Religion & Law

I have been hunting fresh snow beneath the ridges and among the trees in Jackson Hole, and so am late in coming to the ongoing discussion about Arbp. Chaput, same-sex unions, and Catholic schools? admissions policies. 

It seems to me, for what it?s worth, that there are (at least) two separate, but related questions being debated and discussed.  The first is whether or not the Church has the authority -- given by Christ to Peter, the Apostles, and their successors -- to teach regarding faith and morals.  This is the question that Michael P. engaged, I think, when he asked:

The teachings of the magisterium, yes.  But the teachings of Jesus Christ?  I didn't realize that Jesus had anything to say about same-sex unions.  What Gospel passages am I overlooking?

My understanding is that, for Catholics, the content of the ?teachings of Jesus Christ? ? that is, the content of the revealed Word of God ? is not exhausted by the reported sayings of Jesus that appear in the Gospels.  We have just as much reason, it seems to me, to believe that Jesus gave the Church teaching authority with respect to faith and morals as we do to believe that he in fact said what the Gospels report that he said.  (Michael?s view, I understand, is different.)

The second question is whether, all things considered, Arbp. Chaput?s decision is wise, prudent, just, and faithful.  For me, this question is not answered by asking whether the Archbishop would also exclude from Catholic schools the children of parents who practice contraception, who lie-cheat-and-steal, or do anything else immoral in their private lives.  No one thinks that Catholic schools should be open only to children whose parents lead sinless lives (thank God!).  But, would a Catholic school act wrongly if it were to exclude the children of parents who were publicly and notoriously involved in gravely wrong activities or campaigns?  Not necessarily (in my view).  So, this particular question about Arbp. Chaput's decision is, it seems to me, one of those ?all things considered? kinds of questions.  I would think that a pastor and bishop may (and should) consider, among other things, the extent to which the enrollment and involvement of people (children and parents) in Catholic schools could undermine the schools' moral-formation efforts.  Is this such a case?  I'm not sure. 

Now, for Michael, the Archbishop?s decision is misguided because, at the end of the day, the Archbishop is wrong about the morality of same-sex unions and sexual activity -- the Church's teaching on these matters is false and contributes to injustice, in his view.  I agree with Michael that it would be strange to exclude the children of parents for doing or supporting X if X were morally unobjectionable.  But if what the parents are doing were morally objectionable, and it would create, in the Archbishop?s best judgment, a scandal ? it would send the wrong message -- to enroll the children in Catholic schools, then I see no principled reason why the Archbishop could not, as part of his vocation and obligation, take these facts into account when deciding whether or not to admit those parents? children to a Catholic school.

I would welcome others' reactions to this last sentence.  Comments (civil, germane, and charitable ones, that is) are welcome.