Dealing with non-Catholics in Catholic Schools

[dianaiad]

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.

…and the reason why is because the church, which was the predominant cultural force in their lives, did not emphasize it.

It does now…not as much as some other religions do, but certainly quantum leaps more than it did a thousand years ago.

 

[jmcrae]

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

And no doubt, the blame will be laid at the feet of the Church, even though the Church is doing 90% of the charitable work that gets done in this world.

 

[zaffiroborant]

…and the reason why is because the church, which was the predominant cultural force in their lives, did not emphasize it.

It does now…not as much as some other religions do, but certainly quantum leaps more than it did a thousand years ago.

As has been pointed out there were many “cultures” vying with each other then often with devastating and disruptive consequences. And no the church did not see it’s primary mission as promoting education, shame on it for thinking that preaching the gospel and ministering to the faithful was it’s primary mission. But if they had ditched the gospel in favor of education how do you see them effecting this attitude on diverse and waring people? And how would all these well educated people make a living in an agrarian society? Where’s the market for their skills so they could earn money to buy clothing and food and so forth?

Education then and now is a matter of practicality first and foremost. What do I need to learn to do in order to do the work that will feed, clothe, and house my family. How will my family be protected from those who want to take what we have. In those times most of education needed was taught at home. As I said the church did teach reading and math (and operated local schools) but generally people didn’t need much of it in order to live. But you know all this, you just want to remove the historical context the church operated in in order to pretend that the church could just create a post industrial education system out of thin air, as a put down to the church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

And no doubt, the blame will be laid at the feet of the Church, even though the Church is doing 90% of the charitable work that gets done in this world.

Yep like on the MADB where in a discussion about the Manhattan Declaration:

*We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Inasmuch as these truths are foundational to human dignity and the well-being of society, they are inviolable and non-negotiable. Because they are increasingly under assault from powerful forces in our culture, we are compelled today to speak out forcefully in their defense, and to commit ourselves to honoring them fully no matter what pressures are brought upon us and our institutions to abandon or compromise them. We make this commitment not as partisans of any political group but as followers of Jesus Christ, the crucified and risen Lord, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.*

LDS posters basically say that Catholics, Evangelicals, and Orthodox haven’t done anything and that they the LDS welcome them to the party. Kind of funny that the CA proposition is cited as action but you know this is the first I’ve heard from the LDS church in this regard. Seems back a few years ago the Catholics took a stand that made the national news, where were the LDS then? Not to mention the Catholic stance on sanctity of life issues, not just abortion but assisted suicide, the death penalty, and just war. And of course the Evangelical have never raised a peep on religious liberty issues

Ya the Catholic church has always been, if not actively evil (as it was from inception to oh about 1965) at least negligent and cooperating with evil.

 

[MariaG]

…

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…

Invite? Accept. The schools accept not invite. The non-Catholics are the ones whom ask to come to the school. The school accepts, as long as the non-Catholic understands what will be taught in the school. Catholocism.

As for the money, I will point out to you, as others have in this thread, that the non-Catholics are paying more money because these schools are supported by CATHOLICS for CATHOLICS. The schools don’t expect Catholic parishners to help subsidize the education of non-Catholic Children who don’t go to the Church, and who don’t help support the Church in a monetary manner or help in volunteer in the parish in non-monetary ways.

It is a reasonable expectation/hope of Catholic parishners who support a Catholic school, that someday, some of those children will be priests, deacons, and members of the parish, or at least in a Catholic parish somewhere.

As for respecting the religions of the non-Catholics, that is fine as long as your idea of respect does not water down the truth of the teachings of the Catholic Church which includes, in more advanced grades, discussing various forms of heresy through the history of Christianity.

 

[Corki]

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.

Are you talking about the middle ages? If so, you have it backwards. The Church didn’t set up schools and then open them only to clergy. The Church set up seminaries and offered education there for clergy and for others who were sent there to learn. The Church founded the university system as well, by the way.

The Church and her clergy, by the way, have been educating since the beginning. Just because the concept of Catholic schools wasn’t invented yet doesn’t mean that the Church took “a very long time to see the good in educating people”.

 

[Corki]

As for the money, I will point out to you, as others have in this thread, that the non-Catholics are paying more money because these schools are supported by CATHOLICS for CATHOLICS. The schools don’t expect Catholic parishners to help subsidize the education of non-Catholic Children who don’t go to the Church, and who don’t help support the Church in a monetary manner or help in volunteer in the parish in non-monetary ways.

And actually the Catholics end up paying much more for the schools than non-Catholics. We contribute long before our kids are school age and continue long after they graduate through our support of the parish and diocese. The non-Catholic students’ families just pay during their school years so it is a condensed rate.

 

[jmcrae]

Are you talking about the middle ages? If so, you have it backwards. The Church didn’t set up schools and then open them only to clergy. The Church set up seminaries and offered education there for clergy and for others who were sent there to learn. The Church founded the university system as well, by the way.

The Church and her clergy, by the way, have been educating since the beginning. Just because the concept of Catholic schools wasn’t invented yet doesn’t mean that the Church took “a very long time to see the good in educating people”.

True. In terms of practical education, I think a much larger percentage of people back then reached adulthood with the ability to take care of themselves and to raise a family than high school graduates of today.

My Inuit niece is better able to look after herself, by following the traditions of her Inuit ancestors, than most high school graduates in the south. She can bring down a caribou and turn it into food, clothing, weapons, and tools that will keep her going in pretty good style for six months. She can keep that going for the rest of her life, if she chooses to.

 

[crowtherkidsmom]

Oh don’t worry about it too much the evangelizing is countered by calling them heretics Sorry but it was the first thought that came to mind and it made me laugh.

Well Catholics view the teaching of Catholic the faith as evangelizing, anytime you teach your own beliefs you are evangelizing aren’t you? Parents have to be aware that their children are being taught Catholic belief though they may not understand we view it as evangelizing. Now it may be annoying that Catholics think that just by teaching someone our faith they will come to believe and the OP was a bit annoyed by this thinking.

As to finding that Catholics view this as an opportunity for evangelization. Since we view teaching our faith as evangelizing (and I think most faiths see it that way), it seems rather disingenuous to view the evangelizing (teaching of Catholic faith) as wrong or undermining of parental instruction or some thing kept secret. The non-Catholic parents are fully aware that Catholicism will be taught to their kids. These parents agreed to have their kids evangelized/taught when they enrolled them, they felt the education they would receive would outweigh the teaching/evangelization or “undermining” they would receive. Me I would have a lot of reservations about sending my kids to say a Baptist or Lutheran school. I am so grateful to have good schools in my area making this a hypothetical question for me, I don’t have to make the choice of sending my kids to a poor school or to a school that will teach my kids that they have the truth and my faith is has it wrong.

So you are saying that if your Catholic School was shut down for some reason, that you would deny your children an education, strictly because of what other schools were available? I attended a church run school in my youth and I do not remember ever seeing any of my teachers shoving their beliefs down a Catholic students throat. However, it does seem that some of the people on this board think that this is the only way to run a school… what about those areas of the country (particular rural areas) where there is very little other choices for schools or no other choice other than a catholic school? Are we to deny children the basic right to an education because they are not Catholic? This sounds like there are some people who want to live back in the dark ages when only a privileged few were able and allowed to read and write.

Not every non-Catholic attending a Catholic School is forced to pay higher tuition. In the area where I live, the Catholic Schools are accepting anyone willing to come to their schools (even a few known atheists). The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Schools in my area have a declining student population that is getting smaller and smaller each year. If the student populations of these schools drop any further, the schools will be closed. Parents of these students do not even have to write over their property taxes to support the Catholic Board.

Both of my children attend a Catholic school and love it… They know that there are a few fundamental differences in belief between the Catholics and ourselves (we are Lutheran) and they use this opportunity to study the Catholic faith in order to better understand the people that they live and grow with everyday. I feel that my children have become more tolerant of others and other beliefs and are thus acting in a way that God would want them to. To love one another and to live in harmony.

My son’s former principal (she is now retired) stated to me that she would rather have a school full of Christians that regularly attend church and know the love of Jesus, than to have a school full of so-called “Catholics” whose children and parents have rarely darkened the door of a parish during mass.

What I have seen on this board is alot of “if they were only Catholic” or “why should we have to bend to other people’s standards”… I am proud that my children are learning about the love of Christ in their school and are loved and respected for who they are by their teachers… “Children of God”. I thought that is what one of the tenets of Catholicism was… to love our neighbours as ourselves. It is sad to see that some people on this board are only willing to accept others if they are Catholic and not because they are one of God’s Children. It is this exact rhetoric that has caused many a war or battle to last a lot longer than it truly needed it to.

My children do not go to their Catholic School and try to push Lutheran beliefs on their friends, but they are there to learn and to grow… what is the problem with that???

 

[Lutheranteach]

1st day after the break and the “tough love” has begun in 8th grade English and religion/homeroom. I am the teacher you hate at the time but love a year later.

A) I collected the kids religion books today. In each there is a chapter end test. With 6 of the 25 kids three tests they should have taken are still in their books yet grades are recorded. The former teacher (according to some other students) just made up the grades. None of these 8 kids have missed a day of school this year, so it’s not a matter of being absent. All 8 are related to the former teacher in one way or another. I “tagged” each of these students. They will be having lunch/study with the Director of Religious Studies every day this week and make up all test by the end of next week as well as keep up with current work.

B) The class was very defiant today and came into the room making a lot of noise and was slow to settle down. So they had to pick up their stuff, go back out in the hall and come back into the classroom. We did that five times until they got the message.
I went and got them at the end of lunchtime and brought them back to the classroom: “We will get through the days lessons ladies and gentlemen without wasting time like you did today. We’ll do it at class time, during recess, or after school, but it will be done. It’s entirely your choice.” They were stunned and silent and we accomplished a lot in our extra session.

C) There was a pop quiz in class over the reading they were assigned over T-giving break (2.5 pages) half got a 0/5 because they obviously haven’t read it. Each failing grade got an email sent home.

 

[kalt]

dianaiad;5988393:

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?

Just reposting this in case you missed it. You said that the Church acrively discouraged learning for lay members. Can you tell me where you got this information. I’m thinking that if it was an “active” effort, there was probably something the Church wrote on it.

 

[dianaiad]

As has been pointed out there were many “cultures” vying with each other then often with devastating and disruptive consequences. And no the church did not see it’s primary mission as promoting education, shame on it for thinking that preaching the gospel and ministering to the faithful was it’s primary mission. But if they had ditched the gospel in favor of education how do you see them effecting this attitude on diverse and waring people? And how would all these well educated people make a living in an agrarian society? Where’s the market for their skills so they could earn money to buy clothing and food and so forth?

That is an odd position to take. Is the church ‘ditching’ the gospel in favor of education now?

Education then and now is a matter of practicality first and foremost. What do I need to learn to do in order to do the work that will feed, clothe, and house my family. How will my family be protected from those who want to take what we have. In those times most of education needed was taught at home. As I said the church did teach reading and math (and operated local schools)

Actually, it didn’t. At least not to lay folk…and CERTAINLY not to anybody not of the nobility.

but generally people didn’t need much of it in order to live.

No more than they do now. They need it in order to live WELL, and to find joy in that living.

But you know all this, you just want to remove the historical context the church operated in in order to pretend that the church could just create a post industrial education system out of thin air, as a put down to the church.

Uhmn…no. After all, the cultures that the church came from were certainly not 'post industrial…" but they were more educated. The church dialed education back from that level.

Whatever the reasoning behind it, or the forces that surrounded it, the facts are not disputable.

 

[Corki]

True. In terms of practical education, I think a much larger percentage of people back then reached adulthood with the ability to take care of themselves and to raise a family than high school graduates of today.

My Inuit niece is better able to look after herself, by following the traditions of her Inuit ancestors, than most high school graduates in the south. She can bring down a caribou and turn it into food, clothing, weapons, and tools that will keep her going in pretty good style for six months. She can keep that going for the rest of her life, if she chooses to.

Absolutely true. But I was referring to more formal education. For example, it was the Church who taught about the faith, the Sacraments, the Bible, etc. even to people who were not “book learned”. It was the Church who, in many parts of the world, taught parishioners about the law. It was the Church who kept all the records of family history, biths, deaths, etc. and knew where everyone was. Just because someone is illiterate doesn’t mean they are uneducated and in a time of low literacy, the Church was still educating.

 

[StillWondering]

Absolutely true. But I was referring to more formal education. For example, it was the Church who taught about the faith, the Sacraments, the Bible, etc. even to people who were not “book learned”. It was the Church who, in many parts of the world, taught parishioners about the law. It was the Church who kept all the records of family history, biths, deaths, etc. and knew where everyone was. Just because someone is illiterate doesn’t mean they are uneducated and in a time of low literacy, the Church was still educating.

Just like in Jewish culture a thousand years before Christ. Only the elites and scribes were literate, but the Jewish people as a whole were well educated. Fathers past down lore, stores, history, culture, and many other intellectual teachings to their children. Mothers taught practical living and a great deal of common sense and social teachings.

Since the Christians develop right out of this culture, the education of the laity was already going strong from day one. Art was also a vital teaching tools with icons and later sculptures and carvings on church doors.

 

[dianaiad]

True. In terms of practical education, I think a much larger percentage of people back then reached adulthood with the ability to take care of themselves and to raise a family than high school graduates of today.

My Inuit niece is better able to look after herself, by following the traditions of her Inuit ancestors, than most high school graduates in the south. She can bring down a caribou and turn it into food, clothing, weapons, and tools that will keep her going in pretty good style for six months. She can keep that going for the rest of her life, if she chooses to.

That isn’t going to help her much in Los Angeles.

The point is, education isn’t a culture keeper. It’s a culture changer. One does not get an education primarily to earn a living, as odd as that might sound. You really don’t need to be able to read Latin in order to punch pictures on a McDonald’s cash register, and you don’t need to be able to track the Indo-European language tree to drive a truck. One can learn to drive a truck in a month.

…and if our culture was based upon food production and transport, nobody would need high school, much less college. However, education is what allows people to do something other than hunt caribou in Canada, if they want to. It is what allows people to learn to invent things, and discover things, and to be something other than what their culture demands–just because their parents were farmers or cobblers or salt miners. Education isn’t a reward and the result of a culture changing, in other words. It is the cause.

 

[dianaiad]

kalt;5988695:

Just reposting this in case you missed it. You said that the Church acrively discouraged learning for lay members. Can you tell me where you got this information. I’m thinking that if it was an “active” effort, there was probably something the Church wrote on it.

A: for all those years the church was the primary cultural instructor of 'the way things are."
B: the church was the primary instigator of the serf system.
C: All education was the perview of the church.
D: the laity was not educated until outside sources forced the issue. (the plague, the Reformation…)
E: when the issue WAS forced, and the church became active in education, education (and the culture) bloomed.

The conclusion is pretty obvious; if the church became involved in education during a time when it was being attacked on many fronts (the Reformation and politics) and is active in education now, then it could have been involved in education at any time. It could especially have been involved in education during the time when it was the primary cultural and political power in the western world (nearly 1000 years of that…).

It chose not to be involved, except for its own clergy. It kept a stranglehold on knowledge. It preserved some of the old knowledge, but did not diseminate it–until it was forced to.

 

[jmcrae]

Uhmn…no. After all, the cultures that the church came from were certainly not 'post industrial…" but they were more educated. The church dialed education back from that level.

Every library and every court house in the civilized world was burned down during the Fall of Rome. The Catholic Church is not responsible for that. It was the Catholic Church that picked up the pieces after the destruction, and started to bring the people back together into a semblance of order.

It is much easier to destroy a civilization than it is to build one. Nevertheless, the Church brought a semblance of law, education, leadership, and order to what had previously been the Roman Empire. It did so in the face of violently brutal opposition, not only from the Arabs, but also from Europeans themselves.

 

[MariaG]

And actually the Catholics end up paying much more for the schools than non-Catholics. We contribute long before our kids are school age and continue long after they graduate through our support of the parish and diocese. The non-Catholic students’ families just pay during their school years so it is a condensed rate.

Very true.

 

[MariaG]

So you are saying that if your Catholic School was shut down for some reason, that you would deny your children an education, strictly because of what other schools were available? I attended a church run school in my youth and I do not remember ever seeing any of my teachers shoving their beliefs down a Catholic students throat.

I don’t think that is what she was saying. Homeschool would always be an option for a parent.

I know in my area, there is no Catholic school. I prefer to send my child to public school over the 7th day adventist school. I know that one Catholic teen in High School there and had a teacher talking in class saying Catholics aren’t Christians. He is able to handle it, but I would never send a young child into that kind of atmosphere.

As a Lutheran, you don’t have that kind of mindset, and are even considered a Christian by fundamentalist Christians (I think), but apparently you are not aware of the fact that Catholics are considered and taught to be a cult and not even Christian by some fundamentlist Christians like Baptists, Evangeicals, Nazarenes, Assembly of God, Church of Christ. Not all, but many within those faiths don’t think Catholics are Christians.

However, it does seem that some of the people on this board think that this is the only way to run a school… what about those areas of the country (particular rural areas) where there is very little other choices for schools or no other choice other than a catholic school? Are we to deny children the basic right to an education because they are not Catholic? This sounds like there are some people who want to live back in the dark ages when only a privileged few were able and allowed to read and write.

I can’t recall anyone on this thread saying a child shouldn’t be allowed to attend a Catholic school if they weren’t Catholic. I believe most have said that if someone who is not Catholic but wants to send their child to a Catholic school, they should expect that their child will be taught Catholicism. But maybe I am wrong. Could you tell me which poster said kids should be denied an education if they are not Catholic?

Not every non-Catholic attending a Catholic School is forced to pay higher tuition. In the area where I live, the Catholic Schools are accepting anyone willing to come to their schools (even a few known atheists). The fact of the matter is that the Catholic Schools in my area have a declining student population that is getting smaller and smaller each year. If the student populations of these schools drop any further, the schools will be closed. Parents of these students do not even have to write over their property taxes to support the Catholic Board.

Every area can be different.

Both of my children attend a Catholic school and love it… They know that there are a few fundamental differences in belief between the Catholics and ourselves (we are Lutheran) and they use this opportunity to study the Catholic faith in order to better understand the people that they live and grow with everyday. I feel that my children have become more tolerant of others and other beliefs and are thus acting in a way that God would want them to. To love one another and to live in harmony.

That is wonderful and exactly what parents of non-Catholic children attending Catholic schools should encourage and expect.

My son’s former principal (she is now retired) stated to me that she would rather have a school full of Christians that regularly attend church and know the love of Jesus, than to have a school full of so-called “Catholics” whose children and parents have rarely darkened the door of a parish during mass.

I can understand that. It is always easier to teach the love of Christ to those who already love Him

What I have seen on this board is alot of “if they were only Catholic” or “why should we have to bend to other people’s standards”…

I think you need to go and reread this thread. This is thread, when talking about “bending to others standards” is specifically refering to the fact that a Catholic school should be first and foremost, Catholic. It should not be a Catholic school that doesn’t use the word heresy when talking about all the different heresies of the Church because it offends someone who might be currently be practicing in a denomination that was founded by someone the CAtholic Church has declared a heretic.

I am proud that my children are learning about the love of Christ in their school and are loved and respected for who they are by their teachers… “Children of God”.

As they should be.

I thought that is what one of the tenets of Catholicism was… to love our neighbours as ourselves.

It is.

It is sad to see that some people on this board are only willing to accept others if they are Catholic and not because they are one of God’s Children. It is this exact rhetoric that has caused many a war or battle to last a lot longer than it truly needed it to

Where on this thread has someone said that they are only willing to accept Catholics, in school or otherwise

My children do not go to their Catholic School and try to push Lutheran beliefs on their friends, but they are there to learn and to grow… what is the problem with that???

Not a thing.

This thread has nothing to do with the children trying to push their beliefs on other kids at school, but with PARENTS, who want to send their kids to a Catholic school because it is the best education around but want it to be less “Catholic”.

Respectfully,
Maria

 

[Lutheranteach]

You keep saying this over and over, but it is a non sequitur. Catholic schools do not do this.

The teacher I replaced did (actually she had a profanity laced tirade in front of the 8th grade class directed at her non-Catholic students), one of the multiple reasons she was fired. She, politely put, has some things she needs to take care of. I suspect the fact I’m protestant is one of the reasons that I’m now in her classroom and was asked to help come up with guidelines for the school when it comes to dealing with the non-Catholics.

Before many jump in, I’m fully aware, and am stressing to everyone involved that this is not the norm but a very rare situation with a lot of mitigating factors and is not acceptable in any way and it has been handled.