Future for Catholic Schools

[HouseArrest]

We are working diligently in our area to maintain our parish’s Catholic school. We have incorporated many programs to help pay for tuition - this year I paid $1400 for 6 of my children to attend. Our parish keeps cutting funding saying there is not enough to cover the bills of the parish - they want the school to be self sustaining. It’s just not going to be possible. I feel like the finance council of the parish is not behind us. They see us as a big burden.

There are a million reasons parents give as to why they do not send their children to the school. Even $10 would be too much. My son wants to play football and we don’t have a team. Our basketball team isn’t good enough. They don’t like the uniforms. It’s a nerd school. People leave for the most ridiculous reasons, I could write a book but I’ll spare you. I get so frustrated but I know we have to keep plugging along, leaving it to God to help us out in keeping our (very good) Catholic school alive. If anyone out there knows of any grants we can apply for please let me know.

And by the way we have one Catholic homeschooling family I can think of. As a matter of fact, there are probably only a handful of homeschoolers of any type around here.

 

[otjm]

One further comment I would make and that is that many of the nuns and priests that “went over the wall” after Vatican II were products of the Catholic Schools that were still faithfully teaching the Faith as were parents who derided Humanae Vita.

I appreciated the Catholic Education that I got from 1st Grade to Bachelor’s Degree. Fifty years later I still think those schools did a wonderful job and the fact I cited above really puzzles.

Read post 19 and you might have the beginnings of an answer.

I too had Catholic School training through the BA. And I saw those priests and nuns go over the wall.

Many people, rightly or wrongly, had the idea that the Church had the final say in almost all matters affecting one’s life; either because they had been taught that, or because they had experienced that - which is also a teacher.

Remember also that the “going over the wall” occured during the 60’s; what else was going on? We had television, and by the early 60’s it was widespread; and what was reported?

Selma and Mobile Alabama. Water cannons and attack dogs and children trying to go to school - oops, they were the wrong color to go to that school.

Saigon, and Tet, and Cambodia and Kent State. Daily footage of a war that was no longer sanitized like the footage of WW2.

The Cuban Missal Crisis and the Bay of Pigs.

Haight Ashbury and Timothy Leary. Are you going to San Francisco? Widespread availability of marijuana, LSD. Esalen.

The Pill. Free Sex. Make love, not war.

John F. Kennedy. Ted Kennedy. Martin Luther King.

And bishops who saw themselves losing control and threatening excommunication (which was not a penalty available in Canon law - but the dumb clucks in the pews weren’t educated enough to know that) for not sending your children to Catholic School.

And the dumb clucks started getting educated about what the Church really taught - for a really short while - and then they got sidetracked by every whipper snapper that got the microphone - many, if not most, liberals, and the dumb clucks went from knowing something to thinking they knew something.

There is always a tendency for the pendulum to swing, and once it gets back in motion heading the other way, the tendency is that it swings too far. We went from what was viewed (and not entirley incorrectly) as obsessively oppressive, to “you can’t tell me what to do”. We went from “pray, pay and obey” to “we are Church”.

And, I submit, the biggest thread through it all was that we had a form of information that had never existed as it did suddenly then - we had visual information - television. Name any one thing that had more impact; I don’t think you can. Not that we got good information, or that we got correct information; but we got massive doses of information. It was as if all our mental skin had been peeled off and we were subject to the salt of information thrown on the wound.

The people in the Catholic Church were not the only ones going through massive change - so was the rest of the US and the free world; and we went from what was generally a pretty rigid society with a pretty consistent set of values, one that was generally polite and very observant of authority, to one that suddenly didn’t trust anyone over 30; one that decided it could right the wrongs of the world (and there were many); one that would no longer put up with racism, or war, to one that went hog wild with perceived freedoms - but they were freedoms from, not freedoms to. And freedoms from comes awfully close to anarchy.

I laugh at the youngsters who posit what the Church would be like if Vatican 2 had not occured; as if history was not occuring at the same time. They have no clue what the chaos was like, and not a scintilla of an idea what was driving most of it. The Church got caught up in a maelstrom not of its own making, but people want to dissect that time as if it - the Church - were in a sanitary bell jar, something to be peered at through a microscope. Who were the two clowns in the 60’s who predicted that food supplies would go up arithmetically and the population geometrically? Both were wrong on all points, but they scared the bejeebers out of everyone; couple that with the Pill and the mantra of the hippies and it makes for an interesting stew.

And yes, those who went over the walls were educated in CAtholic schools. They learned the Baltimore Catechism (as did I, and to which I do not object); but they didn’t get enough from that to be able to sort out Selma and Mobile and the race riots. The Baltimore Catechism simply didn’t prepare them for the Viet Nam war. It was not that the Catechism was wrong, but more that it was not complete enough to teach how to deal with the real world out there - the one we were taught to obey. The same one that said little girls couldn’t go to that school, because they were the wrong color…

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The Bishop cum Cardinal obligated parents to send their kids to Catholic School unless excused by the Pastor. In the city where I now reside I knew at least two sets of parents who were told to get their children into a Catholic School or be subjected to excommunication. That would have been in the late 50’s to early 60.s.

I think this is important to point out as a corollary to the decline in numbers of religious. Sure, we have an economic problem driven in large part by the lack of our nearly free labor, but that problem is also driven by the lack of support for our schools. It used to be that Catholics were expected to have their children in the Catholic school, even, in cases like you mentioned, under pain of sin. Even without penalties attached, the school was something supported by the whole parish, and that at a time when parishes were accustomed to pulling together and sacrificing for the community (think blue-collar immigrants scraping together money to get Italian artists to decorate their rural churches). The will is simply gone from the Church at large in this country, and no one is telling us from teh pulpit, at least not on a regular basis, that distinctively Catholic education is at all important. Without that awareness, Catholic education is doomed.

 

[lak611]

Another issue that is draining the Catholic schools of their identity is the admission of non-Catholic students, some of whom have vouchers and others who do not. Whether or not the schools are getting voucher money, I do not believe that a school should stay open if the majority of students are non-Catholic. Catholic schools should be for Catholic families. Many Protestant schools will not admit students unless their parents sign a statement of faith. In urban areas, where the Catholic population is miniscule, the schools should be closed in order to support schools in areas that have a large Catholic population. The parents of the non-Catholic children have the choice of charter schools and Protestant schools if they think the public school system is bad. Catholic schools need to remain Catholic by only admitting Catholic students. Catholic school should not be used for the purpose of educating children who are not Catholic just because the public system is bad. On the other hand, if a Catholic family wishes to use vouchers to send their children to Catholic school, that is acceptable.

 

[otjm]

Another issue that is draining the Catholic schools of their identity is the admission of non-Catholic students, some of whom have vouchers and others who do not. Whether or not the schools are getting voucher money, I do not believe that a school should stay open if the majority of students are non-Catholic. Catholic schools should be for Catholic families. Many Protestant schools will not admit students unless their parents sign a statement of faith. In urban areas, where the Catholic population is miniscule, the schools should be closed in order to support schools in areas that have a large Catholic population. The parents of the non-Catholic children have the choice of charter schools and Protestant schools if they think the public school system is bad. Catholic schools need to remain Catholic by only admitting Catholic students. Catholic school should not be used for the purpose of educating children who are not Catholic just because the public system is bad. On the other hand, if a Catholic family wishes to use vouchers to send their children to Catholic school, that is acceptable.

Well, the Catholic church does not require that you be Catholic if you need financial asistance, or need something from the food pantry or clothing pantry, or need a meal.

Why should non-Catholic children, if there is room in the school, not be able to take advantage of the education?

I would agree that if a school is a Catholic school, then the Catholic Faith should be taught; it might be up to the school as to whether or not non-Catholic children should be required to attend religion classes.

The issue may be more that we have a problem with not enough Catholic children attending the school. However, if the parish wishes to continue to support a Catholic grade school, and the Faith is taught to the Catholic students, I don’t see why the school should not allow others to attend too. I would not agree to giving them a priority, but if there is room, what is the point of either letting it go begging, or shutting the school down?

Besides, the Faith should be infused throughout all classes, not just a formal religion class. There are many opportunities to influence others besides formal study.

A parish will support its own school; it is much mroe difficult to get a parish to support another parish’s school unless children are attending there. So simply shutting one school down and presuming that money will go from that parish to another’s is not necessarily a given.

 

[lak611]

A parish will support its own school; it is much mroe difficult to get a parish to support another parish’s school unless children are attending there. So simply shutting one school down and presuming that money will go from that parish to another’s is not necessarily a given.

There are several schools that are in urban areas that no longer are affliliated with a particular parish. The parish has long closed, but the school remains, with the students being non-Catholic. I volunteered at one such school, painting the hallway, last year. The nun who is principal said that none of the students are Catholic. They get vouchers, but the vouchers do not cover the full cost of education (that needs to be supplemented by money from a parish/parishes or the diocese. What is the purpose of using money from whichever parishes do support this school (or from diocesan money) when tuition rates are rising at parish schools that do have Catholic families. Why not assist the Catholic families first? This is not an issue of hunger relief. There are quite a few charter schools in inner-city Cleveland that the non-Catholic students can attend.

 

[otjm]

There are several schools that are in urban areas that no longer are affliliated with a particular parish. The parish has long closed, but the school remains, with the students being non-Catholic. I volunteered at one such school, painting the hallway, last year. The nun who is principal said that none of the students are Catholic. They get vouchers, but the vouchers do not cover the full cost of education (that needs to be supplemented by money from a parish/parishes or the diocese. What is the purpose of using money from whichever parishes do support this school (or from diocesan money) when tuition rates are rising at parish schools that do have Catholic families. Why not assist the Catholic families first? This is not an issue of hunger relief. There are quite a few charter schools in inner-city Cleveland that the non-Catholic students can attend.

I have no clue about charter schools, or the public school system in general. We have a school that was set up in the inner city of Portland, primarily for disadvantaged minority students. I don’t know the source of funding, other than that it is Catholic; but I do not take the position that the Church should not reach out to others. I agree we need to take care of our own; but if the parents in a parish are not willing to actively (as opposed to passively) support a school and send their children, there is no point in the parish building one.

Some people take the position that we should care only for our own, or for our own first and only much later for anyone else. However, I have never had the impression that is the Church’s position.

There is a joke out here that in Utah, if you are even nominally LDS, you go to the LDS Church for help (and they are exceedingly good at helping their own); and if you are anything else or even nothing at all and need help, you go to the Catholic Church.

Except it isn’t exactly a joke.

 

[lak611]

I have no clue about charter schools, or the public school system in general. We have a school that was set up in the inner city of Portland, primarily for disadvantaged minority students. I don’t know the source of funding, other than that it is Catholic; but I do not take the position that the Church should not reach out to others. I agree we need to take care of our own; but if the parents in a parish are not willing to actively (as opposed to passively) support a school and send their children, there is no point in the parish building one.

Some people take the position that we should care only for our own, or for our own first and only much later for anyone else. However, I have never had the impression that is the Church’s position.

There is a joke out here that in Utah, if you are even nominally LDS, you go to the LDS Church for help (and they are exceedingly good at helping their own); and if you are anything else or even nothing at all and need help, you go to the Catholic Church.

Except it isn’t exactly a joke.

I understand what you are saying, however, the issue of education is different. In the case of food and shelter for the poor, the Church should offer it to anybody in need, because they have no where else to go. However, education is available to all at public schools (whether or not one thinks they are good). Catholic schools should be for education of Catholic children in the Catholic faith. Poor children who are non-Catholic would not be deprived of an education without Catholic schools.

 

[jimcav]

I think we have to remember that the previous generation that made the Catholic school sytem so prosperous and large, the baby boomers, were huge in numbers. It was the largest generation in our countries history, and many were first and second generation Americans who were Catholic and new to this country and sought out the comfort of the Church and it’s schools.

Today’s generation is much smaller by comparison, and Catholics today don’t face the same prejudices and alienation that the boomer generation did, so they are not seeking out the Catholic schools for safety. Catholics are also far better assimilated into our country today than ever before. Remember the problems President Kennedy faced in his run for office? Today, hardly anyone blinks at a Catholic candidate.

So I think the consolidation and closing of so many Catholic schools was inevitable. While it is certainly sad to see it happen, I also don’t think it should be looked at in a total negative light. It’s just a readjustment to deal with a smaller Catholic generation and where Catholics in this country are today, and it’s a much better place than it was 50-60 years ago…

 

[otjm]

I understand what you are saying, however, the issue of education is different. In the case of food and shelter for the poor, the Church should offer it to anybody in need, because they have no where else to go. However, education is available to all at public schools (whether or not one thinks they are good). Catholic schools should be for education of Catholic children in the Catholic faith. Poor children who are non-Catholic would not be deprived of an education without Catholic schools.

No, but they would very possibly be deprived of the opportunity for a good solid education that is faith based.

Make no mistake, I am not suggesting that Ctholic schools be set up anywhere and everywhere to educate only non-Catholics. On the other hand, like the one in Portland, I do not have a problem with one that is dedicated to disadvantaged minority students and taught with a Catholic perspective.

As to parish schools, most of them are going to be by and large oriented to teaching Catholic children; I see no problem with allowing some non-Catholics to attend also if there is room. And if a parish closes and the school remains, then it is up to the people who support the school as to whether or not they wish to continue. If they see an important evangelization opportunity there to non-Catholic students, I for one am not going to tell them they are wrong, or that they should close that and give the money to another existing school. I would no more do that than I woulod say that we have a duty to feed and clothe Catholics first, and if there are dribs and drabs left over, then give to others.

People are free to choose what eleemosynary activities they feel important to support, and I believe that the Church supports that as long as it is not immoral (i.e. Planned Parenthood).

I don’t question the importance of a Catholic education; I went from grade school through a B.A in Catholic schools. I also had non-Catholic friends in school with me almost all the way. But parishes have to get a grip on the value of the education - which means the parish, the school, and the parents. All three groups need to step up to the plate re: finances. and if one group loses faith in the process and lags, someone needs to light a fire under them.

 

[NMJenny]

I understand what you are saying, however, the issue of education is different. In the case of food and shelter for the poor, the Church should offer it to anybody in need, because they have no where else to go. However, education is available to all at public schools (whether or not one thinks they are good). Catholic schools should be for education of Catholic children in the Catholic faith. Poor children who are non-Catholic would not be deprived of an education without Catholic schools.

That may be true, but what about the Catholic children in the school? I live in a small town–we have one Catholic PreK-12 school with about 300 students. Years ago our bishop mandated that all parochial schools in the diocese had to be privatised, so tuition and donations are the main sources of income. We do have non-Catholic students at the school (although first preference is given to Catholics)–if they were forced to leave, we might not be able to keep the school running!! And the next closest school is over 60 miles away, so closing our school would mean the loss of any possibility of a Catholic education in my town…

 

[lak611]

That may be true, but what about the Catholic children in the school? I live in a small town–we have one Catholic PreK-12 school with about 300 students. Years ago our bishop mandated that all parochial schools in the diocese had to be privatised, so tuition and donations are the main sources of income. We do have non-Catholic students at the school (although first preference is given to Catholics)–if they were forced to leave, we might not be able to keep the school running!! And the next closest school is over 60 miles away, so closing our school would mean the loss of any possibility of a Catholic education in my town…

I understand what you are saying. However, I question having a school in my diocese remain open when 100% of the students are non-Catholic and there is no parish affiliated with that school. The parish was closed and torn down over 25 years ago.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Today’s generation is much smaller by comparison, and Catholics today don’t face the same prejudices and alienation that the boomer generation did, so they are not seeking out the Catholic schools for safety. Catholics are also far better assimilated into our country today than ever before. Remember the problems President Kennedy faced in his run for office? Today, hardly anyone blinks at a Catholic candidate.

So I think the consolidation and closing of so many Catholic schools was inevitable. While it is certainly sad to see it happen, I also don’t think it should be looked at in a total negative light. It’s just a readjustment to deal with a smaller Catholic generation and where Catholics in this country are today, and it’s a much better place than it was 50-60 years ago…

Yes, Catholics are far better assimilated into American society than they were fifty years ago, but your example of politics is great for showing how this mainly occurred at the cost of relinquishing their Catholicism. No one blinks at a Catholic candidate because they’ve found Catholic candidates usually act no differently than secular humanist candidates. If Catholics (at least those in politics) are also overwhelmingly for abortion on demand, some form of gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc., what is to fear?

Catholics enjoy much greater access to society today, but it’s hard to say the Church is actually in a *better *place than 50 years ago. Catholics have always sinned, but at least 50 years ago you could get them to admit their Church taught them it was a sin. Now the institutions that taught the faith are disappearing, and we’re fine with that because we don’t need them now that we’re just as bad as the rest of our country.

 

[otjm]

I understand what you are saying. However, I question having a school in my diocese remain open when 100% of the students are non-Catholic and there is no parish affiliated with that school. The parish was closed and torn down over 25 years ago.

Again, the school is getting support - and possibly fairly large support - to stay open. It is presumptious to aswsume that if that school was shut down that the supporters of it would shift their money to another school. Each school has an identity and there are people who align with that identity, and they are the ones who will keep it afloat. It fmight be nice if the diocese took over all schools and funded them, but my guess is that is not likely; the net result is that each school has to make its own identity, and make it strong enough to be able to obtain the necessary funds to stay afloat. If thatg school ceases to exist, the reason it was funded also ceases; and there is nothing in the mind of the donors to cause them to transfer their allegience, and cash, to a different school.

In other words, it is highly unlikely that any school not associated wtih a parish, on the grade school level, is taking any funds away from any other school whether or not it is primarily, secondarily, or minimally oriented to Catholic students.

I would suspect that if one were to look into the matter, that the Church has founded schools in missionary countries that are open to non-Catholic students, and may in fact serve more non-Catholics than Catholics. It might be noted that we have, to some extent, become a missionary territory.

 

[jimcav]

Yes, Catholics are far better assimilated into American society than they were fifty years ago, but your example of politics is great for showing how this mainly occurred at the cost of relinquishing their Catholicism. No one blinks at a Catholic candidate because they’ve found Catholic candidates usually act no differently than secular humanist candidates. If Catholics (at least those in politics) are also overwhelmingly for abortion on demand, some form of gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc., what is to fear?

I sadly agree, most of our Catholic politicians today have forsaken their faith. Guiliani and Pelosi come to mind immediately. The Catholic vote is simply taken for granted today, because we don’t vote as a block. The Orthodox Jewish on the other hand do, and their voting power is far greater than their numbers say they should be. Catholics would do well to emulate them. But while Catholic politicians have lost their way, so have most politicians who only pay lip service to whatever faith they belong to. Very few are true to their Christian faith once they are in office. So I believe that politicians in general have become far more faithless today than a half century ago.
Andreas Hofer:

Catholics enjoy much greater access to society today, but it’s hard to say the Church is actually in a *better *place than 50 years ago. Catholics have always sinned, but at least 50 years ago you could get them to admit their Church taught them it was a sin. Now the institutions that taught the faith are disappearing, and we’re fine with that because we don’t need them now that we’re just as bad as the rest of our country.

I never said that the Church is in a better place today. I happen to think it’s not, but thats another story. The schools are “disappearing” because there are simply not as many young Catholics to educate today. This is a much smaller generation, and there will be enough schools left to educate them. Whether we as Catholic parents choose to use them is up to us.

 

[chicago]

The schools are “disappearing” because there are simply not as many young Catholics to educate today. This is a much smaller generation, and there will be enough schools left to educate them. Whether we as Catholic parents choose to use them is up to us.

I don’t agree. Rather, I think that there are plenty of Catholic children from well enough off families to pay for education in the suburban areas which were built up after WWII. When populations shifted from city centers to the newer enclaves, these families took advantage of public schooling systems more frequently, while their new parishes never even got around to building schools (preferring to spend any funds available on other types of construction and ministry options). Conversely, in the cities the parochial populations which once supported the schools were no longer around. Or, if new families moved in, they were likely in lower economic brackets and could not readily afford the escalating costs of education.

So, basically, where the infrastucture and schools exist, they are unafforable to the immediate population they might serve (even among the new wave of Catholic immigrants which often populate these communities) whereas where people could afford Catholic schooling, they choose not to pay for establishing the institutions.

 

[chicago]

I understand what you are saying, however, the issue of education is different. In the case of food and shelter for the poor, the Church should offer it to anybody in need, because they have no where else to go. However, education is available to all at public schools (whether or not one thinks they are good). Catholic schools should be for education of Catholic children in the Catholic faith. Poor children who are non-Catholic would not be deprived of an education without Catholic schools.

A lot of poor children who are not Catholic actually would be deprived. Catholic schools are seen as (and have long been seen as) a step up and foot in the door of getting somewhere in life, even breaking the cycle of poverty.

That said, it has traditionally been the case that the Catholics schools were a way to evangelize such children and families, too. At one time (though perhaps less so today) it was not at all uncommon for non-Catholic students to convert as a result of their Catholic schooling.

 

[aimee]

A lot of poor children who are not Catholic actually would be deprived. Catholic schools are seen as (and have long been seen as) a step up and foot in the door of getting somewhere in life, even breaking the cycle of poverty.

That said, it has traditionally been the case that the Catholics schools were a way to evangelize such children and families, too. At one time (though perhaps less so today) it was not at all uncommon for non-Catholic students to convert as a result of their Catholic schooling.

do you find that so in Chicago?

Here there has been an increase in catholic schools…

 

[puzzleannie]

Unfortunately many parochial schools are Catholic in name only; therefore, sending ones children to them would be immoral.

and if we continue to pull our children out, to abandon parishes that need our clear voice and traditional vision, to hunker down in our own enclaves, more parishes will drift along, and the schools with them, because there is no one left in the parish to teach tradition to younger parents, or to counter the other voices.

 

[Saint_Gemma]

and if we continue to pull our children out, to abandon parishes that need our clear voice and traditional vision, to hunker down in our own enclaves, more parishes will drift along, and the schools with them, because there is no one left in the parish to teach tradition to younger parents, or to counter the other voices.

One family cannot always change a school for the better. Not all of us are Teresa of Avilas.