Matt Abbott has the story at Renew. Matt's story is being widely circulated in Catholic circles. (Pewsitter, Spirit Daily and Catholic blogs on the internet)
Catholic parents met with school officials, archdiocesan officials and the fruit of those meetings is not good.
Parents were first ignored and rebuffed. After three or four weeks of slipping out the back door the school principal, Mr. Enos, met with parents. He made clear at these meetings (as he did with me) that he was 100% behind the article and if the opportunity arose to publish similar articles in the future, he will do so.
Additionally, Mr. Enos expressed his unhappiness with the parents for bringing the article to the attention of the Bishop and the Archdiocese and he made clear to them that they were not to do so in the future.
I'd like to remind you that Sacred Heart's article told children a man who hired pedophiles, tied children to tables and had them abused around the clock for 24 hours or more without a break to 'record' their response, was the enlightened one on matters of human sexuality.
Not only did Mr. Enos defend his actions in approving the article, he used his position as principal to tell parents concerned about the ramifications of this article to their own children and other Catholics who attend the school, that he was not happy that there is a code of silence they were not adhering to.
When asked, Enos said that, in hindsight, he wouldn't change his position and he would approve a similar article again if presented the opportunity in the future. He also told the parents that the conversation he had with them was not to leave the room — a version of 'What happens at Sacred Heart stays at Sacred Heart.'
Anyone see a problem with this kind of thuggery?
Can someone tell me what is worse than distributing information to children that a known pedophile who abused thousands of children is the enlightened one on human sexuality and then threatening parents not to tell the Bishop about scandals in the future?
Isn't this a problem for the clowns at the Chancery who are supposed to be protecting 'safe environments to tell' at parishes and schools?
Parents were eventually referred to Mr. Enos' boss, the grand pubah of the Sisters of the Divine Providence, Sister Mary Francis Fletcher.
I spoke to the parents earlier this Summer and the meeting was scandalous. (I hope to convince the parents to permit me to divulge more information about this meeting in the not too distant future.)
We have sent Sister a number of e-mails requesting a written explanation of the administration's plan to address the concerns raised by the parents. Sister has essentially ignored these requests; thus, parents will have no input into how to prevent this situation from happening at Sacred Heart in the future. Sister's arrogant, dismissive and disinterested manner in which she has addressed our concerns and requests is disturbing.
As concerned parents, we requested that the administration respect our decision (and duty) to educate our children in a school committed to a true Catholic education. We are stunned and deeply saddened by all this. We feel a moral obligation not to support a school that calls itself Catholic but authorizes articles in the school newspaper that undermine the Catholic faith, marginalize Catholic teaching — easily available to anyone with a Catechism — treat parents with contempt, and marginalize parents for raising legitimate concerns over these published articles.
I believe it is absolutely critical (and I will advise the parents, council members and other local and national leaders) to add a few more things to this list.
The superior at the Sisters of the Divine Providence should be investigated for hostility to Catholic doctrine by the Vatican.
More importantly Courage and EnCourage need to be brought into Sacred Heart School and in fact EVERY Catholic school across the diocese where this situation pops up.
Courage can be a constant presence rather than "article and counter-article" that will only lead the children in an intellectual circle. Courage is really group support on the ground. They know what to say and how to say it. They put processes for dealing with the feelings of being marginalized and bring about an end that helps them to know they are no different than any one of us, that there is love in the Catholic Church and Her teachings. There is parental support and family support. If there is a genuine concern about hostility or malice, there are trained people who those children can report things to and have that situation taken care of. There shouldn't be any more shame imparted to a child struggling with a same-sex attraction than there is with any other child struggling with temptation and sin.
Here we will have a climate that is safe for one and all and most especially safe for Catholic teachers to teach the faith and Catholic children to learn it. There is no gripe that can be taken up by people who oppose our faith other than telling them a Catholic school may not be the place for their child.
Conservative Catholics have been and continue to be terrorized. They are wounded, frustrated and deeply concerned about the Catechesis that is leaving Catholic children without the tools to make the choices necessary for their salvation.
We have done a terrible job at getting the message right.
Frankly, I have a confession to make.
I am gay friendly.
I'm probably worse than gay friendly, I actually can say there are gays whom I love and I hope and pray that in evangelizing my faith, or wanting that faith evangelized to Catholic children. it does not diminish that love in any way.
This doesn't mean there is an iota of compromise on wanting my faith taught to me and to those in our Catholic communities.
Using the term 'something is gay friendly' in such a way that makes it seem like Catholics and the Catholic Church should't be friendly to gays is not really the wisest choice of words. We should eliminate it from our vocabulary.
We need some new jargon.
Yes, gays have an agenda. They want to be loved. They want to be treated with respect. There is no obstacle to this in a Catholic agenda of wanting our faith taught in our parishes and schools.
There are, of course, some situations where these lofty goals can't be met. For instance, when people want to publicly reject or do not want Catholic teachings taught in Catholic apostolates.
Several months ago, in the process of trying to enroll her child at St. Paul's in Hingham, a lesbian parent made clear that Catholic teaching was offensive to her and she wanted her child enrolled in a Catholic school that would not teach Catholic morality. Local Catholic writer Gail Besse did a great job on the roundup in a story published by the New Oxford Review.
This is not a workable situation, but instead of admitting this, Fr. Bryan Hehir, Jack Connors and Mary Grassa O'Neil cooked up a scheme to cut off funding to any Catholic school in Boston that declared a similar situation as unworkable. The priest who did the right thing, Fr. Rafferty, was hung out to dry. The auxiliary Bishop, Bishop Dooher, placed the child in a Catholic school in Weymouth, thereby making it an impossible place for any teacher to teach Catholic ethics and morality. I can give you my oath as a Catholic activist that are not done with this situation by any means in Boston.
There is a fight going on with the administration under Cardinal O'Malley on the future of Catholic education and they have not yet begun to see the whites of our eyes.
We will not surrender until our faith is freed from the imprisonment or the desks of Fr. Hehir and his cronies are emptied at 66 Brooks Drive.
As Kate Hepburn once said, "Buckle up, it's going to be a bumpy ride."