[Jarheadwed]

Catholic School Rejects Child Because Of Lesbian Parents - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

Although they are legally allowed to do this, what about ethically? Should children of unmarried or divorced parents be barred too, or is homosexuality somehow worse?

[Hippy Witchy Chicky]

I'm not surprised. I don't agree with it, but I'm not surprised.

[Mom2Froggy]

It sickens me.

It may be the religion, but I still will never understand the right to discriminate by religious standards... just makes me sad and sickens me

Originally Posted by Jarheadwed

Catholic School Rejects Child Because Of Lesbian Parents - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

Although they are legally allowed to do this, what about ethically? Should children of unmarried or divorced parents be barred too, or is homosexuality somehow worse?

You would think they would accept the child to convert the child to a Catholic lifestyle.. too bad they can't work with that. I do find it funny that the lesbian couple would want to even expose their child to that church. I know here the public Catholic schools are "better" but I just can't justify sending my child there on purpose.

While I wouldn't want to send my child to school that with beliefs that conflict with my own, I don't understand why the school would penalize the child. Are they excluding the children born out of wedlock, or the children of divorced and remarried parents?

Originally Posted by Frugal Abundance

While I wouldn't want to send my child to school that with beliefs that conflict with my own, I don't understand why the school would penalize the child. Are they excluding the children born out of wedlock, or the children of divorced and remarried parents?

No, they aren't. It's very hypocritical because on our local news last night, one of the people from the Parish said that they were sticking true to Catholic teaching. Okay, so why aren't they doing the same to children of divorced/remarried/single/out of wedlock parents?

And it has come out that this couple has two children at the school, and they are only penalizing the one child. Rather strange.

Originally Posted by irishxrose

No, they aren't. It's very hypocritical because on our local news last night, one of the people from the Parish said that they were sticking true to Catholic teaching. Okay, so why aren't they doing the same to children of divorced/remarried/single/out of wedlock parents?

And it has come out that this couple has two children at the school, and they are only penalizing the one child. Rather strange.

[fluffycheeks]

This makes no sense to me. Even if you view homosexuality as a sin, which the Catholic church does, that "sin" is the parents', not the kids. I don't know why they would hold the child accountable for the parents' actions, the child should be responsible for themselves. I attended a private, church owned university, and I had to sign an honor code stating that I would do certain things, such as no premarital sex, no drinking or drugs, no cheating, etc. But *I* had to sign it, they didn't ask or care what my family was doing.

[**Badfish**]

Originally Posted by donomama

This makes no sense to me. Even if you view homosexuality as a sin, which the Catholic church does, that "sin" is the parents', not the kids. I don't know why they would hold the child accountable for the parents' actions, the child should be responsible for themselves. I attended a private, church owned university, and I had to sign an honor code stating that I would do certain things, such as no premarital sex, no drinking or drugs, no cheating, etc. But *I* had to sign it, they didn't ask or care what my family was doing.

A handful of my friends went to Seattle Pacific University to play soccer. They claimed that "no dancing" was included in their honor contract. So we used to say things to them like "jump back!" and "Did you see Kevin Bacon in class today?"

[Quantum_Leap]

Originally Posted by irishxrose

And it has come out that this couple has two children at the school, and they are only penalizing the one child. Rather strange.

That doesn't make any sense. Do you think maybe there's another reason that they don't want the child at the school, and they are using this as an excuse because they don't want to admit the other reason? Like, maybe the child is disliked by the teachers, or has had a conflict with teachers in the past or something? I can't figure it out otherwise.

[AMDG]

Originally Posted by irishxrose

No, they aren't. It's very hypocritical because on our local news last night, one of the people from the Parish said that they were sticking true to Catholic teaching. Okay, so why aren't they doing the same to children of divorced/remarried/single/out of wedlock parents?

And it has come out that this couple has two children at the school, and they are only penalizing the one child. Rather strange.

I think a homosexual couple, living as such, is different from the other examples you stated because it stands out as obvious and in the face of the Church. Divorce - against Church teaching but sometimes civil divorce is needed for the safety of the husband/wife or children. That isn't a situation that can be judged by the cover. Remarried - again, how would the school know if the couple had been married in the Church or if they had received annulments prior to remarriage? Child out of wedlock - definitely a sin but that doesn't mean the parents are still living in sin or continuing to defy the teachings of the Church. I don't think it is hypocritical at all.

[Emily_G]

Originally Posted by Jarheadwed

Catholic School Rejects Child Because Of Lesbian Parents - Denver News Story - KMGH Denver

Although they are legally allowed to do this, what about ethically? Should children of unmarried or divorced parents be barred too, or is homosexuality somehow worse?

I thought the exact same thing. If you want to not allow students because of their parent's sin, there would be no students at the school!!!!

I don't think it's hypocritical for the reasons that AMDG said. I do think it would be hypocritical to accept students who parents live together unmarried, though. They probably do accept these students, and I have no idea if your family life-style is a question they ask before enrollment, or if the parents in the article came to light some other way.

Penalizing one child and not the other could make sense as well.. if the one child is advocating for a homosexual life style in a Catholic school and the other child is just sitting in the corner staring at the ceiling, I can see why they'd leave the less vocal one alone.

I really don't know all the details behind the case, so I can't form a solid right or wrong answer. I don't think it's unethical, in theory, to refuse enrollment to students who parents don't adhere to the rules of the church that control the school.

BYU isn't a great comparison, since it's a college, and the students are adults able to make their own decisions. But any student of BYU is expected to adhere to LDS standards of living. Even if you are not LDS, you can be expelled for drinking, smoking, or engaging in pre-marital sex. I don't think it's unethical for a religious school to demand religious behavior from their students.. nor do I think it's unethical for a religious school to demand that parents of their non-adult students adhere to those standards.

Originally Posted by Emily_G

I thought the exact same thing. If you want to not allow students because of their parent's sin, there would be no students at the school!!!!

I highly doubt that every student in that school was either born out of wed-lock, or has parents who are unmarried or divorced. Not that it matters. The homosexual couple in question are being judged for what the school considers current, on-going sin, not a sin they committed in the past.

[Emily_G]

Originally Posted by Keskes

I highly doubt that every student in that school was either born out of wed-lock, or has parents who are unmarried or divorced. Not that it matters. The homosexual couple in question are being judged for what the school considers current, on-going sin, not a sin they committed in the past.

Every parent sins, I guess that was what I was trying to say I just think it's unfair to single out one sin and not allow students because of their parents sin. Children conceived out of wedlock, etc shouldn't be allowed either. I think there's a verse about children not paying for the sins of their parents...but i"m not sure.

You're missing the part about "current on-going sin." The homosexual couple didn't commit a sin ten years ago and have a child out of wedlock. They are currently living in sin. That would be the main difference there. Having a child out of wedlock can't really be compared here. The only comparison I can find that's accurate is having two parents that are unmarried and living together.

[Emily_G]

I'm sure there are lots of kids in Catholic schools who's parents live in sin. Not just sexual sin. I just think it is unfair, for some reason homosexuality is considered a worse sin than all the others...I don't get that.

Originally Posted by AMDG

I think a homosexual couple, living as such, is different from the other examples you stated because it stands out as obvious and in the face of the Church. Divorce - against Church teaching but sometimes civil divorce is needed for the safety of the husband/wife or children. That isn't a situation that can be judged by the cover. Remarried - again, how would the school know if the couple had been married in the Church or if they had received annulments prior to remarriage? Child out of wedlock - definitely a sin but that doesn't mean the parents are still living in sin or continuing to defy the teachings of the Church. I don't think it is hypocritical at all.

I am positive there are unmarried cohabitating couples with children at that school - and there wasn't a witch hunt to kick out their children. It is hypocritical to me. There are probably parents there that are married and currently cheating. That goes against the Church's teachings and is a current sin - still, no witch hunt. It is only because this is a visible sin that the Church is doing this. That is not fair. The way they worded it made it sound like every other sin was less than homosexuality - when it is not. That is what I found hypocritical, that they were willing to kick out this child but weren't going to actually enforce the other teachings they hold.

Did they specifically seek out the children of homosexual couples though? Or did it come up somehow in random conversation? Did someone report it?

I think "witch hunt" would be pretty harsh if they weren't specifically looking for a homosexual couple, and if someone either "reported" the couple in question, or it came out some other way.

Not that I think homosexuals should be hiding themselves, I'm just saying that it's not necessarily hypocritical, depending on other circumstances. If these parents came forward and said "hey.. we're gay!" and parents living out of wedlock don't, then taking action against one couple and not another makes sense. If a couple of parents now come forward and admit they are not married but living together, and they don't kick THOSE students out.. that would be hypocritical. Or if the school specifically went looking into this child's home life in order to discover the facts.

[AMDG]

Originally Posted by irishxrose

I am positive there are unmarried cohabitating couples with children at that school - and there wasn't a witch hunt to kick out their children. It is hypocritical to me. There are probably parents there that are married and currently cheating. That goes against the Church's teachings and is a current sin - still, no witch hunt. It is only because this is a visible sin that the Church is doing this. That is not fair. The way they worded it made it sound like every other sin was less than homosexuality - when it is not. That is what I found hypocritical, that they were willing to kick out this child but weren't going to actually enforce the other teachings they hold.

I don't understand what you are saying. I would bet there are unmarried cohabitating couples at the school as well. How would the principle know? How would the other students know? The fact that this is a visible sin does make a big difference. First, there is a sin of scandal but also a more visible sin affects the other families at the school more where as the principle, teachers and other students/families would likely never know about a cohabitating couple unless they were personally friends with that family. What do you mean by "enforcing the other teachings"? It is a sin steal and it is a sin to gossip but a student may be kicked out for stealing and not for gossiping - are you saying that every single sin has to be treated in the same manner?

When the archdiocese of Denver issues this statement:

The Archdiocese of Denver defended the decision.

"To preserve the mission of our schools, and to respect the faith of wider Catholic community, we expect all families who enroll students to live in accords with Catholic teaching," it said.

FOXNews.com - Catholic School Rejects Children of Lesbian Parents, Sparking Faith Debate

So - why then are they NOT kicking out children of cohabitating couples?

Hence why I view it as hypocrisy. They are singling out the children of one couple, while pointedly ignoring other couples that also are not living in accordance to Catholic teaching. If you are going to uphold one set of teachings and refuse to enroll one child, then you must also do so to others.

I'm probably not explaining myself right.