Gay couple's sons anger Catholic parents

AP ^ | 02 January 2005

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I would, on the other hand, have a MAJOR problem if the school tried to teach that it was "just another lifestyle choice equal in merit to any other lifestyle choice." but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

Perhaps not yet.

Check back on Thursday.

[HenryLeeII]

Some parents and parishioners have accused the Roman Catholic diocese in Orange County of violating church doctrine by allowing a gay couple to enroll their children in a church school.

This is a tough call. The child hasn't done anything wrong, and may benefit from hearing the Catholic Church's viewpoint on homosexuality, which he/she certainly won't get at home or in a public school. But, will allowing him in then serve as an entrance for the parents to scream to the state or ACLU about homophobia or intolerance as soon as a teacher brings it up? Also, I can see the other parents' view that allowing the child in is seen as a tacit approval of the lifestyle; but I can't understand why two homosexuals would choose to send "their" child to a Catholic school (or any denomination other than Anglican/Episcopalian). As usual, a child will be caught in the middle of adults' problems.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Do you mean that you prefer the children of public sinners to receive a public education instead of receiving a religiously-based education?

These are some of the problems created by homosexual adoption. At its core, it is blasphemous, cruel and abusive.

IMO all schools should be private and non-religious. The moral upbringing of children is the responsibility of parents and the church community to provide.

I greatly appreciate Catholics' strong stand against abortion and homosexual "marriage." But I think parochial schools can create more problems than benefits.

IMO you don't find "angry" Protestants or Jews; just indifferent ones. But there's an enormous amount of "angry" Catholics who've been reared in parochial schools.

Opening Catholic school doors to homosexual parents in one more reason for parents to be wary and vigilant, wherever their children are taught.

[BikerNYC]

So you think, in this case, visiting the sins of the parents upon the children is appropriate?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

So you think, in this case, visiting the sins of the parents upon the children is appropriate?

I think there would be less damage done by sending the two boys to public school than by opening the doors of the Catholic school to homosexual parents.

Again, these are only some of the many problems that will follow this decision.

And I do not believe people are so naive as to not realize this. There are some in Catholic schools and churches, as well as in public schools and Presbyterian churches and on every street corner in America who want these problems shoved in your face, my face and our children's faces.

All homosexual adoption is child abuse. And the gay agenda is bolder than many can even imagine.

In public schools today, eight-year-olds learn how to put condoms on bananas. My advice to all parochial school parents -- hide the fruit.

[DTogo]

I do, and am still "ditto-ing" Owl_Eagle. I think this opens an opportunity to discuss homosexuality with a goal of encouraging people out of a sinful lifestyle, rather than closing the door on your fellow man's potential for redemption/salvation. If the parents try to bring a pro-gay "agenda" to the school, then the school shouldn't enroll the children (which would be very unfortunate).

As for homosexual adoption, I don't think one's sexuality should be the primary criteria, but rather a loving and stable household for the child. There are plenty of heterosexuals who live in sin and mistreat/abuse the children they have and/or adopt.

[End Times Sentinel]

As for homosexual adoption, I don't think one's sexuality should be the primary criteria, but rather a loving and stable household for the child.

Thanks for your concurrence on the first point!  I do have a different view on this point though, at the current moment, there's such a long waiting list for children to adopt (parents lining up for the chance to adopt).  As long as this is the case, I'd show a strong preference for stable, married, heterosexual couples.  Once we get to the point where we're desperate for parents, I would consider the conversation, but that seems a long ways off. 

[Note:  I'm not sure of the case with children in foster homes etc., just basing it on the experiences of a family member who's been desperately trying to adopt for going on 2 years now.]

Owl_Eagle

"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in.  I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"

-Hillary Clinton

(Yes, she really said that

Peggy Noonan

The Case Against Hillary Clinton, pg 55)

[DTogo]

Again, I agree with you in that I would also give adoption preference to loving, stable, hetero households. I was simply referring to a flat-out adoption denial to loving, stable, homo households, which I would consider to be wrong. Some may call it discrimination or treating homos as "second-class citizens," but I say adoption also requires moral considerations, based on Judeo-Christian principles of our country. Mixing Church and State? I don't think so, just using common sense.

[End Times Sentinel]

I agree with that.  I'd like to see more study and data (serious study and data) on children who grow up in a homo household rather than one with a mother and a father before we give in to the egalitarians.  Personally, I think it's important for there to be a mother and father in the home.

Owl_Eagle

"You know, I'm going to start thanking
the woman who cleans the restroom in
the building I work in.  I'm going to start
thinking of her as a human being"

-Hillary Clinton

(Yes, she really said that

Peggy Noonan

The Case Against Hillary Clinton, pg 55)

[DTogo]

I agree, a home with a mom and dad best, having grown up in a very Cleaver-esque home myself. I'd just hate to see any child suffer in foster care or with a bad hetero family, having been denied the chance to live in a potentially good home simply because the "parents" were gay.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

As for homosexual adoption, I don't think one's sexuality should be the primary criteria, but rather a loving and stable household for the child.

And therein lies the deception.

"Let not him that is deceived trust in vanity: for vanity shall be his recompence." -- Job 15:31.

[sassbox]

I wonder just how Catholic this school is if it appealed to a homosexual couple. If the school were teaching sound doctrine, as few Catholic schools actually do, then I have a hard time seeing why it would appeal to a homo couple. Why would they send their "child" there only to be told daddy and daddy are living in sin? I would bet anything the school teaches watered down Catholicism, like the "catholic" schools I went to.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

IMO all homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Most remember it; some repress it. But sexual abuse is the starting point for all homosexuality and prevents the child from making the healthy transition from same-sex attraction in childhood through adolescence into opposite-attraction in adulthood.

Add to this turmoil equal measures of fear, anxiety, guilt, remorse, pleasure, pain and it becomes a massive psychological problem.

The resulting homosexual adult is extremely contrary, due in great part to their unhappy and frustrating sexual confusion.

They want what they don't want; they have what they don't have. This malfunction of the normal maturation process into healthy adulthood causes endless conflict. They define themselves by the negative.

All homosexual adoption is child abuse. Nothing good will come from it.

[amihow]

It may seem cruel and it may seem visiting the sins of the parents, but in fact it may be much more loving than looking the other way.

First of all, they are not parents. Two people of the same sex cannot be husband and wife. Only a man a woman can be parents. To early on tell the innocent children in no uncertain terms that the homosexual relationship is psychologically, spiritually and physically disordered and sinful may interrupt the automatic modeling that occurs in all social situations, saving those children from a life of confusion etc.

It also sends a message to the homosexuals that they are harming those children by their homosexual behaviors. It may be a solution to tell the men that the only way the children can be enrolled in the school is if they publicly denounce homosexuality as intrinsically disordered and the acts and lifestyle and sinful and vow to live as "friends" each of them behaving as men, not one as a frontman.

It is truly child abuse to put kids in that situation and complicity to look the other way, even with the good intention of trying to mitigate problems by so doing. Remember the bishops looked the other way in the name of not causing scandal or thinking that it was charitable to lay low and let virtue grow. They never gave a thought to the absolute rape of the innocent, which is what the people in this situation are also guilty of.

I hate to say this, but I will bet you do not have kids. I do. Many and many grandkids and have had to think this stuff through and shudder when I put myself into that scenario with any of mine.

I have learned over the years that God loves truth and justice even when it is difficult. Those kids and the men deserve the truth.

[Conservative til I die]

Not sure I agree with the concerned parents here, though I can appreciate their opinion. Where do you draw the line? The article touches on it, but what about kids with pro-abortion parents, or kids born out of wedlock, or with parents who believe that priests should be married or that women should be priests? What about a kid with one orthodox Catholic parent, and an atheist or heterodox Catholic for the other? Do you punish the kid for the sins of the parent(s)?

[Conservative til I die]

but I can't understand why two homosexuals would choose to send "their" child to a Catholic school (or any denomination other than Anglican/Episcopalian).

Just another episode in their ongoing destructive and self-destructive lives?

[saradippity]

The problem is that in order to explain Catholic faith and morals it would be necessary to teach that homosexuality is a grave disorder and that the behavior is sinful and unacceptable. Learning that their parents are living in a manner that is considered contrary to natural law and scripture could be very traumatic to the children.

If these men love their children,it would seem they would want their children to attend public schools or charter schools that were neutral or accepting of alternate life styles. Good parents want their children protected from hearing things that might upset them. Just as Solomon knew who the real mother of the baby was when he said he would cut the baby in half and give each mother their half, it should be clear to any reasonable,caring person that these 'parents' have little concern about tearing their boys in half.

The principal is placing the souls of the children and the parents in jeopardy by not using this apparent dilemma as an oppurtunity to show them that you cannot defy both God and nature and expect there will be no consequences. There are consequences and better they think about them now and pay the penalties in this world,rather than when it's too late and the penalty may be in the next world.

You may not agree with what I have said but it is Catholic teaching and reflects the mind of the Church. The beauty of this country is that if you don't believe what a religion teaches,you don't have to join it. They should find a group that approves of their life style and support it,I think there are a lot of places where they could be comfortable as would their boys.

[connectthedots]

If the school makes it clear that it will teach that homosexuality is a sin, I would not have a problem with it.

[BikerNYC]

You may not agree with what I have said but it is Catholic teaching and reflects the mind of the Church.

Well, it doesn't reflect the minds of church leaders who are running that school. They are letting the kids in.

But your analysis could also apply to parents who have been divorced and married again. The are committing adultery and the children who may know that mom or dad have a new husband would be taught that a parent was living a "sinful and unacceptable" lifestyle. Are those kids traumatized when they learn in church that a parent is acting in such a sinful way?

But, it's a private school and they should be permitted to deny enrollment to whomever they want.

[saradippity]

You have pointed out several of the problems in this case as well as in the Catholic Church, To wit;Well,it doesn't reflect the minds of church leaders who are running that school. They are letting the kids in.

The fact that the head of the diocesan school system made the statement he did is tragic. I am referring to his statement about having to reject children whose parents were divorced,using birth control and more blah,blah,blah.

It demonstrates that he is sorely lacking in intelligence or holiness,probably both. Clearly he does not know the difference between public and private,nor does he understand the meaning of nature and contrary to nature.