Parent 1 and Parent 2 This name should be removed.
Sandra ALENTEJANO(CATÉ)
Remove the 1 and 2 put just PARENTS
Parent 1 and parent 2 remove this name because we are fathers or mothers.
This name in the name of inclusiveness creates more resentment than anything else.
How many families are there in this name as a percentage of the whole of France?
Moreover, there is no legal obligation to do so, since we are not a school structure or a structure dependent on the state.
Alain GAZALET-DUCHÂTEL
it seems to me that in Enoria, there is everywhere “father or parent 1" and “mother or parent 2", never “parent 1" alone.
In very rare cases (especially in the Church), “parent 1" and “parent 2" can be two dads or two moms, but in the vast majority of cases, it will be aunt and uncle, grandparents, or even big brother/big sister, anyone who has obtained parental authority for example following the death of natural parents (not counting father - stepmother for example). It is perfectly legitimate to provide for the case of children who no longer have either father or mother, but who nevertheless have two parents: it does not cover the same reality.
R
Raphaël Vasconcelos
Alain GAZALET-DUCHÂTEL
Thanks for these comments.
I understand the concerns expressed about the “Parent 1” and “Parent 2” designations. As noted, these terms are intended to take into account the diversity of existing family situations. However, it is also legitimate to note that they can be perceived as unnecessarily politicized terminology and do not correspond to the reality of the vast majority of families.
For the sake of simplicity and consensus, it seems preferable to me to keep the terms “Father” and “Mother”, which remain the most common and understandable references for families.
In order to also include specific situations (guardians, grandparents, blended families, legal guardians, etc.), a simple solution could be to provide a drop-down menu allowing everyone to select the quality that corresponds to them: Father, Mother, Legal Officer, Legal Officer, Guardian, Grandparent, or any other relevant situation.
This approach would make it possible to respect the realities of each person without erasing the terms father and mother, while avoiding terminology that can be a source of useless debates. The objective must remain to facilitate the management of the families concerned in a spirit of welcome and unity.
P
Pascal SEITÉ
and yet you should not refuse baptism or catechesis to children who have a “parent 1" and a “parent 2", regardless of your opinion on the subject. As for your contempt for minorities... what a shame!
R
Raphaël Vasconcelos
Pascal SEITÉ
Nobody is talking here about refusing baptism or catechesis to a child. The Catholic Church welcomes all children and does not make them responsible for the choices or circumstances of adults.
On the other hand, it is also important to remember that the French Bishops' Conference clearly opposed the substitution of the terms “father” and “mother” by “parent 1” and “parent 2”. This opposition does not stem from a rejection of persons, but from an anthropological and Christian conviction that the words “father” and “mother” have their own meaning in filiation.
It therefore seems important to me to distinguish between two issues: the unconditional reception of children, which should never be questioned, and the debate on administrative vocabulary, on which different opinions can be expressed without this necessarily constituting contempt for minorities.
Assimilating this disagreement to hate or contempt does not promote dialogue or mutual understanding.
P
Pascal SEITÉ
Raphaël Vasconcelos you're wrong, sorry...
R
Raphaël Vasconcelos
Pascal SEITÉ
thank you for your direct response. I am not trying to close the debate on administrative vocabulary, on the contrary. I was just distinguishing between 1. the unconditional reception of children, which seems to me to be a common ground, and 2. the choice of words, where opinions may legitimately differ. Saying that I am wrong is possible, but I would like to understand your arguments: exactly what point do you disagree with? We will make better progress if we listen to each other rather than if we oppose each other.
P
Pascal SEITÉ
Raphaël Vasconcelos Good evening You are wrong because:
- The Conference of Bishops of France, which does not have authority over each of the dioceses of France, did not prevent baptism registers from taking into account the civil status of children as presented by their legal representatives, with this formula: “Civil status of the baptized person: Names and first names of parents or other holders of parental authority” (diocese of Nanterre in 2019)
- you're insinuating that I used the word hate. It's not true. You are wrong. I just pointed out that the expression “This appellation concerns how many families as a percentage of the whole of France?” shows contempt for minorities. Have you ever been a minority?
- When you have to love your enemies, you can't use hate vocabulary.
R
Raphaël Vasconcelos
Pascal SEITÉ
Thank you for your response. I gladly recognize that some dioceses have adopted forms using broader expressions such as “parents or other holders of parental authority.” Moreover, this shows that there is a diversity of local administrative practices.
However, this does not change the fact that the French Bishops' Conference has publicly expressed reservations about the terminology “parent 1” and “parent 2”. My aim was simply to reiterate this position, not to question the reception of the persons or families concerned.
Moreover, I think it is difficult to infer an intention of contempt from a question about the representativeness of a situation. This question may be considered clumsy, but it seems to me that it is a bit hasty to attribute to it a contemptuous intention.
You ask me if I have ever been a minority. Yes, in a way. I have an immigration background and have often been sent back to my origins, sometimes even before being considered for who I personally was. So I know what it means to be perceived through a particular characteristic rather than through your person.
It is precisely for this reason that I am wary of the arguments that lead to the classification of individuals according to their belonging to this or that minority. I don't think we gain much from entering into some form of minority competition or suffering. Everyone may have experienced situations of exclusion or misunderstanding, in different forms.
Finally, I fully share your evangelical reminder: we are called to love even those with whom we disagree. That is why I think that we can discuss these issues calmly, without lending each other intentions of contempt or hostility that nothing can be established with certainty.
P
Pascal SEITÉ
Raphaël Vasconcelos so you're going to apologize since you insinuated that I used the word “hate”
R
Raphaël Vasconcelos
Pascal SEITÉ
If what I said gave you the feeling that I was personally attributing the use of the word “hate” to you, then I am happy to apologize to you because that was not my intention.
My objective was to respond to your accusation of “contempt for minorities” and to recall that it is possible to express disagreement on terminology without harboring hostility towards the persons concerned.
In substance, I believe that our main disagreement remains elsewhere. You consider that my remark on the representativeness of this name reflects a contempt for minorities; for my part, I do not think that a question about an administrative practice alone makes it possible to conclude that such an intention has been reached.
Moreover, I continue to think that it is legitimate to recall that the French Bishops' Conference has publicly expressed reservations about the use of “parent 1” and “parent 2”. The fact that some dioceses have adopted different formulations in their administrative documents does not detract from the existence of this position.
However, thank you for this exchange. Even when we do not share the same analysis, I believe that we have an interest in giving each other the benefit of good faith and in avoiding attributing to each other intentions that the other does not claim.