“Jesus said, ‘Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.’” Matthew 19:14 (NIV).
This lovely, simple sentiment is relevant to me again, after receiving it like a gift from my mother decades ago, because of the actions of my Church yet again. The archdiocese of Denver is refusing to re-enroll two children in a Catholic elementary school in Boulder because their parents are lesbians. The official position of the archdiocese is that, while God loves homosexuals and their children as much as He does anyone, the Church apparently cannot allow the children (!) of such persons to receive a Catholic education because marriage can only occur between a man and a woman. People with a different understanding of marriage and family life, says the archbishop, “have other, excellent options for education and should see in them the better course for their children.” Indeed. The kids are five and six.
I’m not disrespectful of many of the rules and restrictions put in place by the Church as a part of Catholic life. I understand the importance of the sacraments to the core of the faith, and I don’t fault the Church for guarding them. But what sacrament is being challenged here? What bedrock principle is being torn asunder by these little ones who want to go to school? I wouldn’t ask the school to teach these kids differently. Apparently their parents are, for now at least, comfortable with Catholic teaching. The parents must deal with what the school may teach versus what their children will experience at home. So be it. I wouldn’t ask the Church to bend her view on marriage and family life to accommodate this family.
What I could ask, as others appropriately have, is whether the archbishop has made all the parents at this school reveal their sexual habits to test them against Catholic doctrine. But I don’t have to go there. And incidentally, neither will they, because they’d end up with a terrifically small school population if they did ask and then treated the honest responders the same way they’ve treated this couple and their kids. Honestly- are we to believe that Jesus, for Whose Sacred Heart this school is named, would bar these two from attendance?
I’m not a big fan of the popular and usually abbreviated “What Would Jesus Do?” It’s not that I don’t think WWJD is a nice sentiment. I just find the expression far too ambitious and outside the realm of understanding to just about any who would ponder it. Even with the best intentions, I think most people who ask WWJD are really asking for some earthly doctrinal, pastoral, or pop-culture guidance rather than Jesus’ own. I’m familiar with and respectful of the evangelical view that Jesus’ teachings, intentions, etc, are right there in the printed word. God help me, but that’s not my view. I personally believe that Jesus is divine; that’s where my lot is thrown as a Catholic. But for the time He was flesh and walked among us, I also think He was a remarkably complex and sometimes difficult guy. He did things that didn’t make sense to His disciples. He was playing on such a higher level that, as far as I can tell, He had to be the Son of God just to put up with the weaknesses and fallibility of the group of working guys He chose to tour with- not to mention the lot of us who have followed those original 12 over the centuries. So WWJD, while a much better sentiment than many that could replace it, is not one I find a lot of comfort in.
Sometimes, though, it seems pretty clear.
“Let the little children come to me.” So said the Man, on the Judean coast tending to a large crowd, when his well-meaning but befuddled disciples rebuked the kids who rushed to him. Jesus would have none of it. In my mind, He opened his arms, laughed kindly, and let himself get overrun like he was walking in the door after a long day to His own kids and an over-excited Yellow Lab. If I’m right, He let the unimaginable power He possessed flow gently to them in protection and healing.
If I’m wrong, He was an incorrectly messianic, but otherwise compelling philosopher and moralist who drew crowds and comforted them, sometimes by embracing their children. Either way, He didn’t ask about the sexual habits, or anything else, of their parents when He did so. My guess? He had bigger things to think about.
© 2010, Roger Canaff. All rights reserved.
I like the idea of a sexual test… after all, why be hypocritical and single out one family? So, if you have ever used birth control or had sex before marriage, please remove your children from our school. Nice.
I’d be interested to know if this official policy is in effect in any other diocese. I’m sure most places have a de facto prohibition in effect. Unfortunately the direction of the courts lately seems to be supportive of these measures.
Once again, Rog, you speak my heart. It is such a sad state of affairs. The Church is in such crisis and rather than confront these issues with love, compassion and humility it seems they are taking an approach that is exclusive rather than inclusive. It is not lost on me that you, and the Church as a whole, refer to the institution as “HER” and yet it is the men of the Church who have the power. This is perhaps an irrelevant point in discussing this issue, but another point of hypocrisy in my book.
I love the visual of Jesus opening his arms to the children as they come running to him. In my childhood home, there was a painting of Jesus surround by children and the look of joy and love on his face is the love and joy I try to live in my spiritual life. It is my belief that Jesus was trying to teach us all the “Divine” that was him is in each of us. That is why he called us brother and sister. We are all part of one another. That God spark in him, most profoundly, is in you and me too. We are all of the same Father any break in the connection is only perception. If only folks could be more comfortable in understanding this. Can you imagine how the World might change if we truly understood that we are all divine, in part, and all truly connected through that divinity? We are ONE in Spirit is a concept I learned in Catholic school. Perhaps it is time the Church look inward to seek wisdom from its own teaching.
Great thoughts beautifully written, Beth. Thank you. Yeah, the Church is often referred to with the feminine pronoun; I assume that this is so for the same reason that other institutions, vessels, etc are often referred to similarly. Those things have also been exclusively male controlled- your point is well taken.
As always Roger, you have written well & touch on the beliefs that confuse me as well. The only thing I can think of that would be somewhat in favor of The Catholic Church in this situation, is that with this being a private school they have the right to refuse anyone for any reason. So my question is, was the parentage of the children the sole reason for refusal? If it was, could the possibility of the “teachings” at the particular school include the misconception that homosexuality is wrong & they didn’t want the children to question the family that they live in? As we both know, there are things that the church will tolerate, but won’t openly advocate. Please understand that I am appalled at the decision that was made in regard to this family. Thank you Roger for writing yet another thought provoking blog!
Thanks for the comment, Becky. I agree that, of course, the school can refuse to enroll students (except for Constitutionally prohibited reasons). The question is why would they? And you make a valid point: If the thinking of the archdiocese is truly centered on the kids’ welfare, then I could at least entertain their position. But if they are, they’ve done a remarkably poor job of expressing themselves.
Roger: I would just bring up this side of the equation: Why would lesbians want to have their children in a school where they will be taught that the actions of the parent are immoral? Seems that you want those who are in loco parenti to be teaching something that is akin to what you value. From the school’s standpoint admitting children from an openly gay home opens them up for litigation when the parents sue saying that the school is hurting the children by teaching them the Church’s moral code. I don’t want to be overly cynical but as an administrator I would have to worry that the whole situation is setting the organization up for a future lawsuit.
Fair point, Jon, although I would think that there would be something of an ‘assumption of the risk’ legal theory that would negate suing on those grounds. I also think asking why a lesbian couple would want their kids in a Catholic school is a fair question. I can only assume that their options were such that the Church’s school was the best one, but I have no idea. Thankfully, neither the media nor the Church has revealed anything about the family. There are complexities here that I couldn’t explore in 800 words; it just seems to be counter-intuitive to me to block access to a religious school when the children themselves are blameless. Were I an administrator or a lawyer advising one, yeah- I’d have the parents sign a waiver/acknowledgment as iron-clad as I could make it. But I’d be hard pressed to claim to represent Christ on earth (as the Church does) and keep these kids from being educated. Thanks, as always, for the comment-
Isn it odd, they do not want to enroll two small innoscent children that do not even know what sexual perference they have , YET the church, they keep all those priests that have abused children “in the closet” if you know what I mean.