The Cardinal made a statement about the Catholic education controversy a few days sooner than we expected.
We still have a great deal of work to do on this to head off a disaster in Catholic education but there is an indication that our hard work educating the grassroots, national and international Catholics is paying off.
The long and the short of it is, he's seeking his advice about educational policies from the Presbyteral and Archdiocescan Councils. I'm about as comforted by that as seeking advice about the Liturgy from the Paulist Center.
He starts out with a lovely story about a Memorial Mass he celebrated for a local "madame" in the West Indies. The woman was murdered by her lover.
At the Mass I met the woman’s daughter, a lovely little girl. I asked her what grade she was in. She replied that she didn’t go to school. I sent a stern glance to her grandmother, who said: “Her name is the same as that of the brothel. The other children were so cruel to her, she left the public school.” I told her grandmother, “Take her to the Catholic school tomorrow.”It's a very nice story but it's a little short onthe circumstances we have going down.
Here's how to make the story work to fit the scene of crime at
The grandmother shows up the next day, sits with the pastor and asks what her grandson will be taught about the family business of prostitution.
When they tell her, she says she doesn't want those teachings taught in a school where her grandson is enrolled because it's discrimination. The grandmother gets upset, angry about the teachings of the Church on prostitution until it becomes clear to the pastor that the grandmother is going to make it difficult for the other 600 other children in the school to hear the teachings of the Church so her child can carry on in life believing prostituting yourself is not an obstacle to your salvation.
Nana wants to run the family business at home without being morally challenged by anyone in the community.
I'm afraid the Cardinal's parable falls a little short
The two lesbian moms said they were not hiding, they were right up front about the structure of their family and their son was admitted.
In a meeting with Fr. Rafferty, it becomes clear the mother considers the teachings of the Catholic Church discrimination and her expectations were not compatible with teaching doctrine to all the other children.
Catholic parents pay tuition and send their child to Catholic School so their consciences to be formed to know right from wrong so that they can make the right choices for their own salvation. That is the whole purpose.
Therefore Fr. Rafferty declined the lesbian mother's invitation to repress the teachings of the Church.
You see, the "category of people" we are talking about is people who express demands to have the teachings of the Church repressed.
There's no need to assemble a committee. Here's your answer: We do indeed exclude "the category of people" who demand the teachings of the Church be repressed.
I have deep concerns about this statement:
I believe all would agree that the good of the child must always be our primary concern.The primary concern is not the good of one child whose mother does not want the teachings of the Church distributed.
Our primary concern is our freedom to teach our children their faith. That's the mission statement of a Catholic school.
The Cardinal does mention that Bishop Chaput's well-written policy and pastoral guidance should be given serious consideration in Boston's "new policy".
Here are the reasons why I think we have to keep on lobbying.
We've just had a trial run.
Even when gay parents made crystal clear to a pastor they expect the moral teachings of the Church be excluded from the curriculum - the Archdiocese took the following actions:
They lied about what transpired by proclaiming this situation as a parent who wanted her son taught the moral teachings of the Church on human sexuality.
They compounded that lie by characterizing the pastor and principal as bigots.
They threatened to cut off grants to the children of the poor in every school who does not admit a child under these circumstances and said these actions are based upon donors' wishes.
Jack Connors runs to the press saying he is chagrined by the "shift in power" on who is in control of the Archdiocese.
Therefore, we don't have to wonder what will happen when priests and principles meet with a parent who demand the teachings of the Church be repressed.
In these circumstances, the Archdiocese will choose repression.
Personally, I am appalled the Cardinal qualified the actions of the people he has "shifted power" to as "respectful of all the people in the matter" and "showed leadership".
I'm here to remind you that we are talking about lying about what happened and circulating a letter saying what Fr. Rafferty did was "disturbing" and it will not be tolerated by the donors.
From these circumstances, we have Fr. James Martin, among others, spewing off malicious editorials.
I can't find the link at this moment - but we also had an opinion published in
This is respectful leadership with the "heart of Christ"?
Look, here's the major problem we are dealing with here in Boston:
Going forward, we will be consulting on these issues with a wide-range of people including the Presbyteral Council and Archdiocesan Pastoral Council. We will work to develop policies and procedures to guide our faithfully carrying on the mission of our Catholic Schools to serve children and to do so with the heart of Christ.
Since many who are on these councils are known dissenters on the teachings of the Church, why would you run that direction to come up with consensus?
There is a Roman Catholic Church sitting in Rome that is there for this exact purpose.
This Cardinal gets his doctrine by rounding up consensus from the people.
This is the antithesis of the Roman Catholic Church.
We have a small window of opportunity to preserve the deposit of faith for our children and grandchildren.
We have much work to do in these next few days and weeks.