Too Cool for (Catholic) School?

96 posts / 0 new
Last post
jrose
Too Cool for (Catholic) School?

 

jrose

This week from Ms. Communicate

quote:

Dear Ms. Communicate,
I am extremely anti-Catholic for all of the obvious reasons - and have on many occasions spoken out against the church among my friends and family and even boycotted my niece's christening because I felt that I could not support my family's desire to offer up their daughter to such a sexist and oppressive institution.
Now, my son is about to enter high school. My children have always gone to public school, but the public high school in our area is a 25 minute drive away and has a bad reputation. The Catholic high school is right around the corner and has better programs. Apparently, by the time the students reach high school, there is no longer Catholic religion classes required. However, I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church.

Will I still have a right to speak out against the Catholic Church if I choose to send my child to a school run by the Catholic School Board?

Thanks,

Feminist Mother


Find Ms. Communicate's answer [url=http://www.rabble.ca/now_what.shtml?sh_itm=535d7a718a28b6797c7bac95c0a33...

[ 18 July 2008: Message edited by: jrose ]

remind remind's picture

Oh, I see it completely differently than Ms Communicate.

She was unwilling to support having her niece offered up to the institution, because of sexism, etc, so she boycotted the baptism. But yet here she is willing/wanting to give her son up to a sexist institution and have further patriarchial bias entrenched into him, beyond what is already present in the public school system. Why the inconsistent philosophy?

Sure enough he would take a 25 min bus trip, as opposed to a 5 min walk, but is the saved 40 mins a day, worth serving your child up to an institution that will influence the rest of your child's life, and to one that she apparently feels strongly about, that she boycotted a baptism?

Wonder what kind of "bad reputation" the public school has that would outweigh the really bad reputation, and deserved one at that, of the Catholic Church?

Michelle

I'm really glad that Ms C. included her last paragraph. Because that's the first thing that occurred to me too - whether the "bad school" thing was code for "poor kids" or "immigrants".

jrose

I tend to agree with remind's take on this one. It seems that the writer is more than just "anti-Catholic" in theory, rather she is an outspoken advocate against the church. If one is so vehemently against something that she would allow her politics to affect her relationship with her family (ie. neice's baptism) than I certainly don't think it makes sense for her to enroll her child into a Catholic school.

Stephen Gordon

That stuck out for me as well. She's hard-nosed enough to hurt her family's feelings, but not hard-nosed enough to face personal inconvenience?

jrose

quote:


Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
[b]That stuck out for me as well. She's hard-nosed enough to hurt her family's feelings, but not hard-nosed enough to face personal inconvenience?[/b]

I've attended three Catholic funerals this month and no amount of political opinion would convince me to miss any one of them, in the same way I've attended baptisms and weddings, and even the odd church service because it was important to members of my family that I be there. The positive of attending something like a family occassion far outweighs my feelings toward any one denomination. It seems that someone who is willing to miss such a thing has convictions strong enough to keep his or her child out of Catholic school.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by jrose:
[b]This week from Ms. Communicate: "I’d like to remind you that you only have this choice because the Church still considers you and your family members."[/b]

Not so. Open access was one of the conditions of extension of equal funding to grades 11, 12 & 13.

As to the question she raises: "I am worried that sending my son there will be indirectly "supporting" the Catholic Church" -- if you have the illusion you are "sending" your son to any particular high school, have another chat with him. Perhaps he will set you straight. In that case, you might ask him to explain why he has chosen this school, just so you will have a clue why you have "sent" him there.

lagatta

But doesn't that support the continuing existence of confessional schools?

We have managed to eliminate public confessional boards, though alas there is still government funding for private confessional schools aka religion-based ghettos. That crap should be banned.

This does seem odd, and I can't imagine not attending a niece's baptism, given that most baptisms are simply done to please older family members. Hell, the only time I set foot in a church (other than for bazaars, and to admire exceptional architecture) is such family events.

Unionist

I would like someone to explain to me what kind of community (indeed society) it is where you have to drive 25 minutes to get to a real public school, while the religious school is just around the corner?

These religious schools should be cut off without a cent.

lagatta

Absolutely. I suppose one must admit the right of hard-core religious types to organise confessional (ghetto) schools on their own money, as the alternative would be persecution as of the Doukhobors, but not one cent for confessional brainwashing.

Such funding is the great loophole left in our fight to eliminate confessional schools in Quйbec. And while a (secular Jewish) friend has lots of horror stories from her stint as a teacher in a private Chassidic school, most of these centres for religious and sexist indoctrination remain Catholic ones.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]Such funding is the great loophole left in our fight to eliminate confessional schools in Quйbec.[/b]

The term confessional schools is not used in Ontario, and they are not private schools. We have four public systems in Ontario: English Catholic, English secular, French Catholic, and French secular. Also, within the two English systems parents have their choice between English-language schools and French Immersion. All four (or six) sets of schools are 100% provincially funded, thanks to Mike Harris taking taxing powers away from school boards. As such, they are effectively controlled by the province, with some local control in the hands of the four sets of publicly-elected boards of school trustees. The three sets of teachers' unions (the two French-language systems have a common teachers' union) work closely together.

Not very like Quebec.

The big Ontario battle was from 1971 to 1984. The Catholic system stopped at Grade 10, and Grades 9 and 10 were funded at elementary school levels, slightly lower. The Liberals and NDP fought for 13 years to get equal funding for the Catholic boards, while the last remnants of the Orange Order (the Masonic Lodges come to mind) tried to keep the Catholics in their place, leaving school at age 16. We won.

Michelle

You won, did you? Well, congratulations, the Christian Supremacy Party did its work as well then as it does now.

That said, back then, public schools were de-facto "Protestant schools" with all sorts of religion in it, so I can understand why people then thought that Catholics should be able to go to separate schools (although it's still Christian supremacist, since no one ever thought that maybe Jews and people of other religions didn't like having Protestant bullshit crammed down their throats in the public school system).

But now, public schools have been properly stripped of religion. So, there is absolutely no excuse for publicly funding Catholic schools.

Not a single public dime towards religious indoctrination!

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]The Christian Supremacy Party did its work as well then as it does now.[/b]

Led for most of that period by Stephen Lewis.

Michelle

I don't give a shit who led it. If they're espousing Christian supremacist principles, then that's no party I'll be voting for any time soon.

Maybe there are a few non-Christians in the ONDP now too, when they decided it would be great policy to ensure that the Legislature continues to recite the Lord's Prayer every day, instead of supporting a completely reasonable proposal to end the practice. Doesn't mean that they're not reinforcing Christian supremacy.

Unionist

[Bad taste joke deleted, [i]l'koved Shabbos[/i].]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

aka Mycroft

The context of the times was different. Ontario history for much of the 20th century had the Orange Order and Protestant supremacists trying to suppress Catholic and particularly French education and institutions (Regulation 17, enacted by the Tories in 1912, all but banned French language education). The 1971 Ontario election was the last gasp of this earlier force that was otherwise on the decline. Davis came out against extending Catholic school funding for fear of offending the Tory base - and he was always uncomfortable with having to do that so on his way out the door in 1985 he reversed the government's position.

The Liberals, which were traditionally the party Catholics and francophones voted for in opposition to the Protestant, Orange and anti-immigrant Tories traditionally supported the extension of funding for separate schools and the NDP advocated this position as well, in the 1970s, party in order to eat into the Liberal's base but also because in the context of breaking from Ontario's Anglo-Protestant supremacist past supporting Catholic school funding seemed like the more progressive option. Of course, the notion that right wingers oppose Catholic school funding and progressives support it is a false dichotomy but it was very real in the politics of post-war Ontario.

Of course, by 1985 the reality of Ontario had changed and the old Protestant-Catsholic enmity was gone but just like the way generals often fight the last war, Ontario politicians, particularly on the liberal-left, were looking at Catholic school funding from the context of 1971 and before and failed to recognize that the rest of the word had changed and that extending funding to a Christian school was not a progressive, anti-discrimination measure, an antidote to the bigotry of the past, but was actually a reactionary move that failed to recognize the importance of separating church and state.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

aka Mycroft

deleted

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

aka Mycroft

So Michael Prue announced his leadership campaign yesterday and immediately got himself in trouble by questioning Catholic school funding and then instantly backpeddling.

Just when it looked like Prue might be trying to distinguish himself from the other candidates through a bold policy maneuver that would make the NDP more attractive to a large sector of the population whose views are not reflected currently by any party - he backtracks for fear of having been bold.


quote:

"The NDP policy is there, it says that we support the dual system," he said. "It is time though, I think, that we take a look at that, but we need to leave that to (the) convention. It cannot be my position or an individual's position."

As handlers tried to end the news conference, Prue insisted he wasn't trying to re-open the debate about religion and schools that caused so much trouble for Conservative Leader John Tory in last year's election and accused reporters of trying to put words in his mouth.

"I think Tory ran a very poor campaign in the last election in terms of faith-based schools . . . and he suffered the consequences and dragged us down a little with it," he said.

"I think the NDP policy is quite clear and it is there until such time as the convention reviews it."


[url=http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5ipyP_XIV2M53B-Vrdb4GNIbByX... Press[/url]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by aka Mycroft:
[b]

That's not only inaccurate but completely out of line.[/b]


It was meant as a dumb joke in bad taste. Oh well, I guess I should have known better than telling bad jokes on Shabbos. I'll delete it if you delete your quoted reference to it.

Unionist

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

aka Mycroft

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I don't give a shit who led it. If they're espousing Christian supremacist principles, then that's no party I'll be voting for any time soon.[/b]

Other than invoking the name of Stephen Lewis, the other name I should invoke was the best voice of the Left within the party in Ontario at that time, Dan Heap. At the crucial convention debate on the topic he argued, as always, from socialist principle, not from any sort of [i]realpolitik[/i], that no socialist could defend what the grade 10 cut-off was doing to working-class Catholic kids. The hope that some folks nurtured in the hearts -- that if we starved the Separate School system of money it would somehow wither away -- he dismissed pretty brutally as fighting religious battles on the backs of working-class and immigrant kids.

But perhaps I'm in trouble quoting Dan Heap. After all, he was (gasp) an [i]Anglican priest[/i]. Never mind that he had quit the role of parish priest back in 1954 and been a worker-priest for 18 years before being elected to city council and then to Parliament. Never mind that no one who knows him or knew him then -- such as his first young constituency assistant, Olivia Chow -- would ever think of him for a millisecond as a Christian Supremacist.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Some people are being unnecessarily judgmental here.

I don't understand the criticism of this woman for being inconsistent in her opposition to Roman Catholicism. Is consistency such a virtue that it should outweigh other factors? If you strongly object to an infant family member being baptized into the church on the say-so of her parents (considered by some to be a form of child abuse) does that mean you should not so much as contemplate sending your own child to a Catholic school - even though you believe he will not receive religious instruction?

A more reasonable answer would point out that there is no way to avoid "supporting" the Catholic Church if she sends her son to the Catholic school; not only will her school taxes be directed to the separate school system, but the very presence of her son as a student - and therefore a statistic - will help to validate and perpetuate the existence of the separate school system, and conversely weaken the public system, even if only by a relatively tiny amount.

And of course, she does not forfeit the right to speak out against the Church [b](which was the actual question she asked)[/b].

She was [b]not[/b] asking for advice on whether she should send her son to a Catholic school. There are obviously some arguments for and against it, and she has the right to decide that for herself. If she decides to go with the catholic school, it will not be because of any religious sympathy for the Church, so it doesn't make her a hypocrite for speaking out against the chirch and opposing the enforced religious recruitment of family members through the sacrament of baptism.

I thought Ms. Communicate's response was quite appropriate.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]At the crucial convention debate on the topic he argued, as always, from socialist principle, not from any sort of [i]realpolitik[/i], that no socialist could defend what the grade 10 cut-off was doing to working-class Catholic kids.[/b]

What was it doing to working-class Catholic kids? Forcing them to switch to a public high school for Grade 11?

The horror!

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]What was it doing to working-class Catholic kids? Forcing them to switch to a public high school for Grade 11?[/b]

I grew up in a neighbourhood that was about half Catholic. When I was finishing Grade 10, I found to my great surprise -- indeed, horror -- that the majority of the Catholics in my age cohort were planning on leaving school at age 16. A smaller group were going to continue and pay tuition fees. A still smaller group were going to switch schools. The next September there were a small handful of switchers in my Grade 11 class. If I recall correctly, only one stuck it out to the end of Grade 12.

But what I found was the true horror was that everyone seemed to think this situation was perfectly normal. It was 1958. The USA was gradually and painfully granting equal rights to black students. Justice Frankfurter expressed faith that although the practice of segregation had gone on for a long time, the change in the legal backdrop and the education of the general public would ultimately change local customs. But equal rights for Ontario Catholics was not on the radar, it seemed.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]But equal rights for Ontario Catholics was not on the radar, it seemed.[/b]

Equal to whom? Non-Catholics? Interesting bifurcation of the society.

"Equal rights" for Catholics would mean no religious public schools for them - just like everyone else. Are you using some Ontario dialect definition of "equal"??

Quйbec and NL have wiped out religious public schools, with virtually zero backlash.

Starting this school year, no Catholic public school should accept any new student. Simple, eh? No traumas for the "working-class" kiddies. They can all just stay in whatever school they're in, or start their schooling in a plain vanilla public school.

Oh, of course, it will require a constitutional amendment, which takes two seconds. We know, we've done it.

Any other social crises I can help Ontario with?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Starting this school year, no Catholic public school should accept any new student. Simple, eh? No traumas for the "working-class" kiddies. They can all just stay in whatever school they're in, or start their schooling in a plain vanilla public school.

Any other social crises I can help Ontario with?[/b]


I doubt you're serious. But let's suppose.

Would you make no exception for younger siblings, who would find themselves in a different school then their sibling two years older? I guess not.

But we have no surplus buildings. In Port Hope today three schools have students entering Grade 1: one Catholic and two Public. Where will this new plain vanilla public school be? In a wing of St. Mary's, which will gradually fade out the "St." and eventually be renamed Mary Vanilla?

More to the point: what sane person would propose, or vote for, such unnecessary disruption? What voter wouldn't say "Why can't we all get along?" as in fact we do.

[ 19 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Bacchus

Simpler way.

Starting from last years grade 9s, the catholic school is funded for those grade 9s until grade 12 and all the ones after them already in the system. Starting next year there is no funding for any students entering the catholic system. That way no one can say we are abandoning students already in the system.

And there should be no mre funding for anything but the public system

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]
Would you make no exception for younger siblings, who would find themselves in a different school then their sibling two years older? ... But we have no surplus buildings.[/b]

I'm trying to determine whether you really don't understand that change is several decades overdue.

Each new cohort doesn't have to be in different buildings. They just need to abolish the religious stuff. One year at a time. Within 5-6 years, the nightmare is over.

Get it? Same building? Different syllabus?

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Same building? Different syllabus?[/b]

Different school board. Different principal. In fact, different neighbourhood, if the three new public schools each have their own attendence boundaries.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]
Different school board. Different principal. In fact, different neighbourhood, if the three new public schools each have their own attendence boundaries.[/b]

Look, if it's all that complicated, then just abolish it [b]overnight[/b]. Any parent that feels their child needs the Pope overseeing biology and math class can work the extra overtime shifts and force their kid into some private school - the way all the other non-equal religions do.

What is the problem here? Is there actually 1% of voters who would vote for someone who promised to maintain this medieval system?

Wilf, you say everyone gets along fine. That's what every beneficiary of inequality and supremacy has always said. Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks. You'll see, people will get along even finer - I guarantee it.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ontario Catholics must learn to live like other folks.[/b]

They do. Our kids all play hockey and soccer together, and go to movies togther. Kids in the east half of town go to one school, the west half to a different school, the Catholics to a third school. It bothers no one. You're trying to solve a problem that does not exist.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]It bothers no one.[/b]

It bothers me. My taxes are subsidizing your kids' religious education.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]My taxes are subsidizing your kids' religious education.[/b]

Catholics pay taxes too.

If Catholic schools get subsidies from non-Catholics, the only reason would be if Catholics have lower incomes and pay less taxes.

In which case your taxes are subsidizing Catholic hospitals too. Does that bother you?

Why don't you worry about real social issues that affect most people. Not your little religious wars. I'm restraining myself here.

lagatta

I suppose because a majority of Quйbйcois and Newfoundlanders are nominally Catholic, we view the matter differently.

Of course Dan Heap was right, as at the time the so-called public system was actually strongly Protestant - but that has to be abolished as well.

Secular education and an elimination of any religion's influence on public or publicly-funded education is a very real issue. It should have been settled in the 19th or early-20th century, true, but there are obvious historical reasons (including reactionary anti-"Papist" bigotry, mostly against French and Irish) among the non-less God-bothered Protestants and Orangemen). The elimination of the influence of any Church, Temple, Synagogue or Mosque on public education - and on funding for sectarian schools - is a fundamental of democracy and equality.

And I definitely am of the opinion that Catholic - and any other religion-based hospitals receiving public funding - must become secular.

That does not mean there can't be accomodations to people of a given religious faith - a chapel, a chaplain, kosher or halal food, etc. It means that there will be no religious busybodies trying to control women's private parts, for one thing.

The hospitals, mostly Catholic, were nationalised here during the Quiet Revolution. So were the universities and the former Collиges classiques.

I don't think it is a false issue - it would also eliminate a wasteful duplication of school boards.

Unionist

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]Why don't you worry about real social issues that affect most people. Not your little religious wars. [/b]

Progressive people have big hearts - lots of room to worry about lots of things. Like segregation and ghettoization and dating and marrying "one's own". That's a real social issue. It should be publicly discouraged, not funded.

Michelle

I totally understand why, back when the public schools were actually unofficial "Protestant schools" that some kind of arrangement had to be made for kids of other religions. And I realize that the times were different then, and non-Christian religions didn't count, so obviously the only "other religion" was Catholic and so they decided to make separate schools.

But now, we're all a lot more enlightened than we were 30 or 40 years ago, we've eliminated all religion (including Protestant) from our public schools, and it's time to get rid of publicly funded Catholic schools.

It doesn't surprise me that the NDP doesn't support such a measure. They don't have a very good track record on this issue, unfortunately.

Wilf Day

quote:


Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Like segregation and ghettoization and dating and marrying "one's own". That's a real social issue. It should be publicly discouraged, not funded.[/b]

That's not for me to say, since I'm not a Catholic. Would you like me to tell Montreal Jews that they shouldn't send their kids to anglophone schols, and shouldn't be so concentrated in TMR and other neighbourhoods, but should integrate themselves into the majority culture? Do you propose anglophone schools should be de-funded, to discourage segregation and ghettoization?

quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]it's time to get rid of publicly funded Catholic schools.[/b]

If a Catholic family doesn't want to send their kids to a Catholic school, they don't have to.

What gives you or me the right to abolish their school system? Sounds pretty arrogant, sorry.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: Wilf Day ]

Michelle

They can have their school system all they like. I don't care if they have the system. But not a single penny of public funds should be allotted towards them. Not one penny.

lagatta

Not all Montreal Jews are anglophones. There is a large French-speaking Sephardic community, and also Jewish immigrants from francophone countries.

Many parts of Canada are still incredibly backward on the issue of secular schools. There are a lot of countries viewed as strongly Catholic - such as Mexico - where all public education has been secular since the Revolution 100 years ago.

jrootham

The issue doesn't have to be shutting down the school system. We can simply remove the control of the church from that system. Still probably takes a constitutional amendment, but hugely reduces the disruption the dogmatic secularists are trying to impose.

In most of Ontario the school boards are too big, courtesy of Mike Harris. My sister just retired from teaching in Bracebridge and her board offices were in Lindsay. We can use this transformation to start rationalizing the board areas.

lagatta

Dogmatic secularists?

As in not wanting public money to fund any religious dogma?

Also sounds like the only fair system in a society where there are people of many faiths, and of none.

Vive la rйvolution!

jrootham

I'd like to remove the religious control as well. I just think we can and should do it without throwing social and historical bombs. There has been way too much enthusiasm from some posters in this thread for the idea of disrupting the lives of people in this province.

AFAIK there are only 2 things that need to be done to the current system. Remove the requirement for a letter from a priest to get a teaching job and move religious classes out of the regular school day, and I'm not even sure if the latter problem exists.

Anybody know if there are any other issues?

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by Wilf Day:
[b]...Would you like me to tell Montreal Jews that they shouldn't send their kids to anglophone schols, and shouldn't be so concentrated in TMR and other neighbourhoods, but should integrate themselves into the majority culture? Do you propose anglophone schools should be de-funded, to discourage segregation and ghettoization?[/b]

Wilf, that is a wee bit of a red herring, no?

As really, what you did with that sentence was juxtaposition religion and language and created a conceptual framework that the 2 are equal within the functioning of the state.

The 2 cannot be compared, as such your questions have no basis in the reality of the situation, nor can they be factored into any deliberations.

There is NO state religion, as such there should be no funding of any religious schools. There ARE state language requirements, thus funding must exist for them. You see how that works?

In order for your framework to be valid, we would have to get rid of state language requirements.

quote:

[b]If a Catholic family doesn't want to send their kids to a Catholic school, they don't have to.[/b]

No, actually, the opposite should be true, if they do not want to send their children to the state's publically paid for schools, then they should be paying for it themselves, just as other [b]private[/b] school parents do.

You see how that works public vs private?

Private is one's own religious choice, public is secular with NO funding for private religious choices, as it is a secular state.

quote:

[b]What gives you or me the right to abolish their school system?[/b]

Uh, that is really a self-evident question, no? We, the Canadian public, are the ones funding a school that contains [b]their[/b] private religious beliefs. I would say that fact gives us the foremost right to petition to withdraw public funding from their private religious schools. If they cannot operate their private belief schools, on their own, it would be their problem, not the general publics.

quote:

[b] Sounds pretty arrogant, sorry.[/b]

No actually, what is arrogant, is the Catholic Church's belief, or anyone else's, that the general public of Canada, should fund their, or any religious, schools.

What you are hearing the sound of is empowerment of the general public, in realizing, and saying; public money must not go to an organization that operates a school from a position of private religious beliefs.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

remind remind's picture

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]Anybody know if there are any other issues?[/b]

How many do you need before critical mass of removing all funding would be viewed as the best thing, considering all things?

We could add, things like:

1. No adequate sex education

2. Heterosexual family teaching only

3. Systemically entrenched sexism

But does it really matter what issues there are? The reality is there are too many issues to try and eradicate, in order for public funding to apply. As religion, their religion, is entrenched into their school systems. Period.

etd to remove creationism by popular consensus, though I know Catholics who believe whole heartedly in it.

[ 20 July 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

jrootham

Remind what actual experience do you have with the Separate School system in Ontario?

I don't have much but at least one thing on that list is almost certainly false.

the grey

quote:


Originally posted by jrootham:
[b]The issue doesn't have to be shutting down the school system. We can simply remove the control of the church from that system.[/b]

The church doesn't control the system. The democratically elected school board trustees control the system. Well, except to the extent that the provincial government controls the system.

jrootham

The teachers still need a letter from a priest AFAIK. That is an unacceptable measure of control.

Michael Hardner

quote:


2. Creationism as opposed to evolution

This is incorrect.

I attended Catholic high school many decades ago, and it was made clear to us that the church had no position against evolution, and the nun who taught the course indicated that she believed the Adam and Eve story was 'symbolic'.

Le T Le T's picture

It's true. I went to Catholic highschool about 1 decade ago and they teach a pro-evolution creation story - Adam and Eve, symbolism and all that.

They also taught that gay people weren't sinners, gay sex was the sin. So it was okay that people were gay, they just could never EVER have sex. The reason that they gave was that they could not produce children when they had sex. I asked, what about a married hetero Catholic couple that is infertile for some reason. That sent my religion teacher into an ethics/reason glitch. I took a lot of enjoyment in asking those questions in religion class, mostly 'cause I was a little punk who enjoyed watching my teacher squirm. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

Pages