Rainy Sunday check in

My beloved and I have not stirred from the house once today.  Both of us are still struggling with bad colds -- and with the pouring rain, had no reason to go anywhere.  We have had a day of rest and financial planning -- two not entirely mutually exclusive pursuits.

By Tuesday or Wednesday, I promise to be back to some more thoughtful posting.  I've got some more "men's stuff" percolating in my brain, but I am too fogged by cold medicine to let my fingers hit the keyboard just yet...

Though most readers may not be interested, may I point out that lowly Exeter played mighty Manchester United to a scoreless draw yesterday on the latter's home field?  'Tis a stunning surprise in English football's FA cup, and I am happy for that fine little city that my brother calls home.  And in Scottish football, Celtic beat Rangers again, which is also cause for rejoicing.

From the shameless self-promotion category, I'd like to thank Brian Ulrich for nominating this blog for the Koufax Award for Best New Blog.  (Any blog started in 2004 counts, and this Typepad puppy dates back almost exactly a year; my anniversary shall be on Thursday.)  As flattered as I am, I'm not voting for myself -- I'm casting my vote for Amanda's Mousewords blog, which is one of the best (and most frequently updated) feminist sites in the 'sphere.

I'd love to hear David Morrison's take on this story about the sons of a gay couple enrolled in an Orange County Catholic School:

In a clash that pits Catholic teachings against shifting values of American society, a group of parishioners and parents has accused Orange County church leaders of defying Pope John Paul II by allowing a gay couple to enroll their two boys in a diocese school.

But Father Martin Benzoni, who oversees the 550-student elementary and middle school, last week rejected the group's demands. He released a new policy stating that a child's education comes first and that a family's background "does not constitute an absolute obstacle to enrollment in the school."

Benzoni acknowledged the conflict between the two-father family and the teachings of the church, but said that the boys — both kindergarteners, adopted by a pair of Costa Mesa men — had been baptized in the faith and deserved a Catholic education.

"I firmly believe that this policy is in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church," said Benzoni, who is a member of the conservative Norbertine order that runs the school and parish for the diocese.

Dismayed by the decision, some parents said they plan to ask the Vatican for help, while others said they may pull their children from the school.

It's an interesting question, isn't it?   If one doesn't affirm homosexuality (which no one except for the boys' fathers seems to), is the presence of these children something that undermines the coherence of church doctrine?  Or is it an opportunity for the church traditionalists to teach conservative moral doctrine to children who otherwise would almost certainly never get it?

One of the most notorious Catholic conservatives in America, William Donohue of the Catholic League, rather surprisingly wants the boys to stay:

"To single out these kids because of their gay parents would be invidious.. You cannot burden the innocent."

The upset parents' group proposes a radical solution:

Michael Joseph Sundstedt, a Newport Beach attorney advising the group of parents, said they want families enrolling their children in St. John the Baptist to sign a "parental moral covenant" agreeing to abide by Catholic teachings. While unusual in Catholic schools, similar declarations are required by many Protestant Christian schools.

The two fathers might sign the declaration even though they could not abide by it — "that's between them and their maker," Sundstedt said. "But I strongly suspect that those parents wouldn't sign the agreement."

But Father Gerald M. Horan, superintendent of schools run by the Diocese of Orange, rejected the idea of a parental covenant. If the school barred gay parents from enrolling their children, they would also have to ban children of parents who violate other church teachings, including those who are divorced, use birth control or weren't married in the church, he said.

"This is the quagmire that [the parents'] position represents," Horan said. "It's a slippery slope to go down."

Good for Father Benzoni for taking the boys.  But I must admit to being mystified by the two fathers!  Why on earth would you send your sons to school in an environment where your children are very likely to be taught that their parents' relationship is unnatural and sinful?    That invites a kind of cognitive dissonance into a child's life that seems to me likely to be overwhelming, confusing, and unfair.  Still, it raises a host of interesting issues.

But I need to get back to the couch.  I'll be down in San Diego visiting a dear cousin of mine tomorrow, and more regular blogging returns Tuesday.

Comments

[zuzu]

Yeah, I have to love these parents who think that somehow the parents should be so pure. I don't think I've known a Catholic school to turn away a tuition-paying student for reasons other than severe disciplinary issues. I fully expect my divorced sister to be able to enroll her son in Catholic school should she move here to New York (he's autistic, and the Catholic-school method is a great fit for him); I also know many, many Jewish, Protestant and Hindu folks who attended Catholic school because it was the best option. So gay parents? Riiiiiight.

[djw]

I had several friends who went to Catholic school whose parents weren't Catholic at all, and as such were agnostic and/or in open violation of numerous Catholic rules (notably birth control; I didn't have any friends with more two children in their family). It was always my understanding that such a practice was entirely ordinary. Changing the rules to pick on gay people is bad enough, changing the rules to pick on gay people's children is downright shameful. This seems like about the most clearcut case of bigotry hiding behind theology I've ever seen. I'd actually like to hear this parents group defend their position, as it seems utterly indefensible to me.

[Stephanie]

"Why on earth would you send your sons to school in an environment where your children are very likely to be taught that their parents' relationship is unnatural and sinful? "

As someone who attended Catholic school for a decade despite the fact that my family was outright nonreligious, the reasoning was obvious: Catholic schools' tuition often cost a fraction of other private schools. Since the parents decided against Costa Mesa's public system for whatever reason, they could pay $3,100 for St. John the Baptist --- or about $9,000 for the nearby nonreligious Page Private school.

And although the recent uproar has certainly emphasized the so-called-"sinful" nature of their parents' relationship, my experience with Catholic school seemed to mention nothing about personal lifestyle. Instead, it was a typical elementary school that strangely excelled in testing beyond even the public school across the street. We merely happened to have a daily class about Jesus, whom we studied like so many other history lessons -- a class of great interest to our young Monterey Park student body, which was roughly 85% Buddhist!

[Camassia]

My parents considered sending me to a Catholic high school, even though we were extremely nonreligious, because I'd had such a miserable experience in the public middle school. I think they were hoping for a more orderly and protective environment than the public schools offered.

I think that secularists often don't just deny religion, but relegate it to an unimportant corner of life. So even though the school included some religious education, we were like, oh well, whatever. As the theologians might put it, we accepted modernity's compartmentilization of religion into a "spiritual" sphere apart from the rest of life. I imagine the gay couple might have been doing the same thing.

[syfr]

I grew up in Catholic schools in NYC, and the reason was very simple- the public schools sucked. Catrholic schools were 1/3 the cost of the non-religious private schools, and I ended up with a full scholarship to a Catholic high school, so that ended up free, too. (My family does happen to be Catholic, but I remember the primary reason for Catholic school being education, not religion.)

[YetAnotherRick]

This may have no bearing on the Orange County case, but it may provide insight to people's reaction to it:

http://www.indegayforum.org/authors/miller/miller1.html

"Yes, school choice proposals includes parochial schools, but I know at least some Catholic school veterans who tell me that, unlike at many public schools, gay baiting and bashing simply would not have been tolerated at their alma mater, regardless of the Church's teachings about sexuality. Richard Sincere of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL), a libertarian gay group, says his all-male Catholic school was a far cry from the hate-and-fear-filled hallways of Columbine High. In fact, demonstrating respect for fellow students was ingrained and fostered by the faculty on a daily basis, with an affirmative attempt on the part of administrators to make sure different sorts of students mixed with each other, so jocks worked on the school play and musicians assisted the basketball coach."

There are many misconceptions about how various religious traditionalists treat people with whom they disagree.

[zuzu]

Yeah, Catholic schools in this country evolved as an alternative to the private-school system only open to WASPs; as recently as the late 1950s, my uncle was rejected from several medical schools because they'd already filled their "Catholic quota." Georgetown is now considered a very good school, only incidentally a Jesuit school, but way back when, it was the only way for Catholics like my grandfather to get a good education.

Odd, considering the Jesuits were the ones who branded Galileo a heretic.