Philadelphia Archdiocese: School parents must sign 'Catholic identity' pledge

[Corki]

Seriously? It’s not good enough to be a Catholic in good standing? Now I have to sign a piece of paper that will magically carry more weight than my life as witness? If that’s the situation, my kids would be better off in a public school.

Yes, seriously. We are required to support our Catholic schools. That doesn’t just mean putting a little money in a second collection a few times a year. It means supporting them in their mission and affirming their Catholic identity. It also means helping to protect them from threats of “discrimination” for simply upholding Catholic teaching. It is not good enough to be a Catholic in good standing if we aren’t willing to put our actions behind our words.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Seriously? It’s not good enough to be a Catholic in good standing? Now I have to sign a piece of paper that will magically carry more weight than my life as witness? If that’s the situation, my kids would be better off in a public school.

I might have signed, but now this thread has convinced me not to. Hypothetically speaking, because I don’t live there.

Would you object to a criminal background check to weed out child sex perverts and molesters?

 

[JimG]

“The purpose “is to simply inform parents that we are Catholic schools, that we will teach the doctrine of the church, and have them sign that they understand and are in agreement,” he said.”

Yes, this is a good idea. As has been said, such a statement of purpose and parental agreement ought to be something which can be taken for granted if a parent sends their children to a Catholic school. But in this increasingly litigious and dissenting culture, not much can be taken for granted any longer.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Although the original morality clause was modified the contract does include specific language about the expected behavior of teachers "

The contract says the purpose of Catholic schools is “to affirm Catholic values through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” It says that teachers are expected to support the school’s purpose “in such a way that their personal conduct will not adversely impact their ability to teach in our Catholic high schools.”

And as I said before, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds with the staff who are LGBT and non-Catholic, and have no interest in adhering to certain Catholic morals outside the classroom. There are many who are in same gender relationships, or divorced and remarried, or in non-married relationships. My guess is that many are regular users of birth control. Do you think the schools are going to be monitoring this with the Teachers Union watching very closely?

Not after the hard summer of negotiations I wouldn’t think.

 

[estesbob]

Seriously? It’s not good enough to be a Catholic in good standing? Now I have to sign a piece of paper that will magically carry more weight than my life as witness? If that’s the situation, my kids would be better off in a public school.

I might have signed, but now this thread has convinced me not to. Hypothetically speaking, because I don’t live there.

Signing a document acknowledging your support of Catholic teaching is witnessing . For the life of me I cannot understand why any Cabic would have a problem with this

 

[estesbob]

And as I said before, it will be interesting to see how it unfolds with the staff who are LGBT and non-Catholic, and have no interest in adhering to certain Catholic morals outside the classroom. There are many who are in same gender relationships, or divorced and remarried, or in non-married relationships. My guess is that many are regular users of birth control. Do you think the schools are going to be monitoring this with the Teachers Union watching very closely?

Not after the hard summer of negotiations I wouldn’t think.

I would suspect it’s going to depend on how much a teacher flaunts their homosexuality.

 

[on_the_hill]

Would you object to a criminal background check to weed out child sex perverts and molesters?

Of course. This isn’t the same thing at all. I hope it also weeds out rapists, murderers, terrorists, and Communists.

How about this: I’ll sign the slip of paper and it will be valid until I change my mind and decide it’s not valid anymore. What I hold in my heart trumps anything I sign or say publicly. That’s what it comes down to in the end.

 

[J_Peterson]

My assumption is that a “catholic identity” pledge means that you aren’t gay and won’t support gay rights while your kid goes to the school. I’m sure they are okay with parents gossiping or calling others names.

 

[irishpatrick]

Of course. This isn’t the same thing at all. I hope it also weeds out rapists, murderers, terrorists, and Communists.

How about this: I’ll sign the slip of paper and it will be valid until I change my mind and decide it’s not valid anymore. What I hold in my heart trumps anything I sign or say publicly. That’s what it comes down to in the end.

Signing the paper does not mean you are legally bound to anything–it just means you have formally agreed the school will teach the faith. Not long ago, the very action of placing children in Catholic schools came with the obvious implication that those children would receive formation in the faith–that is simply not the case today. Times have changed, and dramatically so. All this paper does is remind parents that their children will be taught the faith. I have no idea why any practicing Catholic parent would object to this, in fact, I would think that they would applaud it and feel relieved that the school will fight to maintain a Catholic identity.

Recall, if Catholic schools fail at teaching the faith, then those schools are failures and they should close their doors. There is one, and only one, reason for Catholic schools to exist, and that is to teach the faith alongside all the other normal academic requirements. Take away the teaching of the faith and those schools just become a better version of a public school.

We live in a rough world and we must meet it head on with plans to make sure the next generation learns and holds the faith. We can’t do that if we do not try.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I would suspect it’s going to depend on how much a teacher flaunts their homosexuality.

‘Flaunts?’

If you mean being open and aboveboard about who they are, that’s pretty much a given. What else could you mean by that word?

 

[irishpatrick]

My assumption is that a “catholic identity” pledge means that you aren’t gay and won’t support gay rights while your kid goes to the school. I’m sure they are okay with parents gossiping or calling others names.

No–it means the children going to that school will be taught the faith. That is all it really means. Don’t read in things that are not there.

I know, I know–the absolute horror and shock to learn a Catholic school might plan to teach its students the faith. How dare them.

 

[johnnykins]

philly.com/philly/education/20150909_Archdiocese__School_parents_must_sign_pledge.html#vwyJD6LSh84vmpEc.99

Parents of children attending Archdiocese of Philadelphia schools are now being required to sign a document pledging support for the schools’ “Catholic identity” and recognizing that in all questions involving church law, “the final determination rests with the archbishop.”

The archdiocese is asking all its schools to include the one-page “Memorandum of Understanding” in entrance applications and school handbooks, said spokesman Ken Gavin.

The purpose “is to simply inform parents that we are Catholic schools, that we will teach the doctrine of the church, and have them sign that they understand and are in agreement,” he said.

The document requires parents or guardians “to uphold all principles and policies that govern the Catholic school.”

Unfortunately for decades many (most? the vast majority?) of Catholic Schools have been Catholic in name only. They not only didn’t teach Catholic Doctrine, they were IMHO the biggest source of ridicule of Catholic Doctrine and hotbeds of dissent from Catholic teaching and authority. They ceased in any meaningful way to be Catholic. I don’t think I’m the only person who observed this phenomenon.

How the hierarchy and orders missed this is beyond me. I can only conclude they were negligent, misfeasant or even malfeasant in their activities with respect to the schools. I have noticed a distinct push-back in the last 5-10 years…but for about 25-35 years that was the norm as far as I could see.

Further, many many Catholic schools explicitly or at least tacitly marketed themselves as simply private schools cheaper than secular private schools but better than public schools.

So, it was not the plaintiff lawyers, media or anyone outside the Church who has created the environment where suits and bad publicity naturally followed. It was the nuns, brothers, priests, bishops and lay faculties who did this. I know they will, and have tried to, blame the parents, but frankly it was not the parents who did this. The parents were largely blindsided that the schools were not Catholic except in name. It was the parents who finally started screaming about what their kids were being taught that finally turned the Bark of Peter in this arena.

So, kudos to Archbishop Chaput. But, honestly, it’s time that we stopped giving a bye to those who created this mess and stop blaming lawyers, media and non-Catholics. Wasn’t it Pogo who said, “We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

 

[estesbob]

My assumption is that a “catholic identity” pledge means that you aren’t gay and won’t support gay rights while your kid goes to the school. I’m sure they are okay with parents gossiping or calling others names.

If you know Chaput at all you know this is not true.

 

[estesbob]

‘Flaunts?’

If you mean being open and aboveboard about who they are, that’s pretty much a given. What else could you mean by that word?

Why does anyone have to know anything about a teachers personal life?

 

[Corki]

‘Flaunts?’

If you mean being open and aboveboard about who they are, that’s pretty much a given. What else could you mean by that word?

Just look at some of the recent news cases and you will understand “flaunts”. Catholic school teacher is “gay”, everybody seems to know she is but then she “marries” another woman and puts in on Facebook. That is an example of flaunting and a good reason for her to lose her job.

 

[estesbob]

Just look at some of the recent news cases and you will understand “flaunts”. Catholic school teacher is “gay”, everybody seems to know she is but then she “marries” another woman and puts in on Facebook. That is an example of flaunting and a good reason for her to lose her job.

Good example. Teachers personal lives become an issue only when they choose to make them so

 

[Pug]

Hmm…I don’t know if I’d sign it. I fully support the notion that a Catholic school teaches and is run according to Catholic morality. But I don’t like signing documents that pledge my obedience like that.

It would require a lot of thought before I’d sign that, too. But what bothers me is that I have no clue the the legalities of signing that and also I am signing that I “affirm” to all that it says, which I presume means I believe or concur with what it says. On a brief reading, it is not clear that I do. IF the phrases were further clarified, I’d probably agree that I agree with them, but without clarification, it is not clear, so I would be unable to sign without lying or making a false representation. For example:

“In all questions that involve Catholic teaching, morals, and Church law, the final determination rests with the Archbishop.”

I have no idea what that means. Is this somehow in tension with the right of the parent as the primary educator of his/her child? Where does the pope fit in that sentence? It requires more explanation and context to sign it. I have no idea how that sentence would affect a concrete situation involving a parent and a child in a school.

(Note: I fully agree with Church teaching, I would be thrilled if they would teach children Catholic doctrine, I want teachers living the faith, etc. That is not the issue).

 

[phil19034]

My assumption is that a “catholic identity” pledge means that you aren’t gay and won’t support gay rights while your kid goes to the school. I’m sure they are okay with parents gossiping or calling others names.

It is much more than that.

Over the years many non-Catholics have begun attending Catholic schools due to good academics, etc; especially people who live in the City of Philadelphia.

The acceptance of non-Catholics (which in principle is fine) has inadvertently lead to a watering down of the faith in order to accommodate non-Catholics.

When you spend money to send your kids to Catholic school (let alone anything else), you expect to get what you paid for. When practicing Catholic parents send their children to Catholic school, they expect their kids to be taught in the faith; not for it to be the same as a secular or protestant school.

The majority of priests I know all attended Catholic School. Catholic schools need to be a place where they are learning about the Faith all day; in math class, history, science, english, etc. Not just theology class.

Additionally, non-Catholics need to understand what their children will be taught in regards to the Catholic Faith. Catholic school children should not be have their faith watered down out of respect for non-Catholics.

God Bless!

 

[phil19034]

It would require a lot of thought before I’d sign that, too. But what bothers me is that I have no clue the the legalities of signing that and also I am signing that I “affirm” to all that it says, which I presume means I believe or concur with what it says. On a brief reading, it is not clear that I do. IF the phrases were further clarified, I’d probably agree that I agree with them, but without clarification, it is not clear, so I would be unable to sign without lying or making a false representation. For example:

“In all questions that involve Catholic teaching, morals, and Church law, the final determination rests with the Archbishop.”

I have no idea what that means. Is this somehow in tension with the right of the parent as the primary educator of his/her child? Where does the pope fit in that sentence? It requires more explanation and context to sign it. I have no idea how that sentence would affect a concrete situation involving a parent and a child in a school.

(Note: I fully agree with Church teaching, I would be thrilled if they would teach children Catholic doctrine, I want teachers living the faith, etc. That is not the issue).

Pug… the whole point of the document is for parents to understand their children will be taught the orthodox, Catholic Faith in the catholic schools and not watered down theology.

Too many non-practicing Catholics and non-Catholics send their children to Catholic schools and then complain when they realize that their kids are being taught the Catholic faith. I’m not kidding. There are people who think Catholic school is non-religious and is simply a cheaper prep school.

 

[estesbob]

It would require a lot of thought before I’d sign that, too. But what bothers me is that I have no clue the the legalities of signing that and also I am signing that I “affirm” to all that it says, which I presume means I believe or concur with what it says. On a brief reading, it is not clear that I do. IF the phrases were further clarified, I’d probably agree that I agree with them, but without clarification, it is not clear, so I would be unable to sign without lying or making a false representation. For example:
“In all questions that involve Catholic teaching, morals, and Church law, the final determination rests with the Archbishop.”
I have no idea what that means. Is this somehow in tension with the right of the parent as the primary educator of his/her child? Where does the pope fit in that sentence? It requires more explanation and context to sign it. I have no idea how that sentence would affect a concrete situation involving a parent and a child in a school.

(Note: I fully agree with Church teaching, I would be thrilled if they would teach children Catholic doctrine, I want teachers living the faith, etc. That is not the issue).

The Magisterium of the Church
[85](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/85.htm’) "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.