Dealing with non-Catholics in Catholic Schools

[dianaiad]

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.

No, and in no way am I claiming that it was.

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.

Yep. It did. But it did not do that by offering to educate anybody they didn’t absolutely have to educate. See, that’s the problem here; the church became an educator much later, during times when it was very much under seige…at least as much as it was in the early days of growth, and CERTAINLY more than it was when it was the arbitor of culture.

The obvious observation is that if the church could offer education to the laity then and now, then it could have done so from the beginning. It chose another path.

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.

I’m not arguing against that. It DID reform culture the way it wanted to. It chose not to include education for anybody but the clergy and certain chosen members of royalty and nobility (and not many of them.) The emphasis was upon other things, including control of the society.

It DID become involved in the education of the laity around 1100 or so, but only the way modern accreditation groups are. It didn’t found its own university until 1400 or so; mostly, I think, because if they didn’t they would have to allow Catholics to become educated at the hands of Protestants. Whatever the reason, from then on Catholics began educating lay members, and has done a pretty good job.

The thing is, though…if the church could educate during times like it faced during the reformation–when her property was being taken and her clergy disbanded and punished, when she had to go underground and face persecution–if she could start educating people THEN, then she could have done so from the beginning, and certainly she could have done so easily during the time she was more powerful.

The fact is, though, it chose not to.

Mormons were educating their kids and their members from the very beginning. Our culture emphasizes it. We celebrate it. We encourage it. In fact, right now we have restored an old idea about a perpetual fund. We used to do it for immigration; immigrants would borrow money to come to Utah, and later one pay the money they borrowed back to the fund so that others could come. Now we have a similar fund for education. Mormons from all over the world can borrow money from the perpetual education fund, go to school (college or trade school) and pay the money back to the fund when they graduate so that others can also go to school.

Education is vital to us. It is an integral part of our culture—and it was not to early Catholicism. That’s not a good thing or a bad thing; it’s just a thing. It matters only when people like Strawberry Jam make snarky comments about how 'if Joseph Smith was the best thing to every happen for the world, then why did catholics have more schools in the very country he was born in, for such a long time? Let alone looking world wide on this matter."

Never mind that I hadn’t said anything about Joseph Smith or Mormonism and that this thread is about Catholics dealing with non-Catholics in their schools.

So I pointed out that we had a university within 25 years of the founding of our church. We had schools within five days of it. We have made education an integral part of our culture, and we did it in the face of persecution that certainly rises to the level of anything the Catholics saw from 500 AD on. Yet Catholics, who were attempting to “pick up the pieces” of the destroyed cultures they arose from did not pick up THAT piece…and didn’t manage to found a university for lay members for another 500 years…the Studium Generale…thirteen universities that were not actually founded by the church, but were already existing institutions that asked the church to approve of them.

So, just so everybody understands this: my comments did not arise out of thin air or out of any wish to attack Catholicism…out of the thousands of posts I have written, I have never before addressed the history of Catholicism and education negatively. Why would I, when I admire the way Catholics offer good educations to those who come to study? For instance, Jesuits don’t exactly have a reputation for slow minded illiteracy, do they? It took you awhile, but once you got the message and got going in education, you really got the message.

It’s just that when someone makes an out of the air slam at my own beliefs and history, they had better be very familiar with their own, and comfortable that their own history can stand up to the same criticism.

 

[dianaiad]

Very true.

Do you do this so that your kids can go to school, or do you do this because of your faith and because you believe God asks this of you? Would you do these things if you didn’t have children to send to school?

Would you do these things if your children went to public school?

Will you do these things after they leave school?

If so, then those things you do have nothing at all to do with the school. Don’t you think that those parents who send their non-Catholic children to Catholic school also do these things with their own faiths or preferred charities? Yet they still have to pay extra tuition.

 

[kalt]

No, and in no way am I claiming that it was.

Yep. It did. But it did not do that by offering to educate anybody they didn’t absolutely have to educate. See, that’s the problem here; the church became an educator much later, during times when it was very much under seige…at least as much as it was in the early days of growth, and CERTAINLY more than it was when it was the arbitor of culture.

The obvious observation is that if the church could offer education to the laity then and now, then it could have done so from the beginning. It chose another path.

I’m not arguing against that. It DID reform culture the way it wanted to. It chose not to include education for anybody but the clergy and certain chosen members of royalty and nobility (and not many of them.) The emphasis was upon other things, including control of the society.

It DID become involved in the education of the laity around 1100 or so, but only the way modern accreditation groups are. It didn’t found its own university until 1400 or so; mostly, I think, because if they didn’t they would have to allow Catholics to become educated at the hands of Protestants. Whatever the reason, from then on Catholics began educating lay members, and has done a pretty good job.

The thing is, though…if the church could educate during times like it faced during the reformation–when her property was being taken and her clergy disbanded and punished, when she had to go underground and face persecution–if she could start educating people THEN, then she could have done so from the beginning, and certainly she could have done so easily during the time she was more powerful.

The fact is, though, it chose not to.

Mormons were educating their kids and their members from the very beginning. Our culture emphasizes it. We celebrate it. We encourage it. In fact, right now we have restored an old idea about a perpetual fund. We used to do it for immigration; immigrants would borrow money to come to Utah, and later one pay the money they borrowed back to the fund so that others could come. Now we have a similar fund for education. Mormons from all over the world can borrow money from the perpetual education fund, go to school (college or trade school) and pay the money back to the fund when they graduate so that others can also go to school.

Education is vital to us. It is an integral part of our culture—and it was not to early Catholicism. That’s not a good thing or a bad thing; it’s just a thing. It matters only when people like Strawberry Jam make snarky comments about how 'if Joseph Smith was the best thing to every happen for the world, then why did catholics have more schools in the very country he was born in, for such a long time? Let alone looking world wide on this matter."

Never mind that I hadn’t said anything about Joseph Smith or Mormonism and that this thread is about Catholics dealing with non-Catholics in their schools.

So I pointed out that we had a university within 25 years of the founding of our church. We had schools within five days of it. We have made education an integral part of our culture, and we did it in the face of persecution that certainly rises to the level of anything the Catholics saw from 500 AD on. Yet Catholics, who were attempting to “pick up the pieces” of the destroyed cultures they arose from did not pick up THAT piece…and didn’t manage to found a university for lay members for another 500 years…the Studium Generale…thirteen universities that were not actually founded by the church, but were already existing institutions that asked the church to approve of them.

So, just so everybody understands this: my comments did not arise out of thin air or out of any wish to attack Catholicism…out of the thousands of posts I have written, I have never before addressed the history of Catholicism and education negatively. Why would I, when I admire the way Catholics offer good educations to those who come to study? For instance, Jesuits don’t exactly have a reputation for slow minded illiteracy, do they? It took you awhile, but once you got the message and got going in education, you really got the message.

It’s just that when someone makes an out of the air slam at my own beliefs and history, they had better be very familiar with their own, and comfortable that their own history can stand up to the same criticism.

Mormons were educating everyone “from the very beginning” which was about 3 seconds ago, in a historical persepctive.

You really need to get over this. These were two vastly different times. You’re complaining that the Church wasn’t advocating a modern concept of education in a pre-modern period. It’s a senseless argument, really.

 

[jmcrae]

Mormons were educating everyone “from the very beginning” which was about 3 seconds ago, in a historical persepctive.

You really need to get over this. These were two vastly different times. You’re complaining that the Church wasn’t advocating a modern concept of education in a pre-modern period. It’s a senseless argument, really.

I agree. I strongly doubt, if the Church had been offering day schools for children to teach them to read and write, that the parents, living as they were in an agrarian society in which the men could be called upon to go to war at any moment to defend their village against marauders, would have sent their kids to it, any way. The children of that era needed to learn how to take care of the animals and the crops (and their hands were also needed to help with this work, as well) and they needed to know how to defend their homes from nomadic tribes that were moving around the country side destroying everything in their path.

They really didn’t have the leisure time that it requires, to sit in a classroom for 4-5 hours a day to learn academic subjects - and what were they going to do with that information, anyway? It was not a democratic society where they had any (name removed by moderator)ut into decision-making, anyway. Yes, the leaders were educated - they were the ones making the big decisions.

 

[MariaG]

Do you do this so that your kids can go to school, or do you do this because of your faith and because you believe God asks this of you? Would you do these things if you didn’t have children to send to school?

Would you do these things if your children went to public school?

Will you do these things after they leave school?

If so, then those things you do have nothing at all to do with the school. Don’t you think that those parents who send their non-Catholic children to Catholic school also do these things with their own faiths or preferred charities? Yet they still have to pay extra tuition.

I would assume that non-Catholics did in fact give money to other charities including but not limited to their own church. But the point is the are NOT giving money to the Catholic Church that helps pay for the school. That is why in some areas, non-Catholics have to pay more.

Many Catholics who do not in fact have children or children of school age, still help support Catholic schools to help out Catholic children. It has everything to do with sharing of the Catholic faith, for them through school.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I would assume that non-Catholics did in fact give money to other charities including but not limited to their own church. But the point is the are NOT giving money to the Catholic Church that helps pay for the school. That is why in some areas, non-Catholics have to pay more.

Many Catholics who do not in fact have children or children of school age, still help support Catholic schools to help out Catholic children. It has everything to do with sharing of the Catholic faith, for them through school.

I’m not sure why there is an issue here, BYU charges non-LDS twice the rate of LDS. Why, because a large part of operating costs are funded by the tithing of members. How is that unreasonable? LDS members’ tithes built the school and their tithes help fund it. Why shouldn’t these contributions be taken in to account when it comes to paying tuition?

So why is it an issue if Catholic schools do the same, after all part of the offerings given by parishioners are used to fund the school. The schools recognize that members make these contributions long before they have children attending and that they will continue to do so long after their children are out of school. Part of that recognition is letting Catholic children attend the school at a discounted rate.

I don’t see BYU or Catholic schools as charging non-members more, I see it as both “institutions” taking in to account past and future contributions and aiding members who want their children to receive an education that also grounds and grows them in their faith.

 

[kalt]

Do you do this so that your kids can go to school, or do you do this because of your faith and because you believe God asks this of you? Would you do these things if you didn’t have children to send to school?

Would you do these things if your children went to public school?

Will you do these things after they leave school?

If so, then those things you do have nothing at all to do with the school. Don’t you think that those parents who send their non-Catholic children to Catholic school also do these things with their own faiths or preferred charities? Yet they still have to pay extra tuition.

Well, if they were doing those things with their own faith’s charities and they were sending their kids to their own faith’s school, they wouldn’t be expected to pay “extra” now would they?

The fact that someone donates to some other charity doesn’t help to fund the school. The money I donate to my church helps to support the school. I wouldn’t expect to get reduced tuition at a Lutheran school based on my donations to a Catholic Church.

 

[kalt]

I’m not sure why there is an issue here, BYU charges non-LDS twice the rate of LDS. Why, because a large part of operating costs are funded by the tithing of members. How is that unreasonable? LDS members’ tithes built the school and their tithes help fund it. Why shouldn’t these contributions be taken in to account when it comes to paying tuition?

So why is it an issue if Catholic schools do the same, after all part of the offerings given by parishioners are used to fund the school. The schools recognize that members make these contributions long before they have children attending and that they will continue to do so long after their children are out of school. Part of that recognition is letting Catholic children attend the school at a discounted rate.

I don’t see BYU or Catholic schools as charging non-members more, I see it as both “institutions” taking in to account past and future contributions and aiding members who want their children to receive an education that also grounds and grows them in their faith.

The following is from BYU’s website.

Tuition and General Fees

Tuition and general fees for all academic programs are established annually by Brigham Young University’s Board of Trustees. BYU is owned and operated by the Church, and significant portions of university operating costs are paid with the tithes of Church members. In recognition of this support, Church members are assessed lower tuition fees than those who are not members. This practice is similar in principle to that of state universities charging higher tuition to nonresidents**.** Students are considered members of the Church if they have been baptized at any time during the semester or term.

Don’t miss the last line. A shameless attempt at conversion. I suppose they figure everyone has his price. After reading that, is anyone else feeling like they’ve just been approached in an alley by a guy who has a truckload of warm TV’s to sell you - cheap?

Here is one Catholic school’s non-Catholic student policy. I found this with a Yahoo! search, and there are probably many more that anyone can find easily on the Net.

stignatiusvikings.org/PDF_versions/Admission_Policy.pdf

 

[dianaiad]

Mormons were educating everyone “from the very beginning” which was about 3 seconds ago, in a historical persepctive.

Which doesn’t exactly help your case any, if you think about what you just wrote. It certainly took you guys longer than ‘3 seconds’ in any historical perspective.

You really need to get over this. These were two vastly different times. You’re complaining that the Church wasn’t advocating a modern concept of education in a pre-modern period. It’s a senseless argument, really.

I’m not the one insisting on a ‘modern concept of education.’ That would be you guys, equivocating. I’m saying that the church didn’t advocate ANY sort of education. No reading, writing, history studies…you know, education of any sort by any means–of the laity. The fact is, the Catholics could have continued the tradition of education that the cultures she came from had. The Greeks, Romans and Jews all educated their people. True, that education was mostly restricted to men and to people who could actually afford the teachers, but universities…institutions of learning–private tutors and teachers for hire–were very much around and very much active.

But the Catholics didn’t continue that aspect of those cultures, and didn’t begin educating the laity (or even approving the education of the laity by OTHERS) until over a thousand years after YOU claimed Catholicism came into being. That’s not exactly 'three seconds ago" in any historical perspective. If it took you guys a millenium to get your scholastic rears in gear, perhaps you should think twice about criticising a group that DID manage to handle the matter in our 'less than 3 seconds" of history.

As for you telling me to 'get over it…" Oh, come on. It wasn’t a problem for me; never has been. As I mentioned, I’ve written over 3000 posts on this forum and this is the first time I’ve said anything about Catholicism and education. There’s nothing for me to ‘get over…’ except this: when someone actually has the chutspah to criticise Joseph Smith (among whose first actions was to begin more than one school!) for not having as many universities as the Catholics did at the time he was born, I’m going to react to that with some…curmudgeonliness.

Especially in a thread where I"ve actually taken the Catholic side of the issue, and been treated as if I were a virulent and unreasonable opponent.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree. I strongly doubt, if the Church had been offering day schools for children to teach them to read and write, that the parents, living as they were in an agrarian society in which the men could be called upon to go to war at any moment to defend their village against marauders, would have sent their kids to it, any way. The children of that era needed to learn how to take care of the animals and the crops (and their hands were also needed to help with this work, as well) and they needed to know how to defend their homes from nomadic tribes that were moving around the country side destroying everything in their path.

They really didn’t have the leisure time that it requires, to sit in a classroom for 4-5 hours a day to learn academic subjects - and what were they going to do with that information, anyway? It was not a democratic society where they had any (name removed by moderator)ut into decision-making, anyway. Yes, the leaders were educated - they were the ones making the big decisions.

Nobody educated the servant class. But everybody educated what middleclass there was, and certainly the nobility/upperclass was educated—

But not when the Catholics were the most powerful. The Byzantines educated their upper classes and merchant class. Eastern Orthodoxy educated theirs…but the Catholics did not.

Remember, I"m not talking about the starving serf (for whose existance and grinding poverty the Catholics were largely responsible–having decided to transform the practice of slavery to the practice of serfdom, thus practially enslaving far more people). I’m talking about everybody.

 

[MariaG]

I’m not sure why there is an issue here, BYU charges non-LDS twice the rate of LDS. Why, because a large part of operating costs are funded by the tithing of members. How is that unreasonable? LDS members’ tithes built the school and their tithes help fund it. Why shouldn’t these contributions be taken in to account when it comes to paying tuition?

So why is it an issue if Catholic schools do the same, after all part of the offerings given by parishioners are used to fund the school. The schools recognize that members make these contributions long before they have children attending and that they will continue to do so long after their children are out of school. Part of that recognition is letting Catholic children attend the school at a discounted rate.

I don’t see BYU or Catholic schools as charging non-members more, I see it as both “institutions” taking in to account past and future contributions and aiding members who want their children to receive an education that also grounds and grows them in their faith.

I don’t see it as an issue either:shrug:

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not the one insisting on a ‘modern concept of education.’ That would be you guys, equivocating. I’m saying that the church didn’t advocate ANY sort of education. No reading, writing, history studies…you know, education of any sort by any means–of the laity. The fact is, the Catholics could have continued the tradition of education that the cultures she came from had. The Greeks, Romans and Jews all educated their people. True, that education was mostly restricted to men and to people who could actually afford the teachers, but universities…institutions of learning–private tutors and teachers for hire–were very much around and very much active.

Diane, all of the libraries had been burned down - most of those books were gone. There were no computer backups or printers’ plates to recreate them from - they were simply gone.

There was also no government, and no legislative assembly, to keep order; the armies had been defeated - there were no soldiers left, and certainly no police.

What was the Church supposed to use, for educating all of these people, without any books, and without any infrastructure, with everyone either running for their lives and plundering whatever they could, or hunkering down in their villages and doing whatever they could to just stay alive?

The agrarian, feudal society that arose from the ashes of that situation was not exactly amenable to “book learning” - they thought that’s what had made the Romans weak and vulnerable to attack - too much time sitting around reading books, and not enough time on what they considered to be practical pursuits. Even if the Church had offered public education, there would not have been very many takers. It was not until the people had begun to develop tools and becoming more efficient in their work that they began to have the sort of leisure time that is necessary before you can start sending your able-bodied children to school.

 

[dianaiad]

I would assume that non-Catholics did in fact give money to other charities including but not limited to their own church. But the point is the are NOT giving money to the Catholic Church that helps pay for the school. That is why in some areas, non-Catholics have to pay more.

Many Catholics who do not in fact have children or children of school age, still help support Catholic schools to help out Catholic children. It has everything to do with sharing of the Catholic faith, for them through school.

That’s not what is being claimed here, Maria. The claim wasn’t that Catholics support the schools…but that Catholics, in supporting their parishes and contributing to the church in general, get lower tuition because of that.

That’s what I was asking about. If you would do this if the school did not exist (and most faithful Catholics would) then what they give has nothing to do with the school.

It’s actually worse if the purpose IS for 'sharing of the Catholic faith, for them through school." I mean, it’s one thing to be open about the evangilistic purpose of the school; if that’s what the school is about, and the parents are aware of this, then they can’t complain if such prosylitization actually takes place.

However, if that is NOT made clear, I find that a tad sneaky. and there is just something about saying to people “oh, come to our school where we will do our best to convert your children away from the faith of their families…and oh, by the way, you get to pay extra for the priviledge” that strikes the wrong chord with me.

I think, if that IS the reason y’all let non-Catholic kids in your schools, you should at least ioffer them discounts!

 

[zaffiroborant]

**That’s not what is being claimed here, Maria. The claim wasn’t that Catholics support the schools…but that Catholics, in supporting their parishes and contributing to the church in general, get lower tuition because of that.

That’s what I was asking about. If you would do this if the school did not exist (and most faithful Catholics would) then what they give has nothing to do with the school. **

It’s actually worse if the purpose IS for 'sharing of the Catholic faith, for them through school." I mean, it’s one thing to be open about the evangilistic purpose of the school; if that’s what the school is about, and the parents are aware of this, then they can’t complain if such prosylitization actually takes place.

However, if that is NOT made clear, I find that a tad sneaky. and there is just something about saying to people “oh, come to our school where we will do our best to convert your children away from the faith of their families…and oh, by the way, you get to pay extra for the priviledge” that strikes the wrong chord with me.

I think, if that IS the reason y’all let non-Catholic kids in your schools, you should at least ioffer them discounts!

That is exactly the same situation that exists at BYU why is it different for you guys to do this?

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure why there is an issue here, BYU charges non-LDS twice the rate of LDS. Why, because a large part of operating costs are funded by the tithing of members. How is that unreasonable? LDS members’ tithes built the school and their tithes help fund it. Why shouldn’t these contributions be taken in to account when it comes to paying tuition?

I don’t see a problem with the extra tuition–if indeed Catholic contributions are used for Catholic educations.The problem is, however, that’s not always–or even mostly–true.

You see, every Mormon knows that part of his or her tithing WILL go to supporting BYU and other institutions in the church education system. As I have remarked in other posts, education is extremely important to us…so much so that we use tithing to support it…when we do NOT use tithing to support our welfare system. We build and maintain our meeting houses, build and maintain our Temples–and pay for our educational endeavors with tithing. That’s what it’s FOR.

Catholic schools throughout the world, though, are not all (or even mostly) funded by contributions to the general parish by ordinary Catholics. Some get their money from the government only (Scotland) Some get it from a combination of government funding and private funding/endowments (Canada, Great Britain, most of Europe) and some get it through tuition and fundraising (USA) specifically for the school. Since that is so, the situations are a little bit different.

For instance, the local Catholic high school recieves NO funds from the local parish or from the Catholic church as a whole. It runs strictly on tuition and fundraising events, like “Bingo, Las Vegas Night, A Night of Extreme Cuisine and other fundraisers” (from the tuition information sheet for Paraclete High School.

There are three tuition options:
#1 is the ‘actual cost,’ or unsubsidized Catholic and non-Catholic tuition; $7,260 per year.
#2 is the subsidized Catholic tuition: $5,555 per year.
#3 is the subsidized non-Catholic tuition: $6,105 per year.

In order to get the subsidized Catholic tuition, one must prove that one is registered and active in a local Catholic Parish…from which, remember, the school gets NO funds.

If you are an active tithe paying Mormon, your money IS going to the education system.

Therefore the argument that is being used that Catholics support the schools through their general activity seems to be a problem–whereas it is absolutely true that Mormons support BYU through their tithes.

the second problem I have is an issue of intent. There is something that strikes me as just—incredibly sneaky about blithely declaring that the purpose for allowing non-Catholic students into Catholic schools is to convert them to Catholicism—and charging them extra for that. It’s one thing if this intent is made very clear and the parents understand this going in, but as far as I am aware this intent isn’t a part of any of the paperwork that a parent has to sign in order to enroll a child in parochial school.

So why is it an issue if Catholic schools do the same, after all part of the offerings given by parishioners are used to fund the school.

It’s not…when that is actually so. Evidently (at least here and in every school I’ve looked at so far, about 15 or so of 'em) it’s not alway so. The schools are expected to support themselves without contributions from the parish in which they are located. They exist on tuition and fundraisers specifically for them.

The schools recognize that members make these contributions long before they have children attending and that they will continue to do so long after their children are out of school. Part of that recognition is letting Catholic children attend the school at a discounted rate.

That is true for tithe paying Mormons. It is not, evidently, true for all that many Catholic schools. It’s certainly not true for any of the schools around HERE, by their own statements.

I don’t see BYU or Catholic schools as charging non-members more, I see it as both “institutions” taking in to account past and future contributions and aiding members who want their children to receive an education that also grounds and grows them in their faith.

You sent me looking…and for that I thank you. I honestly didn’t expect to find out that so many Catholic schools do NOT get money from the parish or from Catholics who are not contributing directly to those schools. I should have expected it, though…shoot, my college tuition isn’t as high as the fees for a Catholic high school!

Were you aware, for instance, that a non-Mormon pays tuition for a full year at BYU at aout the same rate a CATHOLIC does for a year at Paraclete High School? Great googly moogly.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, if they were doing those things with their own faith’s charities and they were sending their kids to their own faith’s school, they wouldn’t be expected to pay “extra” now would they?

The fact that someone donates to some other charity doesn’t help to fund the school. The money I donate to my church helps to support the school. I wouldn’t expect to get reduced tuition at a Lutheran school based on my donations to a Catholic Church.

Except that, from the research I’ve been doing, your money may not go anywhere near a Catholic school unless you contribute directly TO the school. You might want to make certain of this in your own area.

I found out that none of the local parochial schools around here (within 100 miles of me, and that includes the whole of Los Angeles) that I have looked at recieve money from their parishes. They all support themselves through tuition and direct fundraisers.

 

[dianaiad]

The following is from BYU’s website.

Tuition and General Fees

Tuition and general fees for all academic programs are established annually by Brigham Young University’s Board of Trustees. BYU is owned and operated by the Church, and significant portions of university operating costs are paid with the tithes of Church members. In recognition of this support, Church members are assessed lower tuition fees than those who are not members. This practice is similar in principle to that of state universities charging higher tuition to nonresidents**.** Students are considered members of the Church if they have been baptized at any time during the semester or term.

Don’t miss the last line. A shameless attempt at conversion. I suppose they figure everyone has his price. After reading that, is anyone else feeling like they’ve just been approached in an alley by a guy who has a truckload of warm TV’s to sell you - cheap?

Here is one Catholic school’s non-Catholic student policy. I found this with a Yahoo! search, and there are probably many more that anyone can find easily on the Net.

stignatiusvikings.org/PDF_versions/Admission_Policy.pdf

The actual tuition charges are $6,700 (including a $1000 school fee) for Catholic students, and $7300 for non Catholic students. The remainder of the actual cost of educating each student ($7400 per year) is made up by direct contributions from 'alumni, friends, and families.". No support from the parish. At all.

This is the way I’ve seen all the schools work that I’ve looked at so far.

As for your snarky comment about BYU considering anybody to be eligible for the LDS membership tuition fee if he or she has been baptized during the semester…

Dang, I haven’t seen that offer anywhere in any of the school literature from any of the Catholic schools I’ve looked at—and you guys are telling me right here that the main reason you allow non-Catholic students to attend Catholic schools is so that you can convert them. I wonder if any of those schools would write a rebate check to the families of a kid they succeed in converting?

Because I haven’t seen any hint of it.

 

[dianaiad]

Diane, all of the libraries had been burned down - most of those books were gone. There were no computer backups or printers’ plates to recreate them from - they were simply gone.

Evidently not…quite. After all, the Catholics did preserve a few things. Not EVERYTHING was saved by the Muslims only…and please note: the Bysantines managed to find something to educate their folks with.

There was also no government, and no legislative assembly, to keep order; the armies had been defeated - there were no soldiers left, and certainly no police.

Oh, come on. That may have been true for a bit…but after Constantine there most certainly WAS government and everything that went with it. What, you honestly believe that the entire continent of Europe lived in total anarchy until well after 1100 AD?

Really?

What was the Church supposed to use, for educating all of these people, without any books, and without any infrastructure, with everyone either running for their lives and plundering whatever they could, or hunkering down in their villages and doing whatever they could to just stay alive?

What did they use to educate the priests? It may well be argued that had the church shared what they had with the laity sooner, that the society would have settled down–and bloomed–far sooner than it did.

The agrarian, feudal society that arose from the ashes of that situation was not exactly amenable to “book learning” - they thought that’s what had made the Romans weak and vulnerable to attack - too much time sitting around reading books, and not enough time on what they considered to be practical pursuits

You are quite right. Unfortunately, the ‘they’ you are talking about were the church leaders. Which, of course, illustrates my point rather than yours.

. Even if the Church had offered public education, there would not have been very many takers. It was not until the people had begun to develop tools and becoming more efficient in their work that they began to have the sort of leisure time that is necessary before you can start sending your able-bodied children to school.

You have got to be kidding. It is true that the world revolved around slave/serf labor—but the result of that is an upper class that very much had that sort of leisure—and was discouraged from using it for schooling.

 

[dianaiad]

That is exactly the same situation that exists at BYU why is it different for you guys to do this?

Except that it turns out…not.

First, you won’t hear a Mormon EVER say that the reason we accept non-Mormon students at BYU is so that we can convert them to Mormonism. That is a thought that, even if it occurred in the back recesses of our heads, would never come out of our mouths or keyboards. That we hope some might? Yes…but, while we do require religious classes from all students at BYU, we don’t require that those classes be in MORMON doctrine. As well, the classes that teach non-Mormon religious topics are generally taught by the true believers of those other doctrines.

As in…a Catholic can satisfy her religious requirement by taking classes in Catholic thought taught by a Catholic. That’s one difference.

Another is this: while all Mormons DO contribute directly to BYU through our tithing–that is one of the things that tithing is used for (and one of the reasons that tuition for everybody–non-Mormons included-- is very low for a tier 1 school!)–Catholic schools, evidently, support themselves by tuition and direct fundraising. Parish funds and activities are NOT used, generally.

…and that was a surprise to me. I didn’t expect to find that.

 

[zaffiroborant]

That’s not what is being claimed here, Maria. The claim wasn’t that Catholics support the schools…but that Catholics, in supporting their parishes and contributing to the church in general, get lower tuition because of that.

That’s what I was asking about. If you would do this if the school did not exist (and most faithful Catholics would) then what they give has nothing to do with the school.

It’s actually worse if the purpose IS for 'sharing of the Catholic faith, for them through school." I mean, it’s one thing to be open about the evangilistic purpose of the school; if that’s what the school is about, and the parents are aware of this, then they can’t complain if such prosylitization actually takes place.

However, if that is NOT made clear, I find that a tad sneaky. and there is just something about saying to people “oh, come to our school where we will do our best to convert your children away from the faith of their families…and oh, by the way, you get to pay extra for the priviledge” that strikes the wrong chord with me.

I think, if that IS the reason y’all let non-Catholic kids in your schools, you should at least ioffer them discounts!

I have no idea what you think evangelizing is or how it’s done but it’s quite obvious you think we are underhanded and rude about it. We see teaching people about the Catholic faith as evangelizing, isn’t that what your missionaries do, teach people about your faith? That is the approach Catholic schools take in evangelizing so no one should be surprised about the evangelism since they are aware that our faith will be part of the curriculum. It’s right up front you send your kids to our school we are going to teach(evangelize) Catholic doctrine, nothing sneaky about it.

As to Catholics supporting their schools directly through their offerings, that is what is done in my parish and what was done in the parish I grew up in. Also Catholic schools are supported at a diocesan level and offerings are part of that. I’m sure you will argue since the only way of supporting schools that is admirable and correct is the way Mormons do it.