Some retorts. I think Boston’s idea is not prudent-
1) Objection: Why not just look the other way if same-sex parents of Catholic school children keep a low profile and don’t put the spotlight on themselves?
Response: Ignorance or error about a notorious fact about another is not presumed. The fact that they have presented and identified themselves as a same sex couple impacts the purpose, mission and partnering of our Catholic schools.
2) Objection: Singling out the children of same-sex couples is really aimed at disapproving of their same-sex parents.
Response: Vatican II stresses a shared partnership in Catholic schools between the students, families, teachers and school associations; Catholic schools partner with parents and families; it’s a far richer concept than just about educating kids disconnected from their parents and families.
3) Objection: There is already a precedent for offering a Catholic education to a child whose parent’s did not partner with the Church because they were either not validly married, contracepting, neglectful, divorced or cohabitating.
Response: Yes; parents have gone against the mission and purpose of Catholic schools in the past but did not ask our schools to give them a categorical recognition for their behavior.
4) Objection: Why can’t you accept the child’s enrollment if the parents sign a covenant of compliance with Catholic teachings.
Response: Our schools are meant to be “partners in faith with parents.” If parents live in a manner that doesn’t reflect that, a covenant can’t come about.
5) Objection: What kind of message would it send to a child to discriminate against her because something her parents did?
Response: We are very concerned about the environment of such children but do not want to enable behavior that would attempt to legitimize same gender couples who adopt them which goes against our two-thousand-year-old faith tradition. Part of enabling behavior is denial.
6) Objection: All types of parents have the right to choose a Catholic education for their children.
Response: The definition of both marriage and parent don’t come from human institutions, but from God’s plan for marriage and family. The first meaning of parent is the mother and father of the child. Adoptive parents stem from that model. Our faith will not allow us to redefine God’s definition of marriage or parenthood.
7). Objection: Same sex marriage is here to stay and so are their kids.
Response: God’s plan of marriage being between a man and a woman and their children is the first and vital cell of society. It’s the starting point and future of the human race.
8). Objection: What if a same-sex couple thinks their adoption of a child is fine with their conscience?
Response: Conscience is not just “what I think” on an issue. Conscience has to be formed.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Please stick to the post’s topic in any comments.