From Father Z’s blog, a barely believable – if we lived in normal times – story about a canadian Catholic school. In said Catholic school the idea of having a crucifix in every classroom was in the past considered – for reasons I do not even want to think about – not really necessary. I know, I know…..
This year, this state of things changed and every classroom was equipped with his crucifix.
Thinking that this would make some explanation necessary (a crucifix: what will then that be, one wonders….), a teacher (and principal of the school) decided to give some “explanations” to every class in the school.
The explanation centered about Jesus not having physically risen from the dead. Not only Easter, but the entire concept of divinity of Christ, and with that of Trinity, goes herewith out of the window as I can’t understand why God would decide that he can resurrect, but prefers not to and tells us a lie about it instead, clearly allowing this lie to be believed for some 20 centuries before a Canadian minus habens comes along.
Because this is, according to one brave girl who immediately challenged him, what is all about: Jesus “never resurrected”, the whole thing is “like a metaphor that you follow” and, you know, “people have taken the Bible too literally”.
In the view of this “enlightened” teacher in a Catholic school, the “moral” that Jesus died is right but hey, “the story is wrong”. The man is, at this point, launched toward the creation of a completely new religion and dutifully delivers: “Because He died in our honour we should be nice to each other,” or if you prefer to put it another way “the crucifix represents helping others” and when the students look at it “that’s all it’s supposed to mean”.
And there, a new religion is born. This new religion, “BeNiceAnity”, has a vague flavour of Christianity and actually can even tolerate a Crucifix, but not without an explanation that says: “hey, don’t take it all too literally with this Christ: the chap is still six feet under (at which Mundabor would have asked: “where’s the body? Who has stolen it? Who has lied about it? Why?”) and you must just relax, be nice to each other and try to be helpful” (and, no doubt, inclusive).
I don’t want to think what private issues a man can have to want to blasphemously offend Christ in this way, in his role as teacher, in a Catholic school, but one doesn’t have to be a genius to see that they must be huge.
One would wish the chap all the best in his chosen new professional path. Whatever that is, I’m sure he’ll be better at that than he was at teaching.
There are days, I truly can’t recognise this country anymore. It seems to me as if certain news were actually a parody but no, they are true.
Let us consider this. Fr Ashley Beck is the Dean of the Archdiocese of Southwark in charge of the training of deacons. He says something which in my world is so banal that it wouldn’t even deserve mention: children of people co-habiting shouldn’t be admitted in Catholic schools. To me this is like saying that the Pope should be Catholic, but the fact that Fr Beck says that they should not shows that such a banality is, in fact, a piece of news and that apparently children of a cohabitation are admitted as a matter of fact in many Catholic schools. One wonders how a Catholic school can even begin to raise children in a Catholic environment if it is not even requested that their parents follow I do not say the strictest orthodoxy, but at least a behaviour such that they do not live in objective mortal sin, give scandal and are excluded from communion. What is in my eyes surprising is that what Fr Beck asks is merely that the parents be married, not that they be Catholic! I might be missing something here, but it seems to me that Fr Beck’s words can only be defined as generous, and more inclusive than they should.
Apparently, though, the marital status of the parents cannot be considered by a school. A Catholic school is not allowed to consider whether the parents are married.
Someone here is seriously under the influence whilst in Government.
Am I missing something here? How else can the objective mortal sin of the parents be considered irrelevant in the education of the child, other than because a Catholic education is considered not important and the objective mortal sin of the parents utterly irrelevant at worst, or a sub-optimal option at best? How else can the fact that the parents are excluded from communion be neglected, other than because the exclusion from communion is ignored or considered a relic of the past? How can a faith school not be allowed a mainstay of that faith as an admission criterium?
After the words of the Dean (which would be absurd to define courageous; the adjective “obvious” comes to mind) one would expect the atheist “dementigentsia” to cry foul (they hate Catholicism but hey, they want a Catholic school for their children…) and complain that……… the Pope is Catholic. This would be mildly amusing on a good day and no more than unnerving on a less good one.
But when one gets rather angry is when one discovers that such a statement of the damned obvious leaves Oona Stannard, the Head of the Catholic Education Service, “almost speechless”.
The woman is not speechless because children of non-Catholic christians are allowed into Catholic schools, leaving children of Catholic families out, nor is she angry because a Catholic school is not allowed to enquire about the marital status of the parents of the prospective pupils. No, Mssss Stannard is outraged that a religious would dare to ask that the parents be at least married!
What belief this Stannard woman belongs to? Some New Age stream? Wicca? Druidism?
She can’t be Catholic, for sure.
Interesting piece of news from Calgary, where a Catholic elementary school has decided to introduce separate classes for boys and girls.
Besides the fact that it all sounds so beautifully conservative, the article points out to a fact that will be shocking (if not outright offensive) to a lot of feminists out there: boys and girls are, well, different. They think differently, they react differently and they learn differently. In the words of the article’s author,
A classroom for Grade 5 and 6 boys features posters of planes and football games on the walls and books about adventure and trucks on the shelves. Girls’ classrooms have books about pets and relationships.
But there is also no reason to fear that this separation may become too harsh, making a harmonious interaction between the sexes more difficult. Boys and girls will be, in fact, be able to meet between classes and during some of the classes. Makes sense to me.
All fine then? Well, no, because amazingly there seem to be people to whom this kind of arrangement seems, in a way, oppressing and limiting of the possibility of growth of the children.
A critical woman – who runs a daycare not far from the school – observes that
Here at the daycare the girls and the boys have the exact same opportunities. So if a girl wishes to play dress up as a fireman for example, and a boy wants to dress up as a princess — they have that opportunity
Amazing. Besides pulling her own institution, the lady seriously thinks it an advantage that a boy may be allowed to dress as a princess and a girl as a firefighter. Common sense has gone down the drain, submerged by a perceived duty to be politically correct at all costs (in the best of cases) or to encourage sexual deviance (in the worst). Please notice the word used twice: opportunity. The opportunity to dress as a Princess.
Someone should explain to the lady (unless she is a man offered the opportunity to dress up as a woman; we are not told) that a boy not dressing up as a Princess is part of the very natural process by which this boy becomes, one day, a balanced man; that it is the duty of the school system to work according to the sexes’ different inclinations, not against them; that a young boy to whom it is lovingly explained that he is a boy and therefore not supposed to dress as a Princess is not being denied any opportunity, but rather given the opportunity of being properly guided and assisted in his natural process of growth.
There is no sense of self-irony in the words of the woman; it is not meant as a joke, or a parody. She really means it. One wonders what has the world come to.
I do hope this costs the lady at least a couple of clients. It might give her the opportunity to dress up as a sound thinking person.