Next Move, Archbishop Chaput

Interesting interview with the Colorado couple whose children were not welcome to re-enroll for another year of Catholic school. Among other things:

– The news leak from the parish itself sort of blows the gay-activist-agenda meme out of the water. Turns out it was nothing more than gossip to the media.

– While not welcome in the parish school, they were urged by the pastor to enroll the children in religious education classes. So nice to know that RE is held in such high regard. I would think the parish DRE and RE catechists feel like they’re in a real second-fiddle ministry, yet an inclusive one.

– The suggestion from a diocesan priest that they switch to the Episcopal Church is theologically hilarious. Maybe he thought they could circle back to Roman Catholicism by the ordinariate route. I wonder if the archbishop will have some forthcoming policy on his clergy recommending practicing Catholics jump ship.

I’ve corresponded with Archbishop Chaput in the past. I could ask him about these questions, especially the encouragement from a priest to leave Roman Catholicism? Should I?


About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in the Pacific Northwest, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Church News, Commentary. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Next Move, Archbishop Chaput

  1. Rebecca says:

    Should you?


  2. Karl says:

    I have not read the interview but one question I thought about asking myself is:

    If the two people who are responsible for the raising of this child were to agree to live in “celibacy as sisters” and to witness this to the world and in private to the child, would they then be welcomed into the school?

    Perhaps others have thought of this but I have not yet read it anywhere and it is a question, I think, begs to be answered.

    • R.C. says:

      It seems to me that, if I understand how you’re phrasing the question, the answer is, “Of Course!”

      If two women with shared responsibility for rearing a particular child or children also share housing, then that, in-and-of-itself, is certainly no problem for the church.

      However, were these particular two women to announce that they were going to begin to live chastely together, rather than in an active homosexual relationship, I suspect the parish would have the following relevant questions:

      1. Are they living chastely, while still teaching the child that a homosexual lifestyle is normal? Or are they teaching the child that a homosexual lifestyle is objectively disordered, as the Church does? (If the latter, then the contradiction between Church teaching and the two women’s opinions makes the hoped-for “partnership” between parents and school is difficult to establish.)

      2. Assuming that they do agree (and are teaching the child) that a homosexual lifestyle is objectively disordered and wrong, then…is it wise to live together? Isn’t that begging for temptation? Walking right into a “near occasion of sin?”

      But assuming that these two questions were satisfactorily resolved, and that these women don’t oppose Church teaching in some other huge way which might make the school-parent partnership impossible, then, yes, I imagine the parish school would welcome them in.

    • R.C. says:


      In Item 1, above, I meant to say, “If the former,” not “If the latter.” The way I said it makes no sense. Sorry.

  3. Pam says:

    Whatever happened to sin? Anything goes now and nothing is seen as a sin. These women are in mortal sin, but say they are practicing Catholics just wanting to be a normal family. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” He loved the sinner; not the sin. These women need to repent. They are only harming themselves and their children.

    • Tim says:

      Hmmm, it seems to me with that logic any student’s parents would be guilty for aren’t we all sinners. And let’s not argue about a matter of degree as to mortal sin or not. No doubt there are heterosexual parents who have children in that school who have committed offenses that may be worse than two females living ordinary lives and raising a child the best they know how.

  4. Brian says:

    I find myself in the awkward position of (respectfully) being unable to agree with any comment thus far.

    I, for one see the exclusion from Catholic school as being akin to visiting the sins of the father (whomever that may be) upon the child in addition to being counter-productive and punitive.

    If a requirement is to be made of the parents, I would argue that their agreeing to and participating in supplemental education for the children to clarify Church teaching and ‘why’ what the Church teaches is scripturally sound would be most appropriate. Might even infect (effect, wink) the parents with a conscience.

  5. Jimmy Mac says:

    Why any self-respecting lesbian or gay couple with children would want to deny the truth of their lives to their children and prostitute themselves enough to gain admission for their children to this or any other Catholic school is beyond me.

    “The Pharisees’ sin has come to be called ’scotosis,’ a deliberate and willful darkening of the mind that results from the refusal to acknowledge God’s presence and power at work in human stories. If the neglect of Scripture is a form of sin, as John suggests, a blind adherence to Scripture when God is trying to show us the truth in human bodies is also a form of sin, and a far more grievous one. Both our own sense of integrity as Christians, and our hope of entering into positive conversation with those who disagree with us, obligate us to engage Scripture with maximum devotion, love, and intelligence. If it is risky to trust ourselves to the evidence of God at work in transformed lives even when it challenges the clear statements of Scripture, it is a far greater risk to allow the words of Scripture to blind us to the presence and power of the living God.”

    Luke Timothy Johnson, Commonweal, June 15, 2007

    To thine own self be true.

    • Tony says:

      Scripture when God is trying to show us the truth in human bodies

      Actually, it’s not God and it’s not “truth”. The agent is different, and he doesn’t deal in truth.

      • Harry says:

        Yes, I keep forgetting. God created everything in the universe except for human sexual organs.

        Those were created by the “other agent” and are bad, bad, bad.

        I suggest some reading into “Theology of the Body.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s