Sean Cardinal O'Malley, the archbishop of Boston, has now weighed in, at length, on the case of the same-sex couple in Hingham, Mass., whose child was prevented from attending a local Catholic parochial school there, and which I blogged about here. Characteristically, Cardinal O'Malley takes care to respect the offices of Charles Chaput, the archbishop of Denver, who addressed the situation in his diocese differently, to praise the priest in Hingham, whom he calls "one of our finest pastors," and to support the beleaguered couple. But then he weights in firmly on the side of the "good of the children."
Catholic schools exist for the good of the children and our admission standards must reflect that. We have never had categories of people who were excluded. We have often given preference to children from a parish where a school is located, siblings of children already enrolled at the school or Catholic children from nearby parishes. Sometimes we might not be able to accept children, because of behavioral problems or other circumstances that would be disruptive to a school community. While there are legitimate reasons that might lead to a decision not to admit a child, I believe all would agree that the good of the child must always be our primary concern.
As you might know, St. Paul School in Hingham has been at the center of a matter that was widely reported on recently, involving a child of same sex parents who wanted their child to attend the school. One of the very unfortunate results of the public reporting on the issue was undue criticism of Father James Rafferty who is pastor at St. Paul Parish, and who I consider one of our finest pastors. He made a decision about the admission of the child to St. Paul School based on his pastoral concern for the child. I can attest personally that Father Rafferty would never exclude a child to sanction the child’s parents. After consulting with the school principal, exercising his rights as pastor, he made a decision based on an assessment of what he felt would be in the best interest of the child. I have great admiration for Fr. Rafferty; he has my full confidence and support.
In Boston we are beginning to formulate policies and practices to deal with these complex pastoral matters. In all of our decision making, our first concern is the welfare of the children involved. With that in mind, the essence of what we are looking at is the question of how do we make Catholic schools available to children who come from diverse, often unconventional households, while ensuring the moral theology and teachings of the Church are not compromised? It is true that we welcome people from all walks of life. 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. We need to present the Church’s teachings courageously and yet in a way that is compassionate and persuasive.
The rest of his post, in which he leads with a personal story, is here. These are hard decisions, and I believe that Cardinal Sean, as his many in Boston call him, continues to make wise, compassionate and pastoral decisions on this matter.
James Martin, SJ
While he seems to praise the way that the Archdiocese of Boston has handled this situation in comparison to the Archdiocese of Denver, both archdioceses have basically solved their “problem” in the very same way.
In the case of Denver, the pastor said that the children of a lesbian couple could enroll their child in the parish’s CCD program. The children’s parents’ relationship was contrary to the church’s position on homosexual unions, and, therefore, their children could not attend the Catholic school. However, the children would be allowed to enroll in the CCD program. Apparently, and I say this with sarcasm, the lesbian relationship prohibits the children from attending the Catholic school, but doesn’t preclude these children from attending the CCD program. Two questions: is the same dogma, teachings of the church, taught in the Catholic school and the CCD program? Secondly, is the pastor of the Denver parish and the Archdiocese of Denver implying that the CCD program is less than the Catholic school?
This same contradiction is evident in the Archdiocese of Boston’s approach. Fr. Martin praises the Archdiocese of Boston’s solution. The child cannot attend St. Paul School in Hingham, but as the superintendent of schools says,” Earlier today I contacted the student’s parent and expressed my concern for the welfare of her child. I offered to help enroll her child in another Catholic school in the Archdiocese.” Like the CCD program in Denver, apparently, another parish school is acceptable. I fail to see the logic in Denver’s or Boston’s solutions to this “problem.”
The problem is that pastors and principals of Catholic schools have to make a “statement” at the expense of innocent children. As a retired Catholic school principal, I can attest that many Catholic parents send their children to a Catholic school for the wrong reasons: discipline, academic excellence, caring and competent teachers. Unfortunately, some, not all by any means, forget about the Catholic in Catholic schools.
According to the superintendent in Boston, “The Archdiocese does not prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools. We will work in the coming weeks to develop a policy to eliminate any misunderstandings in the future.” Well, if the archdiocese doesn’t prohibit children of same sex parents from attending Catholic schools, why is it necessary to develop a policy to clear up misunderstandings in the future?
Why can’t Cardinal O’Malley and others stop dancing around issues and come down on what is right and Catholic? Who sinned: the man or his parents? Neither. He was born blind so that the “works of God might be displayed in him.” Stop quoting scripture, Father Martin, unless you are willing to accept what God is teaching. It’s time for the church to return to Jesus whose wise and pastoral approach is evident except to those who are blind!
1. Local pastor bounces child living in household with two women in a sexual relationship - no word on whether they're married under Massachusetts law - from his Catholic school.
2. Rather than instructing his subordinate, the pastor, to accept the child in the school, Cardinal offers admission to any OTHER Catholic school in the archdiocese to the child.
3. Cardinal then offers ''full confidence and support'' to pastor who bounced the child, at the same time saying ''the good of the child must be always be our primary concern.''
This does not add up. How is it that the child can attend any school in the archdiocese - except the one where the pastor bounced him? Why not the previous school, which I'm guessing is the geographically closest one? Is the cardinal going to pay the student's new transportation costs? There is no consistent principle here. If the archdiocesan schools are open to this child, why not this one? Why not offer fraternal correction (or hierarchical service, as I heard it once described by a bishop) to the pastor? A looking-glass world.
And, who cares what one of the Republican bishops from another diocese thinks? Doesn't the cardinal outrank him?