Dealing with non-Catholics in Catholic Schools

[crazzeto]

Do you have any idea how irrational a statement this is–to the Mormon reading it?

Nice taking a sentance out of context

 

[StrawberryJam]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood? M’goodness, that was a circular statement, and once you cease to be dizzy, you’ll wish you hadn’t written it. Think about it a moment.

]I thought about it, and don’t regret it a bit.

uhm…you don’t want to go there. You really don’t.

Why not? It is you who do not wish to go there.

Be a little difficult to do that, m’friend, since the USA was 'founded" in 1776, and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was not begun for another 54 years.

Now…what’s your excuse?

My point is made. Your Jospeh Smith did nothing in the way of taking care of needs of the people then, because he was not even born yet. Seems God would have brought him on the scene sooner if he was actually needed.

 

[dianaiad]

My point is made. Your Jospeh Smith did nothing in the way of taking care of needs of the people then, because he was not even born yet. Seems God would have brought him on the scene sooner if he was actually needed.

Actually, your point is disproven…given that the Catholics WERE around for a very long time before they did anything like opening schools and universities for lay members.

In fact, compared to Catholicism, Mormons worked at lightspeed in this area.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Actually, your point is disproven…given that the Catholics WERE around for a very long time before they did anything like opening schools and universities for lay members.

In fact, compared to Catholicism, Mormons worked at lightspeed in this area.

I can not continue to entertian your daydreams and wishful thinking. Catholics were lightyears ahead of you then, and still are now. Wake up to that fact.

 

[dianaiad]

I can not continue to entertian your daydreams and wishful thinking. Catholics were lightyears ahead of you then, and still are now. Wake up to that fact.

OK…

Give me some dates. When was the first Catholic university (for lay members, now) established?

HOW long had the church been around before that happened, again?

 

[StrawberryJam]

OK…

Give me some dates. When was the first Catholic university (for lay members, now) established?

HOW long had the church been around before that happened, again?

That is a topic for the NON catholic forum dear caf fellow member.

Start a thread. I’ll keep my eyes open for it.

This is the second time I have pleaded with you to take your personal baggage elsewhere.

 

[dianaiad]

That is a topic for the NON catholic forum dear caf fellow member.

Start a thread. I’ll keep my eyes open for it.

This is the second time I have pleaded with you to take your personal baggage elsewhere.

Dear Strawberry:

You are quite right. This is the non-Catholic sub forum, set aside for the discussion of non-Catholic religions. Those of us who belong to those religions are here to defend our own faiths.

One of the appropriate ways to do that, when someone attacks it (the way you did with your rather strange attack on Joseph Smith and the church education system) is to question whether your own system was/is in a position to criticise. Hence the questions. For you to bring it down to the personal level is a pretty classic attempt to avoid answering the question.

If your own system did not establish schools and universities as rapidly as we did, then it is a little silly of you to criticize us for not doing it as fast as you think we should have, don’t you think?

As for me, I will accept criticism of my beliefs…if it is criticism of what we really do believe. I will accept criticism of our history…if it is a criticism of the actual history. I will accept criticism of percieved shortcomings—from those who don’t share them, and perhaps more importantly aren’t far more guilty of them than we are. Even then I can’t say a word if someone points out that our history is also human and imperfect; it is. However, when that critic tells me that my religion is false BECAUSE of those shortcomings, or that history, then they had better belong to a religion that does not have those shortcomings or have any history of what they are accusing us of; for if such things prove us false, they also prove them to be false.

I really dislike double standards, you see, and I call people on them when they attempt to apply one.

And that, dear CAF friend, is an appropriate discussion for non-Catholic religions.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Dear Strawberry:

You are quite right. This is the non-Catholic sub forum, set aside for the discussion of non-Catholic religions. Those of us who belong to those religions are here to defend our own faiths.

One of the appropriate ways to do that, when someone attacks it (the way you did with your rather strange attack on Joseph Smith and the church education system) is to question whether your own system was/is in a position to criticise. Hence the questions. For you to bring it down to the personal level is a pretty classic attempt to avoid answering the question.

If your own system did not establish schools and universities as rapidly as we did, then it is a little silly of you to criticize us for not doing it as fast as you think we should have, don’t you think?

As for me, I will accept criticism of my beliefs…if it is criticism of what we really do believe. I will accept criticism of our history…if it is a criticism of the actual history. I will accept criticism of percieved shortcomings—from those who don’t share them, and perhaps more importantly aren’t far more guilty of them than we are. Even then I can’t say a word if someone points out that our history is also human and imperfect; it is. However, when that critic tells me that my religion is false BECAUSE of those shortcomings, or that history, then they had better belong to a religion that does not have those shortcomings or have any history of what they are accusing us of; for if such things prove us false, they also prove them to be false.

I really dislike double standards, you see, and I call people on them when they attempt to apply one.

And that, dear CAF friend, is an appropriate discussion for non-Catholic religions.

Start your own thread about your beliefs, in this forum on the topic of the history of education, schools, and hospitals then.

I’ll be there.

Stop hyjacking this thread.

 

[kalt]

Actually, your point is disproven…given that the Catholics WERE around for a very long time before they did anything like opening schools and universities for lay members.

In fact, compared to Catholicism, Mormons worked at lightspeed in this area.

I would have to check on the dates, though I think the exact dates are unimportant, since The Catholic Church was working in a different time period then, which was long before the founder of your church was born.

Everthing builds on something else. If one founded an Ameican city today, it would be easy to take the knowledge earned by those who came before and recreate “in the blink of the eye” what the pioneers created, which then was original and unique.

Well, as original and unique as human beings ever are. It’s clear that the “pioneers” in anything are building on what came before them.

 

[dianaiad]

I would have to check on the dates, though I think the exact dates are unimportant, since The Catholic Church was working in a different time period then, which was long before the founder of your church was born.

Everthing builds on something else. If one founded an Ameican city today, it would be easy to take the knowledge earned by those who came before and recreate “in the blink of the eye” what the pioneers created, which then was original and unique.

Well, as original and unique as human beings ever are. It’s clear that the “pioneers” in anything are building on what came before them.

Kalt, you are absolutely right. Any culture does build on what came before. Mormons built upon, and chose, the good things of the cultures that people brought into the mix–and sometimes, unfortunately, some of the bad things as well.

So…we emphasized education for everybody, men and women alike. Education has always been important to us.

What cultures did the early Catholics have to build on? The Romans, Greeks and Jews, all three of whom emphasized education–at least for the men and those who could afford to pay for the lessons, that’s who. In fact, Christianity was founded by a LITERATE culture, that became illiterate under Christian governance and culture, except for the clergy.

Of course, there were many reasons for the change; Catholicism alone was not responsible. However, Catholicism didn’t try to fix it, either.

Now, this thread is about how Catholic schools should deal with non-Catholic students, and until someone made some snarky comments about LDS education and then accuse ME of 'hijacking the thread," it stayed there.

My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Catholics should respect the religions of those non-Catholics they invite into their schools. After all, these families really are paying more than the Catholics are in order to attend. I do NOT think that Catholic religion teachers should defer to the beliefs of non-Catholics; there is a world of difference between ‘respect,’ and 'deference."

It is quite possible to differ with courtesy, and to be courteous without deference.

 

[kalt]

Kalt, you are absolutely right. Any culture does build on what came before. Mormons built upon, and chose, the good things of the cultures that people brought into the mix–and sometimes, unfortunately, some of the bad things as well.

So…we emphasized education for everybody, men and women alike. Education has always been important to us.

What cultures did the early Catholics have to build on? The Romans, Greeks and Jews, all three of whom emphasized education–at least for the men and those who could afford to pay for the lessons, that’s who. In fact, Christianity was founded by a LITERATE culture, that became illiterate under Christian governance and culture, except for the clergy.

Of course, there were many reasons for the change; Catholicism alone was not responsible. However, Catholicism didn’t try to fix it, either.

Now, this thread is about how Catholic schools should deal with non-Catholic students, and until someone made some snarky comments about LDS education and then accuse ME of 'hijacking the thread," it stayed there.

My personal opinion, for what it’s worth, is that Catholics should respect the religions of those non-Catholics they invite into their schools. After all, these families really are paying more than the Catholics are in order to attend. I do NOT think that Catholic religion teachers should defer to the beliefs of non-Catholics; there is a world of difference between ‘respect,’ and 'deference."

It is quite possible to differ with courtesy, and to be courteous without deference.

Have you studied the era? What role did the CC play? Who was literate before? During? After? The church didn’t try to fix it. What did the Church do during this period? How did these areas emerge and become literate again? Did these cultures emphasis education for the masses before? Did they immediately after?

What a parent pays to send their kid to the school is irrelevant. They are choosing to send their kids to a school that’s run by a church they don’t agree with. If the kid is insulted because his religion isn’t “respected”, the parent needs to find another place to send him. Respected has a new meaning today, which is “equal validity”.

If you mean, rather, that a respectful classroom exchange would go something like, “Mrs. M, I don’t believe that Mary is the mother of God.” “Well, Johnny, I realize that your church teaches that, but that is wrong. Mary is the mother of God, and this is how we know.” (Teacher explains the point.)

I think, though, that most people mean that the child’s church’s view would be treated as equally valid (respected), as if it were a different but equal idea. So the teacher would say something like, “Yes, Johnny, that is another way to look at it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.”

That is fine in conversation. But this is a class in which the purpse is to teach Catholic children their religion. The truth has to be taught. Students of different faiths must be respectful of the teacher, the other students, and the lesson.Honest questions help kids learn, so any child of a different faith who disagrees with Catholic doctrine should phrase his statements in a way that doesn’t undermine the authority of the teaching authority of the Church. “I don’t believe that Mary is the mother of God.” could be rephrased to a question - “Can you explain why you believe that Mary is the mother of God?” The kid isn’t required to believe it, of course, but a non-Catholic in a Catholic religion class shouldn’t be openly denying Catholic doctrine. Respectful questions which are sensitive to the purpose of the class and to the other students’ belief should always be encouraged (and respected).

Is this possible? Heck yeah. Jewish kids do this from the time they’re in Kindergarten, if not before. When talk in the classroom turns to Santa Claus at Christmastime, the Jewish kids don’t throw their hands up and state that Santa Claus isn’t real. They’re respectful of the beliefs of others. When they visit a friend’s house at Christmastime, they don’t announce that the baby in the manger isn’t God.

 

[zaffiroborant]

What cultures did the early Catholics have to build on? The Romans, Greeks and Jews, all three of whom emphasized education–at least for the men and those who could afford to pay for the lessons, that’s who. In fact, Christianity was founded by a LITERATE culture, that became illiterate under Christian governance and culture, except for the clergy.

Of course, there were many reasons for the change; Catholicism alone was not responsible. However, Catholicism didn’t try to fix it, either.

You know that is an extreme over simplification. Was what is now Europe educated, literate, did they emphasize education? How about the “decline and fall” of the Roman Empire what effect did it have on the education of people? Could as many people afford to acquire it, could a person feed and clothe family by teaching it? This is a lot like the “America was founded on religious freedom” “people came to escape religious persecution” when the end result of escaping persecution was to persecute others and require adherence to the local religion.

By the way Wiki says the first university in the world was in, … can you guess…

China in 258 AD currently called Nanjing University and in another article Nalanda University (450) in India as the oldest university in continuous operation. They list the oldest Western university as the University of Bologna (1088)

I would be interested in a book on the subject, anyone know of any?

 

[dianaiad]

Have you studied the era?

Yep.

What role did the CC play? Who was literate before? During? After? The church didn’t try to fix it. What did the Church do during this period?

The church reserved education and learning for the clergy, and actively discouraged learning for the lay members…and the church did this for close to a thousand years.

How did these areas emerge and become literate again?

Actually…a lot of it was due to the Reformation.

Did these cultures emphasis education for the masses before?

Well, no…given that ‘before’ ‘these cultures’ were the Catholic cultures that reserved learning to the…quite literally…clerical classes.

Did they immediately after?

“immediately after…” what? There was a resurgance of the middle class…and an increased interest in learning and education, which led to some quesitons being asked, which led to the Reformation, which led to the Catholics ‘fighting fire with fire,’ so to speak. It was a circle…but the Catholics had to be shoved into participating.

What a parent pays to send their kid to the school is irrelevant.

It is to the parent.

They are choosing to send their kids to a school that’s run by a church they don’t agree with. If the kid is insulted because his religion isn’t “respected”, the parent needs to find another place to send him. Respected has a new meaning today, which is “equal validity”.

That is not what ‘respect’ means. It doesn’t matter what you want to insist I mean by that, but ‘respect’ means ‘to honor,’ 'to notice with attention," ‘care,’ It means, in this case, to honor the believer even if you cannot agree with the beliefs. It means–do not treat a believer with disdain because you disagree with the beliefs.

If you mean, rather, that a respectful classroom exchange would go something like, “Mrs. M, I don’t believe that Mary is the mother of God.” “Well, Johnny, I realize that your church teaches that, but that is wrong. Mary is the mother of God, and this is how we know.” (Teacher explains the point.)

That would be a respectful classroom exchange in my book, yes.

I think, though, that most people mean that the child’s church’s view would be treated as equally valid (respected), as if it were a different but equal idea. So the teacher would say something like, “Yes, Johnny, that is another way to look at it. We’ll have to agree to disagree.”

That is fine in conversation. But this is a class in which the purpse is to teach Catholic children their religion. The truth has to be taught. Students of different faiths must be respectful of the teacher, the other students, and the lesson.Honest questions help kids learn, so any child of a different faith who disagrees with Catholic doctrine should phrase his statements in a way that doesn’t undermine the authority of the teaching authority of the Church. “I don’t believe that Mary is the mother of God.” could be rephrased to a question - “Can you explain why you believe that Mary is the mother of God?”

I would agree with that. Of course, students aren’t generally that diplomatic. They have to be TAUGHT to be respectful and diplomatic by their parents and by their teachers—and this is done by example, generally. It is ludicrous to treat students with disdain and expect them to learn respect from that.

The kid isn’t required to believe it, of course, but a non-Catholic in a Catholic religion class shouldn’t be openly denying Catholic doctrine. Respectful questions which are sensitive to the purpose of the class and to the other students’ belief should always be encouraged (and respected).

Is this possible? Heck yeah. Jewish kids do this from the time they’re in Kindergarten, if not before. When talk in the classroom turns to Santa Claus at Christmastime, the Jewish kids don’t throw their hands up and state that Santa Claus isn’t real. They’re respectful of the beliefs of others. When they visit a friend’s house at Christmastime, they don’t announce that the baby in the manger isn’t God.

Ok, I see nothing wrong with the approach you suggest.

 

[jmcrae]

Yep.

The church reserved education and learning for the clergy, and actively discouraged learning for the lay members…and the church did this for close to a thousand years.

After the fall of the Roman Empire, and before the beginnings of the mechanical age, lay people did not have a lot of spare time on their hands. In this age of leisure with machines doing most of our work for us, we have very little concept of what it took to survive, back then. They literally worked from sun-up to sun-down, simply to stay alive. They didn’t have technology that we take completely for granted, such as running water, ovens for cooking, iron frying pans, etc. Everything was done over an open fire.

Actually…a lot of it was due to the Reformation.

Actually, no - the Reformation took advantage of the machine age, and a new era of leisure, where lay people began to have time to learn to read and write, and it became possible to print books in large quantities. Martin Luther would have died unknown, if he hadn’t published thousands and thousands of propaganda tracts - or if the Catholic lay people to whom he distributed them had still been illiterate.

Well, no…given that ‘before’ ‘these cultures’ were the Catholic cultures that reserved learning to the…quite literally…clerical classes.

The original European peoples were Huns, Visigoths, Celts, Picts, Vikings, and Saxons, among others. None of them were literate, originally. Most of them were quite astoundingly violent.

 

[kalt]

The church reserved education and learning for the clergy, and actively discouraged learning for the lay members…and the church did this for close to a thousand years./quote]

Can you elaborate on this? Where did you get this info?

 

[dianaiad]

After the fall of the Roman Empire, and before the beginnings of the mechanical age, lay people did not have a lot of spare time on their hands. In this age of leisure with machines doing most of our work for us, we have very little concept of what it took to survive, back then. They literally worked from sun-up to sun-down, simply to stay alive. They didn’t have technology that we take completely for granted, such as running water, ovens for cooking, iron frying pans, etc. Everything was done over an open fire.

Actually, that’s pretty much the way it was done in Greece, Rome and Israel, as well, and the laity was still encouraged to learn things in those cultures. Slave labor was rather important in those cultures, as well…as it remained in the Christian world. Though the name was changed to ‘serfdom’ rather than ‘slavery,’ very few of the restrictions changed.

Actually, no - the Reformation took advantage of the machine age, and a new era of leisure, where lay people began to have time to learn to read and write, and it became possible to print books in large quantities. Martin Luther would have died unknown, if he hadn’t published thousands and thousands of propaganda tracts - or if the Catholic lay people to whom he distributed them had still been illiterate.

It was difficult to separate that era out; reformation/mechanical advances…because heresy was rather quickly and violently suppressed by Catholicism whenever it reared it’s head. By the way, the Catholics did NOT like the invention of the printing press. They had to put ‘a good face’ on it, but here’s the deal; the printing press had been around for quite some time. What made Gutenberg special was the movable type, oil based ink and the use of already existing printing methods. Mostly it was the movable type that did it for him: he was a goldsmith and a metal worker. Everybody else around him used wooden blocks, or cast clay blocks.

Now these earlier methods were a great deal more cumbersome to work with, but they were still used, and could have been used for making books, specifically bibles. They were not, and one of the reasons was the church monopoly on the entire idea.

But here comes Gutenberg, who does stuff like print endulgences for the church…I guess the church thought that if printed indulgences were a good idea, nothing too horrible could come of letting the man print the bible. …and the reformation was in full swing 60 years later.

The original European peoples were Huns, Visigoths, Celts, Picts, Vikings, and Saxons, among others. None of them were literate, originally. Most of them were quite astoundingly violent.

Please note. I did specifically state that the reasons were varied…but that the Catholics didn’t attempt to FIX it. they could have. They chose not to.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Please note. I did specifically state that the reasons were varied…but that the Catholics didn’t attempt to FIX it. they could have. They chose not to.

Just like now where we could feed the millions of people who are starving in the world right now, but we choose not to.

 

[Bill_Pick]

Actually, that’s pretty much the way it was done in Greece, Rome and Israel, as well, and the laity was still encouraged to learn things in those cultures. Slave labor was rather important in those cultures, as well…as it remained in the Christian world. Though the name was changed to ‘serfdom’ rather than ‘slavery,’ very few of the restrictions changed.

It was difficult to separate that era out; reformation/mechanical advances…because heresy was rather quickly and violently suppressed by Catholicism whenever it reared it’s head. By the way, the Catholics did NOT like the invention of the printing press. They had to put ‘a good face’ on it, but here’s the deal; the printing press had been around for quite some time. What made Gutenberg special was the movable type, oil based ink and the use of already existing printing methods. Mostly it was the movable type that did it for him: he was a goldsmith and a metal worker. Everybody else around him used wooden blocks, or cast clay blocks.

Now these earlier methods were a great deal more cumbersome to work with, but they were still used, and could have been used for making books, specifically bibles. They were not, and one of the reasons was the church monopoly on the entire idea.

But here comes Gutenberg, who does stuff like print endulgences for the church…I guess the church thought that if printed indulgences were a good idea, nothing too horrible could come of letting the man print the bible. …and the reformation was in full swing 60 years later.

Please note. I did specifically state that the reasons were varied…but that the Catholics didn’t attempt to FIX it. they could have. They chose not to.

The Cathloic Church has more to do then any religion then any group in the world to help the poor and has been doing it for years

 

[dianaiad]

Just like now where we could feed the millions of people who are starving in the world right now, but we choose not to.

Not really, no.

It would not have been difficult at all to allow lay members of the church to attend the schools and get the learning that the clergy were given.

It isn’t that the church didn’t educate everybody. It’s that she didn’t educate anybody…except her own clergy. Come to think of it, a fair number of the clergy couldn’t read, either.

It took the church a very long time to see the good in educating people. Eventually, however, this was seen to be a positive thing, and now a good Catholic education is a very good education indeed.

Which is why non-Catholics send their kids to Catholic schools.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Not really, no.

It would not have been difficult at all to allow lay members of the church to attend the schools and get the learning that the clergy were given.

It isn’t that the church didn’t educate everybody. It’s that she didn’t educate anybody…except her own clergy. Come to think of it, a fair number of the clergy couldn’t read, either.

It took the church a very long time to see the good in educating people. Eventually, however, this was seen to be a positive thing, and now a good Catholic education is a very good education indeed.

Which is why non-Catholics send their kids to Catholic schools.

It took everyone a long time to see the good in education, so although priests did teach “lay” people, most had more pressing interests than getting the same education the priests had.