Bill O'Reilly is quite right. "Something doesn't sit right here." There's a big chasm between the reasons offered by Sacred Heart of Jesus School for expelling the children of lesbian parents and the consistent application of those reasons to anyone other than homosexuals.
The Catholic school did not remove these children because they were homosexual, but because their parents were. The eager but nonpersuasive priest O'Reilly interviewed gave this woolly but absolute reason for the decision: "a religious institution [must be] able to preserve its identity on fundamental issues."
I certainly couldn't argue with that, nor could O'Reilly. But what is that supposed to mean?
And that's where O'Reilly zeroed in. What about divorced parents? Or adulterous ones? Is the archdiocese as zealous in preserving its identity on those fundamental issues as well?
I can speak to this from personal experience. My parents needed to use contraception for medical reasons after the birth of my younger sister, and were prohibited for many years from attending mass (they would drop my sister and I off at church and pick us up afterward; eventually they found a more understanding priest). My sister is divorced and remarried. I am gay.
My family, then, provides a trifecta of Catholic sins. Yet the church is not engaged in any active campaign to prohibit contraception or divorce; just same-sex marriage. I am not aware of any diocese that is prohibiting the children of divorced and remarried parents, or those who use contraception from enrolling their children in Catholic schools, and the priest here does not even attempt to engage O'Reilly on that issue - he simply reverts, again and again, to the general principle, which he wields to defend the church's fundamental identity as anti-gay but not anti-contraception or divorce.
I wondered whether the church had eased up on contraception and remarriage. Perhaps those are no longer "fundamental" parts of the church's identity. I've seen ads and signs for Catholics Come Home, which is calling ex-Catholics to return to the church, and went to their website.
Both divorce and contraception have their own specific pages, and if the church has changed its position on either since I was a member, you couldn't tell from this site. Divorce is still prohibited; however, it looks like the church may be a bit more generous these days in handing out annulments ("it's not scary") to pave the way for remarriages.
Contraception is still banned, though, as well as any infertility treatments. The page specifically says "these issues are a big deal." So where is the enforcement effort to maintain the church's fundamental identity on contraception? The U.S. Catholic Bishops, themselves, estimate that about 96% of married American Catholic couples use birth control.
The numbers speak for themselves. No rational institution is ever going to try and enforce a rule it knows 96% of its members violate. It's far easier to take a hard line against a group that is smaller - say 3-5%.
This is how the Catholic church has lost its credibility. Its survival takes precedence over its coherence. What moral principle is at stake in bullying a tiny minority when the sins of the majority are accepted in the normal course of business? O'Reilly wants to hold the church to a higher standard, to some level of consistency. But over and over, the Catholic church proves its anti-sexual posturing goes only as far as homosexuality.
Only heterosexual Catholics can call the church on its hypocrisy. The question is why would they? O'Reilly suggests they might do it out of principle. I applaud him on this. That would be a principle worth standing up for.
22 Comments for “Suffer the Children”
posted by Throbert McGee on
A question that occurs to me, but that might be not-very-obvious to people who weren’t raised Catholic: Would the school have expelled the lesbian couple’s children if the two moms were Jewish, or Protestant, or Buddhist, or agnostic, or anything other than self-identified Catholics?
(Catholic schools in the U.S. have a long history of accepting children from non-Catholic families — the kids are exempt from the mandatory Religious Ed classes, but otherwise get the same education that the Catholic kids do. And from the Catholic Church’s POV, a gay or lesbian couple that makes no “pretense” of being faithful Catholics is obviously less problematic than a couple that wants to have their gay identity and their Catholic identity too.)
posted by Bobby on
Bill O’reilly is a great man, I wish people would give him more credit, he is truly fair and balanced.
posted by Jorge on
When I was in Catholic school a good chunk of my classmates were from Protestant families. They all took the same religion class.
I can’t believe I missed that show. It’s a bizzare situation.
If 96% of married American Catholic couples use contraception, then I think the Church is starting from a position not much higher than zero in the first place. It’s ability to lead on any single issue is very weak. It can only really lead on issues people already share its view on.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I guess I should have been more clear: Non-Catholics who send their kids to Catholic schools can certainly choose to “opt-in” on the religion classes, and many do. I was once friends with a Jewish woman who had attended several years of Catholic school as a child because the local public school system was so awful — and her secular Jewish parents made her attend the religion classes while she was there, so that she’d get some Bible education!
posted by Bobby on
I don’t get the Catholic Church. On one hand they want to “save” people from secularism and teach them good Catholic values, on the other hand they expel children for the parents they have. Then again, why would gay parents send their kids to a Catholic School?
posted by jerry on
I think the child is the beneficiary of the school’s intolerance.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, I never knew that.
Then again, why would gay parents send their kids to a Catholic School?
Maybe they’re Catholic? Maybe I should ask my pro-choice parents why they considered it acceptable to send me to Catholic school.
posted by Jorge on
You know, that reminds me of a story that came out a couple of years ago in NYC. A school was punishing children of parents who had poor or no church attendance by barring them from some sort of activity or something. It didn’t go down very well, but they stuck to it.
posted by Craig2 on
Isn’t it also the case that the lesbian parents in this context have support from straight parents at this particular school, though?
You’re right about the double standard, although there are hardline Catholic rightists who want to close the door on contraception and divorce.
Down here, there are two Catholicisms.
One version is into peace and social
justice activism and there is a tiny
dying remnant of an anti-abortion
movement. Never the twain tend to meet.
Incidentally, what about Catholics for a Free Choice, for that matter? They support reproductive freedom and LGBT rights and have had out lesbian and gay Catholics on their Board of
Directors?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Bobby on
“Maybe they’re Catholic? Maybe I should ask my pro-choice parents why they considered it acceptable to send me to Catholic school.”
—According to whom? The Church doesn’t agree with “practicing homosexuals.” The Church argues that if you’re not willing to accept the entire theology, you’re not a good Catholic. I think Catholics who are liberal in social issues need to become Presbyterian or join the Free Catholic Church movement which is not affiliated with the Pope.
posted by BobN on
The Church doesn’t agree with “practicing homosexuals.”
It also doesn’t agree with practicing remarried people, yet their children are not excluded from Catholic schools. The parents are allowed, indeed encouraged, to participate in the school.
posted by Jorge on
According to whom? The Church doesn’t agree with “practicing homosexuals.” The Church argues that if you’re not willing to accept the entire theology, you’re not a good Catholic. I think Catholics who are liberal in social issues need to become Presbyterian or join the Free Catholic Church movement which is not affiliated with the Pope.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re wrong.
This is not a debatable point.
posted by Seane-Anna on
I would suggest the the RCC is taking a firm stand against homosexuals rather than, say, adulterers, because gays are the ones fighting to undermine the Church’s teaching and demonizing the Church as “intolerant” if it doesn’t endorse homosexuality. How can this Catholic school know that, some time in the future, those lesbian parents wouldn’t sue it for “discrimination” when the school taught their child that homosexuality is a sin? Isn’t that the way gays force institutions in society to affirm their lifestyle? Join an institution, e.g. the Boy Scouts, that has a moral objection to homosexuality then sue the institution for “discrimination” for having said moral objection. I think the school was just trying to protect itself from that tactic.
posted by BobN on
I’m going out on a limb here and assuming that Seane-Anna wasn’t around when divorce was legalized in the U.S.
As for the Boy Scouts, yes, how clever of those gay toddlers to know enough to join the Cub Scouts at the very first opportunity, knowing that fifteen years later they could sue to remain in the Scouts. Us gay folks are crafty, I tell you, crafty…
posted by Bobby on
“You’re entitled to your opinion, but you’re wrong.
This is not a debatable point.”
—I’m not wrong, the Church has a double standard when it comes to sin. They tolerate private sin and HATE public sin. So, a Catholic woman that has abortions and only tells her priest during confession, fine. But a catholic mother who comes to school wearing a pro-choice t-shirt, not fine.
The lesbians were not in the closet, they were not roommates, they where an openly gay couple. The school had to get rid of their kids so they would not undermine Catholic dogma. Get it? You can’t preach against homosexuality when little Bobby says “But teacher, I have two mommies.”
Fact is you may not like their decision, I don’t like their decision, but I respect the right of private organizations to discriminate in favor of their beliefs. And I would also ask gays to quit the church and not send their kids to school there.
posted by BobN on
You can’t preach against homosexuality when little Bobby says “But teacher, I have two mommies.”
Yeah, and you can’t preach against divorce and remarriage when little Sally say, “But teacher, I have a step dad and a step mom.”
posted by Bobby on
“Yeah, and you can’t preach against divorce and remarriage when little Sally say, “But teacher, I have a step dad and a step mom.””
—Divorce is an accepted sin, in fact, Catholics often ask for an annulment which is the Catholic way of dissolving a marriage. Oh, and divorce is a one time sin, which can be forgiven during confession.
Active homosexuality isn’t a one time sin. Look, I’m not defending the Catholic Church, I’m just trying to explain their logic. If you are an active member of the CC, you’re part of a homophobic institution. It doesn’t matter if an individual priest is gay friendly because everyone has to answer to the Pope in Rome. That’s the problem with centralized religions, protestants are lucky because if you don’t like one Baptist church there’s always another one you can find, and the worst thing that can happen is they lose their place at the National Council of Evangelicals or something like that.
posted by BobN on
Bobby, I don’t remember if you’re Catholic, but you’re not explaining the Church’s “logic” very well.
Divorce is most certainly NOT an accepted sin. An annulment IS NOT a divorce. A divorce IS NOT an annulment. If you get an annulment from the Church, you may seek a divorce from the state.
Divorce is a one-time sin, you’re right, but REMARRIAGE is an ongoing sin, just like a homosexual relationship. The state of being in a second marriage is actually WORSE theologically than being a homosexual. The latter is recognized as a state of being not up to the individual to change. A person in a sinful marriage, however, is in a position to end the state of sin and return to his REAL spouse.
As for the Pope in Rome, JPI, the pope who lasted only 30 days, when he was a Cardinal and Archbishop of Venice, called for legal recognition of gay couples and their inclusion in Italian society. How that man would have dealt with homosexuality as Pope will remain unknown, since he passed away before doing much, but it does show that the Church could be a very different organization. If I were a believer, I’d say the Holy Spirit is awfully fickle.
posted by Bobby on
“As for the Pope in Rome, JPI, the pope who lasted only 30 days, when he was a Cardinal and Archbishop of Venice, called for legal recognition of gay couples and their inclusion in Italian society”
—Do you have the name of that Pope? It sounds incredible that a Pope would respect gay couples.
Anyway, your arguments about marriage after divorce being a bigger sin are valid, HOWEVER, you need to remember that people don’t judge all sins alike. Look at the pro-abortion Kennedy’s, they are rarely if ever denied communion when they go to church even though the church states that any catholic politician who supports abortion is not a good catholic.
Either way, gays are second class people when they go to a Catholic Church, and that’s the reason they have to leave the church.
posted by BobN on
JPI = John Paul (the first)
Here’s a link to a brief overview. Note that it includes two perspectives on his attitudes toward sexual orientation. Several years ago, I read an interview in which, as Archbishop of Venice, he talked about legal recognition of same-sex couples in Italy (not necessarily civil unions and certainly not marriage) but something. I can’t find it by Googling, but I’m short of time this morning. Also, I might have read it in hardcopy… I don’t remember.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_theology_of_John_Paul_I
people don’t judge all sins alike
The Church views cohabitation with sexual activity outside of marriage to be equally “sinful” regardless of the gender of the “sinners”, at least theologically and morally.
Of course they judge them differently, because they’re bigots and hypocrites.
posted by Bobby on
Great link, BobN. What a fascinating man he was, I wonder if he got killed because of the views he had? Then again, why would he have been voted Pope in the first place?
“Of course they judge them differently, because they’re bigots and hypocrites.”
—That’s the point I was trying to make all along. The Church doesn’t treat gays fairly, if everyone is a sinner then we are second-class sinners in their eyes. Gays involved in the church are waisting their time, let me put it this way… If you hate American Airlines yet continue to fly with them, why would they change? If the Catholic Church wants to be anti-gay, fine, let them and let all gay Catholics leave the church.
posted by Steven D on
“My parents needed to use contraception for medical reasons after the birth of my younger sister, and were prohibited for many years from attending mass”
I’m curious: How did the priest know that your parents were using contraception?