Lesbian demands that her children's Catholic school remove Catechism quote on homosexuality

Ann Michelle Tesluk, a lesbian whose children attend a Catholic school, is demanding that the school, which is located in Peterborough, Ontario, remove a Catechism quote from a pamphlet because it refers to the homosexual inclination as "objectively disordered."  See here.

I wrote a series of posts after the Archdiocese of Boston announced a new policy which says that Catholic schools can partner with homosexual parents.  I reminded His Eminence Sean Cardinal O'Malley that, in its Declaration on Christian Education (Gravissimum Educationis), No. 3, the Vatican II Fathers explained that parents "must be recognized as the primary and principal educators" of their children and that, "This role in education is so important that only with difficulty can it be supplied where it is lacking. Parents are the ones who must create a family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man, in which the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered."

And I added, "But parents who are living in a same-sex relationship cannot create that 'family atmosphere animated by love and respect for God and man' in which 'the well-rounded personal and social education of children is fostered.' The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in its document entitled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, has said that adoption of children by homosexuals 'would actually mean doing violence to these children,' and that their situation of dependence would place them 'in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.' (No. 7).

And then I wrote:  "Can Catholic schools partner with homosexual or lesbian parents? In a word, no. Archbishop Charles Chaput has already addressed this fact in a statement issued earlier this year. The Catholic school must strive to ensure that the environment in which a child lives as he or she is being formed as a human being corresponds to the end of Catholic education. And what is that end? Vatican II teaches clearly that, "A Christian education...has as its principal purpose this goal: that the baptized, while they are gradually introduced to the knowledge of the mystery of salvation, become ever more aware of the gift of faith they have received, and that they learn in addition how to worship God the Father in spirit and truth (cf. Jn 4:23) especially in liturgical action, and be conformed in their personal lives according to the new man created in justice and holiness of truth (Eph 4:22-24); also that they develop into perfect manhood, to the mature measure of the fullness of Christ (cf. Eph 4:13).."

How important is it that a Catholic school strive to ensure that a child's environment corresponds to the end of a Catholic education? Pope Pius XI provides us with an answer, "In order to obtain perfect education, it is of the utmost importance to see that all those conditions which surround the child during the period of his formation, in other words that the combination of circumstances which we call environment, correspond exactly to the end proposed." (Encyclical Letter Divini Illius Magistri, No. 70).

Pope Pius XI continues, "The first natural and necessary element in this environment, as regards education, is the family, and this precisely because so ordained by the Creator Himself. Accordingly that education, as a rule, will be more effective and lasting which is received in a well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family; and more efficacious in proportion to the clear and constant good example set, first by parents, and then by other members of the household." (No. 71). The full Encyclical may be found here.

Same-sex parents are not equipped to provide that "well-ordered and well-disciplined Christian family" necessary for the effective reception of Christian education. Not to mention the conditions required for the normal development of the child. See here for example.

In one post from January of 2011, I addressed Cardinal O'Malley writing, "Our Lord Jesus spoke in the sixth chapter of Matthew, verse 24: 'No one can serve two masters; for he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.' Now, mammon can represent either money or any other created thing which stands in the way of a total commitment to the Lord Jesus....My question: By allowing children of homosexual households into Catholic schools, are you not thereby inviting violence and disorder? After all, how can these children be expected to serve two masters? Will they not come to hate the one and love the other? Will they not be devoted to one while despising the other? Either these children will come to fully embrace Catholic teaching and thereby be set in opposition to their parents illicit sexual behavior, or [and this is the far more likely scenario given that children tend to love their parents or guardians], they will come to despise the Church while condoning intrinsically disordered behavior which have they grown accustom to being exposed to."

No man can serve two masters.  He will hate the one and love the other.  He will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  Violence and disorder have been introduced into those Catholic schools and school districts which believe they can partner with homosexual parents.  Just as I warned.

But then, my patron Saint - for whom I was named - said it best under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit some 2,000 years ago: "Do not be yoked with those who are different, with unbelievers.  For what partnership do rightousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness.  What accord has Christ with Belial?  Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever?" (2 Corinthians 6: 14, 15).

God's Holy Word assures us that rightousness cannot partner with lawlessness.  And homosexual parents who are not committed toward living chaste lives or who reject the teaching of the Lord Jesus through His Church are not committed to righteousness but rather lawlessness.

Father John Dietzen on ordaining homosexual men to the priesthood

In his latest "Questions and Answers" column, Father John Dietzen answers a question from a reader in New York, "Can the Catholic Church ordain homosexual men to the priesthood? Some fellow parishioners say, What's the difference? If they do their job and remain celibate it's not a matter of contention. Others say it is an issue because the person is not whole, is not reconciled in this important part of his personality, has set God aside in his life and would be a negative example blocking God's grace for others. What is your answer?

Father's response: "First, I need to say that this second description and judgment of homosexuality in men (or women) is questionable, to put it mildly. Surely it does not reflect the attitude of the church, which teaches that homosexuals do not choose their condition and must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, and without discrimination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358). To declare that homosexual persons have set aside God, are not reconciled in their physical makeup and block God's grace to others is at best a rash judgment and, furthermore, does not fit experience....To answer your question, a Vatican instruction on admission of men with homosexual tendencies to seminaries and holy orders, dated Nov. 29, 2005, prohibits men with 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies' from entering the seminary. The precise meaning of this phrase was not spelled out, apparently leaving it to bishops and seminary authorities to interpret it more specifically. And many have done so...It will require time and experience to learn how the prohibition should work out in practice."

What of this? Let's begin with Father Dietzen's citation of No. 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Father Dietzen (and this is an old story*) fails to cite the entire paragraph. Yes, we must accept homosexual persons with "respect, compassion and sensitivity." But we're also told in 2358 that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered." And this paragraph does not say that homosexual persons must be accepted "without discrimination." Rather, it states clearly, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." What's the point I'm trying to make? Not all discrimination is unjust. No one has a right to Holy Orders. As I explained back in 2001, in the pages of The Wanderer:

"On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).

This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as 'objectively disordered,' constitutes an irregularity ex defectu. In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.'"

A person with a homosexual tendency "is not..fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." And yet, Father Dietzen tells us that "It will require time and experience to learn how the prohibition should work out in practice." Is Father Dietzen suggesting that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is wrong? Such would appear to be the case.

Perhaps the Catholic News Service should find another priest to write the "Questions and Answers" column?

* See here for example.