Marian High School student Amanda Howe, 18, planned to bring Justine Werley, a 2006 graduate of the Catholic school, but was informed by school officials that she could not bring a same-sex friend to the formal event.
'You bring who we approve of or you don't go!'
"We're not trying to go as a couple or anything," Howe said. "So I don't see why they're having a problem with this."
As you have probably guessed:
The school, which is run by the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, allows only male-female couples to attend the prom and the semiformal dance, Marian officials said.
The fall gets faster.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
This story is extremely similar to this one:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268951,00.html
the difference between the two being that in the one you've cited (in Indiana) the article doesn't specify the sexual orientation of the girl, and the one I note (in Massachusetts) the article reports the girl as being openly bisexual.
I honestly find it curious that folks consider this newsworthy. I also find it curious that people are surprised by the decisions of the schools. Allowing a same-sex couple to go to a Catholic prom, even if they are just friends, is sort of like asking The Ike Turner Band to play at a benefit for battered women; even if everyone had sincere intentions, those attending would still be left scratching their heads.
Consider the options the school had:
a. They could've responded as they did, and then get criticized by some non-Catholics and non-orthodox Catholics for discrimination against homosexuals
b. They simply could've let the girls go to the prom together. Here's the problem with this: suppose it turned out that the girls in actuality did plan on going as a couple, or, supposed that they weren't a couple but behaved in such a manner that they were perceived by others to be a couple. Then the school is put in jeopardy of being perceived as supporting actions condemned by the Church. This is scandal, and when a representative of the Church condones (or even fails to admonish) actions condemned by the Church, then all kinds of problems result. For instance, you'd get orthodox practitioners protesting the deviation, you'd get some non-Catholics and non-orthodox Catholics using it as a premise for further liberalization ("you don't have a problem with gay couples at the prom, why wouldn't you support them marrying?"), etc.
c. They could've let the girls go to the prom together but issued a public statement indicating that the girls were simply friends and not a couple. Then you'd get the same group of critics that we had under the first option. Additionally, this would open the door for clandestine couples to attend under the guise of being "just friends", leading us back to the second scenario.
The choice left to the school is to risk scandal or to seem draconian. In my opinion, far too many Catholic schools are losing their Catholic identities to curry favor with the religiously liberal, and this unfortunately only begets more Catholic liberalism (which some argue is a good thing, but I would strongly argue the contrary). The problem with taking a firm position is that while the schools and Dioceses could explain the situation in detail to their member families, the portion of the general public hearing these stories are more often than not left seeing only the draconian Church oppressing those with whom it disagrees. While very unfortunate, I see this as the lesser of these two particular evils.
I think why it might be considered "newsworthy" is the fact that even today, in the 21st Century, this type of prohibition continues. Where something such as two girls going to a dance (whether as a "couple" or "just friends") is perceived as a threat to the existence of humanity.
To me, that's why this is news.
Despite the rules the Diocese may have, it is still treating some people is inferior to others.
There used to be "rules" where "inferiors" had to ride in the back of the bus or couldn't vote, or own property, and in fact some "inferiors" were property. All this was seen as right and just by a good portion of the population.
For some reason, since this is a "religious" issue and these are "religious" rules, then they should get a pass on such prohibitive behavior.
I find that disgusting.
Yes, rules are important, but they are to be thrown out if they promote inequality among ourselves.
To me this is about a girl who never had the freedom to choose who she was going to take to a dance, and I find that sad and disturbing.
I still don't but the newsworthiness.
There's a big difference between public discrimination and a private disagreement in ideology. There is no "public bus" analogy, because the girl (and her family) no doubt knew the ideology of the school, and in fact paid to reap the benefits of this ideology. They were simply upset when their plans disagreed with this ideology and they were prevented from going forward.
The discrimination argument further falls apart because individuals aren't being discriminated against, but behavior is; in this case, the behavior inherent in the proposed
"relationship". The argument could be made that this discrimination "against the relationship" is just word-play, but that argument doesn't hold up since there are non-homosexual relationships taht are also considered immoral. As an immediate example, we can point to those relationships considered adulterous. One's first impression would be to think that this isn't nearly as prominent a behavior, but then you'd have to recall that the Church does not recognize divorce, and therefore any relationship a divorced person enters is de-facto adulterous. Given that the divorce rate is lingering at around 60% (even amongst Catholics), this places a very large amount of relationships in that "immoral" category.
Bottom line is that these folks are getting something back by keeping a relationship with the Church, be it their goal for salvation or some other benefit. If they have ideological differences, they have the option to either comply with the rules, tarnish their relationship, or break it off entirely. The Church shouldn't be expected to alter its ideology without a theological justification, which I haven't seen provided by anyone (and trust me, there are tons of people out there trying).
Think of how ugly the alternative can get. In England, they just passed a law prohibiting Catholics in Catholic schools from teaching Catholic dogma because it is viewed as discriminatory: http://joannabogle.blogspot.com/2007/03/saturday-march-3rd-catholic-teaching-in.html
This is an extremely frightening precedent.
Post a Comment