assume it's obvious I don't mean "you" personally, gitana.)

The Catholic church has no "debate on gay rights" because it has a totalitarian hierarchy which successfully silences dissent. That's a fact, not an attempt at a slur. If one is a true believer, then the totalitarian hierarchy is a good thing, the human representative of an authoritarian (though merciful) God. The Roman Catholic Church does not pretend to be a democracy.

But in fact, we know there are thousands of gay priests, and thousands more who simply and privately ignore the Church's position on the subject. They can't hold gay weddings in a Catholic church, but they leave the matter to the individual's conscience and do not demand that homosexual behavior be confessed. (I know this because I've asked and been told this by more than one priest.)

There are even parishes in large American cities that are quite famous for their predominantly gay congregations. And of course there is Dignity, hundreds of groups of brave gay Catholics who have been meeting for decades to support one another, try to reconcile their knowledge of the truth with their love for the Church, and to better inform Catholics everywhere that homosexual love is not incompatible with forms of love that Christians celebrate. FWIW, Dignity groups are denied use of church facilities, but are often (including in my home town) given space at the nearest Episcopal Church.

***

Thanks for the cites above, gitana.

While Pope Pius remains a controversial figure (that would really require its own thread and I don't know enough to have an opinion), there is no question that thousands, maybe even the majority, of Catholic priests see their missions as fighting for social justice as well as saving souls. Their historical record is indeed inspiring.

I'm sure it's not what you meant to imply, but one might conclude from your post that Catholic priests have been active in every area of civil rights EXCEPT gay rights. That is not true. Current and former priests have been key figures in the struggle for gay equality. It can be difficult for an active priest, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the fight.

 

[Nova]

On the note of these mommies child being denied into this particular school. In general when one wishes to become a member of or participate in any type of organization it is a requirement the person wishing to join seek to and agree to the beliefs and principles of such. The whole, how dare you deny me even though I blatently disagree with and refuse to adhere to your principals is a load of caca. You do or you don't whether you are black, white, purple, green, pink, orange, hetersexual or homosexual. If one does not wish to adhere to the principles and beliefs of any organization whether it be religious or anything else why slap the I'm being discriminated against label onto it? We all have choices, there will be sacrifices made and opportunities unavailable to us based on our choices- heterosexual, homosexual, married or single. Make the adjustments for yourself, don't demand others make adjustments to accomodate you. Make the choices that best suit your needs and beliefs. If you can't find choices of your liking adjust your needs.

for example I am a single stay at home mom. Therefore I am not going to have a 6 figure income. I don't gripe cry or complain about it, I adjusted my needs. If it was of greater importance to me to have a 6 figure income I would make different choices. I also have the CHOICE to be in a relationship as do these mothers. I choose not to at the moment because my time with my child is more important. There will be plenty of time for a relationship -with whomever I choose- when he is grown. It is all about choices and I will be damned if I expect every one of them should be available to me. As a parent, some are not and it is not because I am being discriminated against, it is because of the choices I freely made for myself.

jmo

In the first place, Cubby, being heterosexual or homosexual is not a choice, no more than race or gender or physical disability. So it's hardly fair to say on these bases, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

Being in a relationship is a choice, of course, but it is one our entire society has decided is a good choice for most people, for their well-being and for the stability of society as a whole. We support coupling in almost every possible social, financial and political way, from rom-com propaganda to tax breaks.

Gay people are just saying that our pairings provide the same benefits (for us, for our children, for the neighborhood and for all of society) as anyone else's and should be recognized in the same, legal way.

(Just to be perfectly clear: I am NOT saying everyone has to be paired up or be considered some sort of failure. People who want to be single should be single and shouldn't be stigmatized for it. Certainly, single parents who decide remaining single is best for their children deserve our praise, just as single parents who successfully integrate a new partner into the household.)

In the second place, protesting discrimination is the only way to begin to end it. And it isn't always possible to simply "go somewhere else" where one is wanted. A lesbian who wants to serve her country can't just go join the "special gay army."

In the case that is the subject of this thread, the controversy and ensuing publicity inspired the unified Episcopal schools to issue a statement saying in no uncertain terms that they do not and will not discriminate on such a basis. That alone justifies the efforts on the part of the mothers.

(I appreciate your concern for the child and you know I agree that children take precedence over abstract concepts. But the child is 4 and modern media cycles are very short. I doubt the child's classmates will be googling her any time soon, but if they do, it's quite possible they won't even care. Most of the younger generation is baffled as to why any of this "gay rights stuff" is even an issue. And in any event, sooner or later, the kid is going to have friends who figure out that "Heather Has Two Mommies." A few may be nasty about it, most won't care, and some will learn something important.)

 

[gitana1]

And shame on you for that.

(I assume it's obvious I don't mean "you" personally, gitana.)

The Catholic church has no "debate on gay rights" because it has a totalitarian hierarchy which successfully silences dissent. That's a fact, not an attempt at a slur. If one is a true believer, then the totalitarian hierarchy is a good thing, the human representative of an authoritarian (though merciful) God. The Roman Catholic Church does not pretend to be a democracy.

But in fact, we know there are thousands of gay priests, and thousands more who simply and privately ignore the Church's position on the subject. They can't hold gay weddings in a Catholic church, but they leave the matter to the individual's conscience and do not demand that homosexual behavior be confessed. (I know this because I've asked and been told this by more than one priest.)

There are even parishes in large American cities that are quite famous for their predominantly gay congregations. And of course there is Dignity, hundreds of groups of brave gay Catholics who have been meeting for decades to support one another, try to reconcile their knowledge of the truth with their love for the Church, and to better inform Catholics everywhere that homosexual love is not incompatible with forms of love that Christians celebrate. FWIW, Dignity groups are denied use of church facilities, but are often (including in my home town) given space at the nearest Episcopal Church.

***

Thanks for the cites above, gitana.

While Pope Pius remains a controversial figure (that would really require its own thread and I don't know enough to have an opinion), there is no question that thousands, maybe even the majority, of Catholic priests see their missions as fighting for social justice as well as saving souls. Their historical record is indeed inspiring.

I'm sure it's not what you meant to imply, but one might conclude from your post that Catholic priests have been active in every area of civil rights EXCEPT gay rights. That is not true. Current and former priests have been key figures in the struggle for gay equality. It can be difficult for an active priest, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean they aren't contributing to the fight.

Thanks so much Nova! I do know that many Catholics are fighting for gay rights and acceptance in the church. What burns me is that the hierarchy does not even allow honest debate.
BTW, most Catholics I know, including nuns, do not believe that everything that comes from the hierarchy is necessarily from God. Popes are human beings and so there must be room for mistakes when it comes to matters of divine inspiration. I also know that many of us Catholics believe politics are behind certain hierarchical edicts, and thus how the word of God is translated may be affected by those politics. True believers can and do understand this. That is why we wait with baited breath when the smoke comes out of the Vatican prior to the announcement of who the next Pope will be. We know good and well that who that will be will affect church policy for years to come.
I frankly believe that because much of our population comes from the third world and may be more black and white and traditional or less educated in their thinking, the Church is loathe to lose those members by implementing change in policies surrounding issues like sexuality, etc. The Evangelicals, Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons have been converting millions of former Catholics and that is a great loss to us. With their more conservative views and fundamentalist thinking in certain areas, those religions may appeal more to certain populations if the Church changes too fast. Former Catholics who have been converted seem more attracted to the charismatic nature of the Evangelical Christian movement and the notion of not having to strive hard to be a good person to be saved, in addition to faith in Christ, but to only have a personal relationship with Christ that can be exclusive of others around the person. So if there is to be change in this, the largest Christian church in the world, it must be incremental and very gradual, IMO.
However, for those of us who strive for human and civil rights for all and who are appalled that discrimination against gay people is still so widely accepted and even condoned around the world by governments and religions alike, more so than with any other minority group, change cannot come fast enough. In fact, the Church must beware that loss of traditional-minded members is not the only loss it's facing - those of us who are progressive and stand for civil rights for all, are either leaving the church in great numbers or becoming non-practicing Catholics.
I will not be one of those, however. I still believe that the message of love and constantly giving to and helping others as a part of one's relationship with Christ, remains the beautiful core of our Church. Like I said, I have been to other churches and do not hear the same message which repeatedly asks what we are doing for others and how we are working to be better people. I want to work within the church to enable it to realize that part of that message is fighting for the rights of all people, not sanctioning the discrimination of some. If everyone worked within their churches, Catholic (or Anglican like in this story), or any of the thousands of denominations, true Christianity would begin to flourish and the blot on our reputations would begin to wane.
What has happened to this little family is shameful and the fact that it is legal and possible does not make it the right thing to do. It definitely is not the Christian thing to do, IMO.

 

[gitana1]

In the first place, Cubby, being heterosexual or homosexual is not a choice, no more than race or gender or physical disability. So it's hardly fair to say on these bases, "You made your bed, now lie in it."

Being in a relationship is a choice, of course, but it is one our entire society has decided is a good choice for most people, for their well-being and for the stability of society as a whole. We support coupling in almost every possible social, financial and political way, from rom-com propaganda to tax breaks.

Gay people are just saying that our pairings provide the same benefits (for us, for our children, for the neighborhood and for all of society) as anyone else's and should be recognized in the same, legal way.

(Just to be perfectly clear: I am NOT saying everyone has to be paired up or be considered some sort of failure. People who want to be single should be single and shouldn't be stigmatized for it. Certainly, single parents who decide remaining single is best for their children deserve our praise, just as single parents who successfully integrate a new partner into the household.)

In the second place, protesting discrimination is the only way to begin to end it. And it isn't always possible to simply "go somewhere else" where one is wanted. A lesbian who wants to serve her country can't just go join the "special gay army."

In the case that is the subject of this thread, the controversy and ensuing publicity inspired the unified Episcopal schools to issue a statement saying in no uncertain terms that they do not and will not discriminate on such a basis. That alone justifies the efforts on the part of the mothers.

(I appreciate your concern for the child and you know I agree that children take precedence over abstract concepts. But the child is 4 and modern media cycles are very short. I doubt the child's classmates will be googling her any time soon, but if they do, it's quite possible they won't even care. Most of the younger generation is baffled as to why any of this "gay rights stuff" is even an issue. And in any event, sooner or later, the kid is going to have friends who figure out that "Heather Has Two Mommies." A few may be nasty about it, most won't care, and some will learn something important.)

Beautiful stated, Nova. We cannot accept discrimination from any quarter simply because we can or should go elsewhere where our beliefs will be accepted. Most Blacks in the south during the civil rights era could not simply up and move in order to find a society that shared their beliefs of non-discrimination, for example. The Mormon church did not allow Blacks to be ordained until 1978. If people who were against that policy simply went elsewhere where such discrimination did not occur, it would never have been changed. Discrimination, wherever it stems from should be fought instead of simply viewed as part of a philosophy to which some do not agree and some do. It's plain wrong. Period.

 

[Nova]

Great posts, Gitana. As you can probably tell, though my background is Evangelism, I love many things about the Catholic church.

Now if only it would change it's stances on women, birth control and gays! Not a very "catholic" thought, I realize. LOL.

But I'm very much the opposite of those who are leaving for evangelist churches. Been there, done that. I prefer the rituals, architecture and, yes, history of working for social justice of the Catholic church.

And let's face it, based in scripture or no, the dogma is always interesting and often very beautiful.