Boston cardinal: Catholic schools open to all
Boston Cardinal Sean O'Malley on Wednesday defended a priest who denied admission to a parish school to a gay couple's child, calling it a pastoral decision and saying the priest had his "full confidence and support," the Associated Press reports.
O'Malley's comments on his blog were his first public remarks about the decision earlier this month by St. Paul Elementary School in Hingham to rescind the boy's acceptance because his parents are lesbians.
A parent of the boy said the Rev. James Rafferty, the parish priest at St. Paul's, said her relationship was "in discord" with church teachings, which sees marriage as only between a man and a woman. She said the principal told her teachers wouldn't be prepared to handle the boy's questions when he realized the church's view of family conflicted with what he saw at home. The parent spoke to The Associated Press but asked not to be named to protect the welfare of the child.
The decision prompted calls for O'Malley to intervene. The Catholic Schools Foundation, which O'Malley chairs, said the decision was at odds with Gospel teaching, and it wouldn't fund schools that made similar decisions.
The archdiocese's head of education later called the parent, apologized and offered to help the 8-year-old enroll in another Catholic school.
O'Malley said Rafferty had come under "undue criticism" for the decision.
"He made a decision about the admission of the child to St. Paul School based on his pastoral concern for the child," O'Malley wrote. "I can attest personally that Father Rafferty would never exclude a child to sanction the child's parents."
The archdiocese said it is creating a policy to clarify its schools don't bar children with same-sex parents.
"It is true that we welcome people from all walks of life," O'Malley wrote. "But we recognize that, regardless of the circumstances involved, we maintain our responsibility to teach the truths of our faith, including those concerning sexual morality and marriage."
O'Malley began his post with a recollection about meeting the young daughter of a murdered woman who had run a brothel while he was bishop in the West Indies. He said the woman's daughter had left public school because she was being badly taunted, and he immediately directed that the girl be admitted to the local Catholic school.
"Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that," he wrote. "We have never had categories of people who were excluded."
The Hingham case was similar to a situation in Boulder, Colo., in which a Catholic school said two children of lesbian parents could not re-enroll because of their parents' sexual orientation, and the Denver Archdiocese backed the decision.
"It is clear that all of their school policies (in Denver) are intended to foster the welfare of the children and fidelity to the mission of the Church," O'Malley wrote. "Their positions and rationale must be seriously considered."
Comments
Here is a what a Catholic journalist-editor is saying about this:
"But the Rev. James Martin — a Jesuit priest and culture editor of America magazine, a national Catholic weekly — said the cardinal’s statement is a diplomatic effort to convey an understanding of the “complexities of the human condition’’ and compassion for the family involved, without offending other church leaders.
“Like a good Christian, he is trying to respect the decisions of the Archdiocese of Denver, and, like a good bishop, he is supporting his priest,’’ Martin said. “At the same time, he is also trying to support the parents and the child as far as he can.’’
Well a big duh! to the fact that leaders in general cannot act on limited personal viewpoints, and must try to balance competing forces. Really, does this priest think that there is one reasonable person who does not understand this.
The only problem is that is not what happened in this case. The Roman Church does not say: No Children of Lesbians in Our Schools. Why you might ask? Because they want to appear to fit in with the reasonable people in this society. If they actually announced what their moral views meant vis-a-vis children it would be a PR disaster. Look at Joe Tyson in Seattle machinating to keep gay kids from having the right to a school club like all others. And clearly the Cardinal's sop that all this was in the best interest of the child is hilarious. But I think they would be happy if people just wore themselves out anatomizing that incongruity. What is more ticklish for them is laying bare the simple truth. As a Church they have moved increasingly in a reactionary direction and they don't like anyone actually identifying it simply as such.
The proof of this, was even admitted amazingly by the Cardinal himself in his defense of the priest. He said the priest based his decision on the fact that he could not vouch for the ability of the teachers to handle questions from the child potentially about this issue. This can only mean, that the priest is admitting a level of basic incompetence that is disqualifying for anyone dealing with a child. I went to Catholic highschool with Jewish kids. They attended Archbishop Curley Highschool because it was right across the street from Bay Point, a fancy neighborhood where a number of Jewish families lived. (I guess proximity trumped religious difference) These Jewish kids were NOT exempted from Theology class. Did anyone doubt the ability of the teacher to NOT offend the sensibilities of these kids in their study of a different faith. So, comparably, what the priest Rafferty was saying, and the Cardinal defending, is that they are now employing such reactionary types in Catholic schools, and Rafferty has made an especial effort to get them for his parish school, that they cannot be trusted to have the simplest, humane decency towards an innocent child. Gross.
Posted by: Peter Fuchs | May 20, 2010 11:41 AM
I see it as a simple issue. Of course the child should be allowed in the school, just as he and his parents should be allowed in the church. Thats what churches are for. What shouldnt be allowed is bending one's beliefs and God's word for political correctness. This child and his "parents" should be told the same thing at any Christian church, that the bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong and that we shouldnt stand too close to Barbara Mikulski when she leaves here unless we have a flame retardant suit on. In addition, homosexuals are not going to dictate church or church school policy. Last but not least, we shouldnt be afraid to make this clear when we make statements to the press about accepting this child into the school.
Posted by: Clay | May 20, 2010 12:17 PM
The Cardinal is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He was much better off if he had left it with the simple comment that Boston's Catholic schools would be open to all.
He is getting close to where he needs to be morally. But it seems he is giving unnecessary deference to the pastor who will not allow the child to attend St. Paul School in Hingham as well as for the bigoted practices at the Archdiocese of Denver. I think he needs to stop standing on both sides of the fence. He isn't tall enough to take that stand without getting hurt.
For those of us in the LGBT world his comments of welcoming people from all walks of life are a step in the right direction, but hardly revolutionary. But in Boston the extreme right of the church think that his polite comments deplorable.
You might want to read the comments that some have made on his blog.
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | May 20, 2010 12:19 PM
Oh, I forgot, here is his blog:
http://www.cardinalseansblog.org/
Posted by: Dana LaRocca | May 20, 2010 12:20 PM
Dana - I have to agree I don't see how you can make the statement that "the decision was at odds with Gospel teaching, and it wouldn't fund schools that made similar decisions", and at the same time defend the actions of Rev. Rafferty.
Clay - I don't think anyone asked Rev Rafferty or anyone else to deviate from anything.
Posted by: ravensfan | May 20, 2010 1:30 PM