What’s Wrong with the World

“The Catholic teachers at the Catholic preschool called me Isabella’s mother! What’s the matter with all the rest of you?”

This points out exactly what the pro-gay agenda wants from society at large: an explicit, public, universal, and obligatory assent that their choice is normal. The "what's the matter with all the rest of you" is an ad-hoc attack which assumes (without valid argument behind it, naturally) that the defect is on the part of those in society who will not cave in and give that assent. They are very good at manipulating the media and the system into put their case as "just us normal people just asking for our own normal civil rights", but they never, never ARGUE that their actual behavior is normal. They know darn well that when they argue this, they will always lose, because there is no argument to be made as soon as you ask the question "what ought we to mean by 'normal' "? So they put the burden on the other side and claim that the presumption ought to be their rights include this so-called "marriage" and all the concomitants of it.

A marriage amendment to the Constitution might be sufficient to deal with the problem, but nobody that I know thinks such an amendment is likely to be passed. Or even voted upon in Congress, which (as a body) wants nothing more than to let the states gradually succumb to the pressures and allow gay marriage, so that Congressmen don't ever have to take a public stand where it matters (leaving them free to talk out both sides of their mouths to various groups).

Lydia,

Excellent response! You wrote, "it is the Christian and Catholic position that the lesbian relationship is not even remotely like marriage" which is the core issue here, of course.

A husband and wife, one of whom has been divorced have, for all anyone knows to look at them, a true and valid marriage. It looks like a marriage and it acts like a marriage when children arrive. The, ahem, relationship two women have is not a marriage, can never be a marriage and doesn't even look like a marriage. It is play acting. In other words, it is pseudogamy.

I will take note (as I have elsewhere) that it is interesting this challenge is happening in Boulder and not Littleton.

Kamilla

At school programs and sports events, how do other parents speak to their own children of the lesbian couple?

Is this really the biggest objection you have? Really?

I have a gay cousin that has been known to bring his boyfriend to Christmas Eve at my grandmother's house. There is a similar situation on my wife's side of the family. More immediately, there are family members who have boyfriends or girlfriends living in sin together. Perhaps I'm just a novelty, but my children come across people living irregularly fairly frequently. Granted, they are quite incurious about the whole thing, so I'm not being asked questions. However, if they were, I'm not confounded as to how to address it: people make choices, including wrong ones.

None of this is to claim that a school shouldn't be free to exclude the children of gay households.

Perhaps I'm just a novelty, but my children come across people living irregularly fairly frequently.

This sounds to me like a variant of the classic "they are going to have sex anyway" argument.

M.Z., I don't know that Lydia identified any of her objections as her "biggest" objection, and my guess is that you characterized that one hypothetical situation as such because you think it's her weakest objection. You'd like to suggest that her whole case is frivolous, but it isn't.

It's obvious to me and anyone who reads the entirety of Lydia's post that her core objection is that it assaults the Church's capacity to maintain the Catholic character of the school, which is to say that it destroys its entire institutional raison detre. That's somewhat larger an issue than the small practical consideration you cited.

I don't view the irregularity as a good. There have been steps we've taken so as to minimize our children's exposure to irregularity. Some things, like not making friends with those in irregular circumstances, are easy. Still, being in the world means encountering irregular relationships.

I prefer to use the cliche, "If you are going to be in this world, you are going to see sin."

M.Z., you're also likely to encounter violence and depravity of every kind, but that's no reason to shrug and just accept that kids will see them at school. This seems terribly simple.

I think the argument picked out as Lydia's weakest is in itself strong enough to make the case for a Catholic school to refuse entry to children in the unfortunate situation of having same-sex "parents".

her core objection is that it assaults the Church's capacity

That's a conclusion following from premises. But whatever. As Zippy notes, it is unconscionable for children to go to school with children from gay households.

M.Z., as Sage notes, I didn't pick out something as my "biggest" objection. The example there is part and parcel of the whole thing. A heterosexual relationship is a _type_ of relationship that could in principle be legitimate. A lesbian relationship isn't. I entirely agree that having your children be friends with people who are living in sin heterosexually--especially when they are actually living together--is very awkward. I've found it so myself and deplore it. But one can hope that the people in question will get married and remove the embarrassment of the situation from their friends. With the lesbian couple there is _no way_ for that sexual relationship to be regularized and redeemed. It is metaphysically impossible that it should ever be a marriage. Yes, this does in my opinion present special challenges to parents with children in a school with other children who believe that they have homosexual "parents."

Let me add, too, that I believe children should not have to be aware of homosexuality at all and that it is an outrage that increasingly they do _eventually_ have to come to know something about it. But not at a young age. Nor is there (I know this will seem shocking) any real need even for adults to know in detail about lesbian and homosexual acts. Even a heterosexual relationship that is in fact sinful does not put "in your face" and in the face of your children the notion of a type of sexual activity which is in principle wrong and not to be thought of.

How would one distinguish the case of a child with divorced and "remarried" parents from that of a child with lesbian "parents?" Wouldn't very similar issues come up?

Catholics are not against divorce and remarriage, they believe that divorce and remarriage do not exist. The child's divorced and remarried parents are not a married couple, they are a shocking example of public adultery. And similar metaphysical barriers to those Dr McGrew cites w.r.t. homosexual relationships apply.

The birth control dissenters seem disanalogous to me since they are not public. If they were spokesmen for Planned Parenthood, then obviously their children should be excluded as well.

The resolution to this problem is to fail to admit the children of people currently creating scandal, not to fail to admit the children of sinners. Non-Catholics perhaps present a similar problem. What's odd is the limitation to children of homosexual "parents."

The lefty critique here is of the "you don't even believe your own bullshit" variety. And that particular species of critique is often spot on. I personally found that sort of argument a major stumbling block on my own journey up from atheism. The bullet should be bitten.

How would one distinguish the case of a child with divorced and "remarried" parents from that of a child with lesbian "parents?" Wouldn't very similar issues come up?

You didn't read my post? You didn't read my comments? I addressed that. Let me say it again: It is in principle metaphysically possible that the heterosexual couple could be validly married. (It's even my understanding that annulment tribunals _evaluate_ whether the former marriage was or was not null. They do not _create_ the nullity.) Moreover, by referring to the mother and stepfather as the mother and the stepfather, the teacher acknowledges a set-up that could (for all the teacher's terminology indicates) have arisen from widowhood. Referring to step-parents as parents does not acknowledge as a real marriage a type of situation that could not under any circumstances be a real marriage.

It would probably be a different matter if the divorced and remarried parents went around wearing T-shirts that said, "I'm really married for the second time and proud of it." Then they should be told to take off the T-shirts permanently or take their children out of the school. You don't find out the whole past history of a heterosexual couple (much less whether the former marriage was or was not valid!) just by looking at them and finding out that they consider themselves married. You do find out what type of couple the lesbian couple is just by looking at them and finding out that they are living together in a quasi-marital situation.

By the way, in case it hasn't occurred to you: Even non-married men and women can make babies. The mother's boyfriend actually could be the child's father in the most literal sense. It doesn't follow that one should admit children of couples living together without any benefit of marriage whatsoever. That would be a judgement call in its own right, and I can see where that could be scandalous in a special way. But calling the child's father the child's father is not in itself a cause of scandal.

Non-Catholics perhaps present a similar problem.

Meaning no Catholic school should admit the children of non-Catholic parents? Again, I fully support their right to do so and could even see how a particular school could argue for it. But it is folly and a failure to recognize the special evil of the homosexual agenda to pretend that such a limitation is just somehow a carrying out of the same principle involved in refusing to admit the children "of" homosexual "parents." There is nothing arbitrary about drawing the line there.

You didn't read my post? You didn't read my comments?

Every word. Someone who is already married can't become married. I get that you are claiming that the already married / not already married distinction is different somehow from the man and woman / woman and woman distinction. How? An already married person is not fit material to get married, like two women are not. The marriage between the two cannot happen. There are no circumstances in which the already married person can get married, like there are no circumstances in which the two women can get married.

The other distinction you are trying to draw is pretty strained. I agree that if we lived in a society where divorce and remarriage was such a taboo that couples systematically and effectively hid it, there could be a disanalogy on those grounds. But divorced and remarried people don't, in general, systematically hide this fact, so their status is public, at least presumptively.

Crossed paths with you before Ms. McGrew and was not impressed.
Remain the same but, with all of this I am much more contented with having left the Catholic Church for its being so in favor of adultery. I do not expect you to understand or even try.

You should become Catholic, you could do a lot of damage to the Catholic Church and perhaps bring it to its senses!

Bill, I'm wondering if maybe I, though a Protestant, am getting the Catholic teaching a bit better than you are, here: A former civil marriage between male A and female B could (in theory) have been metaphysically null, and a (civil) re-marriage between male A and female C could in principle represent a metaphysically valid marriage. Merely by knowing that male A is civilly divorced from female B and civilly remarried to female C, you do not therefore know that male A and female C are not metaphysically married. However, for any female A1 and A2, you know that they are not metaphysically married. Therefore, for a Catholic school teacher, to speak of male A and female C as married is not ipso facto and automatically to speak of two people who are not and never can be metaphysically married as if they are metaphysically married.

Moreover, even if male A and female C are not married, if Betsy is their biological child, they really are her parents. Hence, for the Catholic school teacher to call one of them "your mother" and the other one "your father" is to speak a biological and metaphysical truth. Whereas for the school teacher to speak of two lesbians as "your mother" and "your other mother" is always to speak a biological and metaphysical falsehood.

Bill,

You seem to be at odds with a person who appears to think adultery is a lesser sin and the same with unjustified divorce and remarriage and has not a clue what is going on in the Catholic Church and how much dirt there is under its cassocks and not just regarding the child abuse crisis.

She seems not understand that adultery is wide open and accepted, in spite of what the Catholic Church says, officially. People are encouraged to dump their spouses, to regularize their adultery through the coercive and brutally corrupted nullity process. They are encouraged to get pregnant in order to take advantage of the "brother and sister" accommodation to remain together in order to make more children and abuse confession to make it all "OK" and encouraged to destroy their abandoned spouses as much as they legally can, to drive them to an early death in order to be married in a "sacrament" in the Catholic Church, ultimately.

Thus, the Catholic Church is encouraging the murder of innocent spouses in its long term plans, in order to keep its collection plates humming! It knows it must come to some "understanding" in order to seek union with the Eastern Church, since the Easter Church already has it own, less legalistic but nevertheless, adultery loving and marriage murdering, method of blessing multiple non-sacramental "penitential" marriages, thus these "post-natal" abortions are OK as a "bridge" to the future "reconciliation" of these
"sister" Church.

It simply draws the line at the "pre-natal" abortions. Those who are born and old enough are expendable through this "canonical operation".

It is a scam, the Pope knows it, but he does not have either the guts or the wherewithal to do anything about it. He is not a King nor a Monarch, he is merely the first among equals. But he should expose what is going on for the whole world to so how corrupted the Catholic Church in America is.

I am speaking from experience. I am living what I accuse the Catholic Church of. The Pope knows this. Our nullity decision was, in the third instance, made by the Dean of the Roman Rota, who is now a Bishop and still Dean and Archbishop Raymond Burke knows this. Our marriage was found to be valid! They all know how corrupt the Church in America is but seem to look the other way, even in specific cases where the evidence is in their hands and has been for almost twenty years. They know of usurpation of RCIA, violated confessions....the whole disgusting charade, Rome knows and does nothing about! And they know I have been saying the same things for twenty years.

adultery is a lesser sin and the same with unjustified divorce and remarriage

Lesser than what? In any event, actually, this has nothing to do with what is or isn't a lesser sin but with whether the personnel of the Catholic school are pressured into saying things that in and of themselves appear to endorse and promote sin as not being sin. That is _of necessity_ the case with respect to homosexual couples where school personnel speak of both members of the couple as the children's "parents." It is not of necessity the case where school personnel speak of heterosexual couples as the children's parents. Indeed, they might _be_ the children's parents.

There are plenty of other examples of this same distinction in action. Suppose male A and female B are living together without benefit of marriage. Suppose that they have a ring and a wedding date. If I refer to A as B's fiance, I am not thereby in any measure condoning their present sexual sin. If, on the other hand, male A and male B are living together in what they are clearly advertising is a sexual relationship, it doesn't matter what ceremony they have scheduled. I should never refer to A as B's fiance, for to do so would be to agree to the possibility that A and B could be married, which is metaphysically impossible.

In general, heterosexual relationships that are in fact sinful can often be acknowledged qua romantic relationships in ways that maintain a distance from the actual sexual sin. To acknowledge as if it is in any measure or way legitimate a romantic relationship between two males or two females is ipso facto to indicate approval for sexual sin, for there are no circumstances under which that relationship could be legitimated.

Maybe I'm just seeing this from a different perspective, but from my point of view, the parents are a secondary issue. As adults, we naturally see this from an adult perspective, and try to put ourselves in the position of the adults, whose child is being denied access to a school that would appear to be a superior choice to public, or other private schools. But to me, the real issue is the relationship between the teacher, as both a secular and religious instructor, and the student.

The teacher is obligated to teach their students that premarital sex is wrong, that living together is wrong, and that homosexual relationships are wrong. Every day, the child will be told that what the parents are doing is wrong. As a parent, do you really want to send you child to a school that will hold your relationship up as an example of what not to do? And even if you still want to send the child to the school, are you going to be able to sit there and take it? Because you knew what the score was before you enrolled your child, and it is not your place to force a private Catholic school to adjust their program to accommodate what they have clearly stated is an unhealthy, and flagrantly sinful relationship. I would expect the same attitude from the school towards unwed parents, as well as parents who have divorced and remarried without having the previous marriage annulled, etc. If you don't like it, go elsewhere. There are any number of secular private schools, and for that matter, you can find any number of Churches that will embrace the relationship. Just don't expect it to be the Catholic Church.

As to the concept of "lesser sin". We are taught that we ALL fall short of the glory of God, so the whole idea of "lesser sin" is fallacious. Any sin dooms us, but we are redeemed through Grace, however, unless you truly repent of the sin, you are making a mockery of the forgiveness.

2 cents completed

DB

"As a parent, do you really want to send you child to a school that will hold your relationship up as an example of what not to do?"

Ah, but DB, I will repeat myself -- this is Boulder, not Littleton. I doubt that their intention was to have the child told her, ahem, "parents" are sinning. Boulder is one of the darkest places I have ever been. It is home to the first accredited Buddhist university in the country. They hate motor vehicles so much that they purposely time their traffic lights to prevent smooth flow of traffic and frustrate drivers. And you value your life very cheaply if you wear fur anywhere public in Boulder (or at least you value your fur very cheaply). Boulder is also the home to one of the few late-term abortionists in this country.

Given the political and social engineering climate of Boulder, I have little doubt these women actually intended for the girl to attend the school for very long. I am sure their intention was to cause a ruckus, embarrass the Catholic church and possibly set themselves up for some sort of lawsuit on the basis of discrimination.

Kamilla

"Boulder is one of the darkest places I have ever been. It is home to the first accredited Buddhist university in the country. They hate motor vehicles so much that they purposely time their traffic lights to prevent smooth flow of traffic and frustrate drivers."

"I have little doubt these women actually intended for the girl to attend the school for very long. I am sure their intention was to cause a ruckus, embarrass the Catholic church and possibly set themselves up for some sort of lawsuit on the basis of discrimination."

Golly, most folks cheer up come spring. Talk about going to dark places. Catholics are free to decide who goes to their schools, those excluded are free to complain, interested observers are free to defend both sides and Buddhists are free to form a school; those who don't choke on the sweet air of freedom will see this as the way America works.

Here is help for those confused by modern devices,

http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=300&Itemid=1206

Kamilla, I actually _do_ see the connection between annoying green anti-auto measures and an attempt to harass Catholic schools by lesbians. Al doesn't but he ought to, even considering it in purely statistical and sociological terms. In other words, the sorts of people who are really _deeply_ into "traffic calming" are statistically more likely also to want to set up a "test case" for a Catholic school as far as accepting "alternative families." As a purely sociological statement, this seems undeniably true, even though there is no strict logical connection between these things and it would be possible to be a socially conservative greenie.

Kamilla, I actually _do_ see the connection between annoying green anti-auto measures and an attempt to harass Catholic schools by lesbians.

The only connection between the two seems to be tribal affiliation. It seems like a lot of your arguments amount to establishing one party as them.

Lydia,

Right. Al also seems to think I was arguing against people's freedom to do and believe these things. I wasn't.

Al,

thanks for the link - I found it quite humorous! Some of us learned long ago that what governments *say* (in publicly available information such as on websites) and what they actually accomplish are usually two different things. In all fairness to Boulder, they have the absolute best hardware store in the entire world.

Kamilla

establishing one party as them.

Yeah, and good for her to do so.

I am tired of hearing the "them" and "other" psycho-speak impede clear discourse. The fact is that when you think and speak clearly, you make distinctions between things that are really distinct, and for which recognizing distinctness is necessary to understanding reality. There really are two kinds of people in this world: sinners who accept that they are sinners and are trying to correct that and learn to live according to Christ's love, and sinners who reject the notion that their intrinsically evil acts are sinful and are not trying to correct their sinfulness. The fact that the first category of sinners is called on to love everyone including the second category of sinners doesn't make the second category not to be other from the first in an important way. It is just that they are not other in every important way. Big deal.

M.Z. you are tiresome. I said that there is a statistical correlation, which you can hardly deny. I never said there was anything deeply profound in this, only that I understand Kamilla's point to the effect that you can tell that a town is very politically liberal by a whole range of local indicators. This is hardly rocket science. What's it gonna be next? "Oh, no, vegans aren't especially likely to be politically liberal. That's just us vs. them thinking."

Put a sock in it.

Point of clairfication: since the children were already enrolled in the school, this is a case where the school has stepped back from co-optation. This is a loss for "progressives," which increases their anger.

I went to college in Boulder, and live less than 30 minutes from the city. This case hits close to home. I too think protecting sheltering schoolchildren from exposure to homosexuality should not be controversial. But it's curious that the archdiocese focused so much on the individual child's needs and not those of other children.

Nobody more rigorous than the archdiocese will be quoted in the press, since there are no local conservative networks organized to respond to actions like these. Perhaps I should start the New Legion of Decency.

I echo Kamilla's comments about the darkness of Boulder. The Catholic campus parish was hit by arson in the 1980s. The university itself has a pretty hedonistic student body, problems with pan-sexual favoritism on the faculty, and at least one restroom on campus tacitly reserved for the activities that caught Sen. Larry Craig.

Kamilla: Given the political and social engineering climate of Boulder, I have little doubt these women actually intended for the girl to attend the school for very long. I am sure their intention was to cause a ruckus, embarrass the Catholic church and possibly set themselves up for some sort of lawsuit on the basis of discrimination.

Here is where I differ. First, the activist machinery is such that any spark can set off a coordinated reaction. Boulder Pride has thoughtfully made their action plan available. The local and national reaction was pretty effective in aligning the public against the school. Even a conservative Catholic Republican friend of mine thought its decision was "intolerant."

On my second difference with Kamilla, it seems that *teachers at the school* were the first to complain, not the parents.

Kevin, I did not know that. Thanks for the info.

Yes, Kevin - thanks for the additional info.

Kamilla