My email to the one-man "Catholic Action League"

[rayvaillancourt]

Mr. Doyle,

I find your comments in today's Globe troubling.

C.J. Doyle, executive director of Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called upon the archdiocese to “vigorously defend’’ the school’s decision to revoke admission to the youngster.

“The real question here is why two people who radically repudiate the moral teachings of Catholicism

Comments

[rayvaillancourt]

The passage in Acts dealt with the issue of Jewish/Gentile relations in the Church. I would not take it as an exhaustive list of moral imperatives. Those rules are long gone in the Church, anyway.

The church teaches that ALL sex outside of marriage is illicit. Fornication, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality and the like are all versions of the same sin. Jesus added divorce and remarriage to the list, calling it adultery.

I don't claim to understand homosexuality, and I accept the church teaching on it. But I don't reject my gay friends, because Church teaching also calls me to respect and accept them.

The problem with homosexuality is that it gets separated out from the other sexual sins and given a special "extra-bad" status by Christians. The "Defense of Marriage Act" had nothing to do with preserving the dignity of marriage. It was gay-bashing. If it were about the dignity of marriage, it would address the big-picture threats: easy marriage, easy divorce, adultery, abuse, etc etc. But it was only about keeping the gays from getting legal benefits. Get married and divorced a hundred times if you want, as long as you're not a fag. Unjust discrimination = against Catholic teaching

Same thing in Hingham. I am certain that there are children in that school who were born out of wedlock or whose parents are divorced and remarried. That's just as sinful as homosexuality, but nobody's throwing those kids out. Just the fags, ma'am. Unjust discrimination = against Catholic teaching.

My last point: scripture (Deuteronomy 24:16, Ezekiel 18:19-20) is clear that children are not to be punished for the sins of their parents. If a kid had a child molester and an armored car robber for parents, the school would enroll the kid, and probably give the kid special attention and assistance. After all, the child is not responsible for his/her parent's behavior, right? But the kid with two mommies? Ew!

I think that's enough for now!

[valancy_s]

You make an excellent point about homosexuality being separated out from other sexual sins. There does seem to be some kind of legitimate hierarchy among sins (I mean, in addition to the venal/mortal thing, you don't get words like "grave depravity" and "abhorrent" thrown around for just anything) but it's not up to me to weigh them against each other, and certainly not to treat some people well and others badly based on a comparison of their weaknesses.

I don't know anything about the "Defense of Marriage Act," honestly. It doesn't seem unreasonable for a law to address one aspect of something when other laws already exist addressing other aspects; however, since I don't know the details I'll believe you that this law was discriminatory.

The Hingham thing I am 100% with you on. The Catholic Church doesn't require that the parents be good people or even decent people in order for their kids to get a Catholic education, and that is ABSOLUTELY as it should be. I think the guy who wanted the school's decision upheld is being blatantly unchristian. However, I don't think it's inherently wrong to wonder "why two people who radically repudiate the moral teachings of Catholicism would want their child educated in a Catholic school."* If the school teaches the Catechism honestly, the kid's going to be put in an awkward position (as any child of remarriage or out-of-wedlock parentage would be). But that is not the school's problem. They are completely out of line in kicking the kid out.

*Probably the answer is, "Because it's a good school."