Is the Archdiocese of Boston ignoring Church teaching?

That's the question Joe Sacerdo is asking here. It is utterly amazing how many who pride themselves on being "Vatican II Catholics" simply ignore those passages of the Conciliar documents which they find "irrelevant." 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."

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).

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.

Antoniano.

Related reading: Antoniano and Christian education of youth.

Father Geoff Farrow engages in dishonesty

In a Blog post entitled "Bishops take 'strong exception' to marriage ruling," Father Geoff Farrow writes, "In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church's watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled 'Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.' In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are 'homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.' Of course, that statement was made under Pope Paul VI, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have/are backpedaling furiously on that statement. But since the 'Church' (pope/bishops) can never admit a mistake, they simply ignore 'inconvenient' statements or, 'reinterpret' them away."

In the Declaration Fr. Farrow refers to (Persona Humana), this is what the CDF had to say: "A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable." (No. 8).

In 1986, the same CDF - responding to those within the Church and without who twisted this paragraph to promote the homosexual agenda - had this to say in its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons: "In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration [Persona Humana)..an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." (No. 3).

The CDF continued: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace." (No. 11).

If there has been any "reinterpretation" of the Church's teaching, it has been done by dissident "Catholics" such as Fr. Geoff Farrow who have their own agenda. But Fr. Farrow has not been given the mission to instruct the faithful in "all that serves to make the People of God live their lives in holiness and increase their faith" (Dei Verbum, No. 8). That mission has been entrusted exclusively to the divinely instituted pastoral magisterium of the Bishops in union with and under the headship of the Holy Father, Peter's successor and Christ's vicar.

If that is too much for Fr. Farrow to bear, perhaps he would be more at home in the Episcopal church? While he's pondering on this, perhaps Father might care to reflect carefully on the wording used in Persona Humana, No. 8. An instinct is properly defined as "The innate aspect of behavior that is unlearned, complex, and normally adaptive." Adaptive means changeable.

Attempts to demonstrate that the homosexual orientation or inclination is biologically determined or somehow innate and immutable have failed. See here.