The future of Catholic Schools
Applying Jesus' Approach to Catholic Schools:
"A preferential option for the poor" should be maintained in our Catholic Schools. If we find that we cannot afford to keep our schools open to the poor, the schools should be closed and the resources used for something else which can be kept open to the poor. (William Horan)
Richard,is the Catholic
Richard,is the Catholic Faith being explained and defended in these Catholic schools or are they Catholic in name only?
Let me assume that the whole
Let me assume that the whole question is mine to answer.
I'll make a few points.
The days of the 'parish' school are over and the days of cheap nun labor are gone so the cost of tuition is a minimum of three thousand dollars a year for a class size of twenty.
Education of young catholics is the obligation of the church in union with the parents. A program combining home school and a Catholic school is possible. There are a lot of combimations of practices that could work.
Who claims that children have to go to school 5 days from 9 to 3? Colleges don't work that way.
Who says that they should attend a classroom every day? Who says that we should maintain a school year that is based on the agriculture model? Children aren't part of agriculture any more and neither are their parents.
Who says that the curriculum should be geared to the SAT test?
Who says that schools have to meet the expectations of specific accreditation groups? Setting up slots for people to fit into is part of the dumbing down of the populace.
In the parish. What kind of attitude is there toward education both religious and academic[for want of a better word] [I was driving in Griffin early yesterday morning about 8:30 I passed a young black man ,probably 30 yrs, on two occasions.[I was lost] he was carrying his bible and he was I'm sure on his way to Sunday school] Some non catholics spend three or four hours at church on Sunday and a big part of that is education. Education both self directed and otherwise should be emphasised in the parish as personal goal for both parents and children.
I know as much about the
I know as much about the education as John McCain [or Bush ] knows about the economy.I know its similar to the health-care,the problem is in distribution. It is the responsibility of the government to assist in the education of every child.
If the government pays out for this education then they have a right to determine if they are getting what they pay for.Academically The separation of church and state should be sacred to all of us. I ask: should the federal government have a say in the curriculum? They do at present, and rightfully so they set expectati0ons regarding the SAT and ACT tests and set expectations for admission to college.
They should pay a percentage of all expenses, this includes all salaries paid to qualified and certified teachers, fifty percent of construction and I think this is one of the few countries that do not contribute.It would have beneficial to the Church in the past and when we shudder to think of funding madrossas we have to remember that transparency can take care of a lot of potentially damaging instruction. [if every teacher were to allow his or her class content to be reviewed as it is delivered, there would be more quality,more preparation and less neglect of duty.]
Overall education needs severe evaluation. Colleges use their qualifications schedule to retain students and boost their tuition roll. There are football coaches who earn a million plus per year and unimportant professors philosophy profs etc who earn $65,000. That tells us what is important. There are many colleges who are sitting on endowments of billions of dollars. Going to college and graduation from college have become the goal for the students-----the goal should be education. Enhanced public image and enlarged endowments are the goals for the college,but the goal should be education.
Going back to the parish level: there are basically two ways that people become Christian and these are the example of Charity and education. The early monasteries placed great emphasis on their library.It was probably the center of the monastery. We have a library in our parish that is basically not much bigger than a broom closet. We have a card system and lots of books some of which go back to the middle ages. There is nothing controvesial there, as a matter of fact everything is censored. I see people buying books from Barnes and Noble and Borders and I see many people reading books that are from the Christian reading section of the book store A library, bookstore, [complete with coffee] could be a central part of every parish.We might have a better educated clergy and laity.
Books like 'The purpose driven life' and books by T D Jakes are doing a lot of both good and bad in the world but there is very Catholic influence in the very profitable book market.
Good point. If we look to
Good point. If we look to some other countries, like Germany, tax money goes to the church and priests are paid, at least in part, by the goverment. I am also pretty sure that they fund schooling too - that is, Catholic schools - if there is such an animal in that country other than some private catholic schools.
The school voucher program is long overdue to improve the overall educational system of this country and could be the boost or assistance that we need to save Catholic Education in this country.
The problem with taking
The problem with taking government money is taking government strings. If vouchers do become wide spread in this country, then there will be no real difference (as opposed to the minimum distinctions we have now) between public and Catholic schools.
IIRC, England (in which all schools are state supported) has recently had a number of problems with its school system and Catholic identity, from barring preference for Catholic students in Catholic schools to forcing hiring decisions contrary to Church teaching.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
"but isn’t it true that a
"but isn’t it true that a fundamental re-evaluation of education is now needed? A re-thinking of the philosophy of education?"
I agree with Sylvester this far. Our public education system, which our Catholic school system now follows, was designed as factory schools, to provide enough education to build a competent work force, while lessening tendencies to question authority and the status quo. The desired output isn't a college student but a Good Union Employee(tm)*.
Obviously on an international level this just isn't cutting it anymore.
Catholic Schools have the opportunity to be completely radical in their approach to education. (radix=root) If we go back to where we were producing the best and brightest minds in the world, we come to a one room schoolhouse approach. This could be adapted to a modern school by breaking up the classes and unnatural age segregation. You now have children socializing vertically, giving them something to aspire to. Math curricula need a major overhaul (I have yet to find a logical progression in a math book under the Calculus level). English and arts need to focus less on special interest books and more on the classics. The progression of the Trivium and Quadrivium need to be brought back (Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric are desperately needed, their is little rhyme or reason to how we teach Art, Geometry, and Music, and Philosophy isn't taught at all)**
A Socratic billing method could be devised easily enough (Socrates supposedly charged what one could pay.) Catholic Colleges and Universities could train teachers and administrators for such a system and offer scholarships for those coming from such schools.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
* read self interested, lazy, employee (this is a common insult at my union job, as the lower our productivity the more people would get hired, and the more $ the union collects in dues)
** Yes, I am replacing astronomy with the culmination of study, philosophy
I believe we may have some
I believe we may have some convergence of thought, HereToday. Ideology, worldview, subjectivity and objectivity intertwine with each other in their reciprocal effects on us personally. All of these are implicated in self-understanding, education and religion, for better and for worse.
The ideologies we personally hold to qualify how we understand ourselves, each other and the world. Our personal ideologies are tiles in a mosaic, sometimes not always quite right. Our personal character is revealed to others by how we communicate our subjective selves to each other.
Ideologies are acquired from inheritance, education and experience. "Nature" is about genetic coding; "nurture" is about familial, social, experiential and educational (memetic) coding. In our subjective personae, we create our own calculus of objectivity, by which we color everything. Our spiritual lives are indeed a continuing work of testing our subjective selves, the tint of the glasses we wear, if you will, against cultural (religious) presumptions and objectivity.
When I say that education needs to change from bottom to top, I am not saying that everything about education is wrong, but that the objectivity of education (religion) is yet prejudiced by false coloring; namely, that we all (Catholics) have come to be subjectively prejudiced by over-rought fideism cultured in static-centrist-dominion thinking.
The transformational (evolutionary) worldview (EWV) is ever open to the dialog of faith and reason, by which, our subjectivity is ever in transformation — and by necessity — by which our objectivity is ever under scrutiny and change. Herein lies hope for the future! The hierarchical culture/ structure of patriarchy, on the other hand, weighs heavily upon us and discolors worldview and objectivity, and castes subjectivity in false light — from these people suffer desperation.
All of society, all of us personally, and all of nature, suffer from the culture of falsified objectification. These are what the "needed changes" in religion, education and culture are about. The political opportunity to begin a radical cultural shift toward renewed hope is before us presently in this 2008 presidential cycle. We should all take courage in the prospect of this kind of change.
Forgive this intervention,
Forgive this intervention, but isn’t it true that a fundamental re-evaluation of education is now needed? A re-thinking of the philosophy of education? Why? Because sense of self changes as worldview changes. Postmodern education has not yet adapted to postmodern consciousness, i.e., from the static-centrist worldview (SWV) to the evolutionary worldview (EWV). SWV is culturally premised on long-in-place imperial-dominion presumptions, while EWV presumptions are based on relational understandings of interpersonal transformation. Self-understanding in SWV is radically different from self-understanding in EWV.
The differences lie in understanding the correlation of objectivity and subjectivity, and how these mutually co-depend; their relationship leads us to the relationship of teacher-learner and the necessary reciprocity (essential co-dependency) of lifetime learning and teaching.
In EWV, we are individually, for our lifetimes, learners and teachers. Learning supposes teaching, even as teaching supposes learning. The mutuality of their relationship is about continual growth into maturity, self-development — what is personal and social. The lifetime continuity of teaching/ learning changes us continually, personally and socially.
When education is objectivized, i.e., made to serve institutional, ideological purposes, it tends to be alienated from its basic sense of universal-relational necessity; learning and teaching are then made to serve the institution, the ideology as are the ends/ means of education, as for example, “dominion� theology as opposed to “liberation� theology. Education is used as a market tool, a means to advance the institution, the ideology, and their for-profit self-interests against interests of common wellbeing.
When education is exploited (politicized) for objective market purposes, it becomes an apple over which self-interests compete to the disadvantage of common interest. The value-objectification of education on the other hand, attends to necessary social reciprocity, that is to, how education serves holistically the personal self and the collective social person, the family, the community, the nation and global humankind.
As long as cultures objectify education in religiously competitive (non-collaborative) ways, education will remain politically, ideologically conflicted. For reasons of economy and service to the common good, education needs to be de-politicized in order to prevent subjective ideologies from absconding with it and putting it at cross-purposes with universal wellbeing.
For purposes of de-politicizing education and preventing it from being a tool of social turmoil, I offer for consideration the following:
1. Education is about the relationship of mutuality and the common responsibility of being learners and teachers for our lifetimes; thus, we need to approach education from the perspective of a personal, dual obligation, i.e., to pursue knowledge honestly, altruistically, and to share learning with others, both giving and receiving. This sense of mutuality compels us to higher levels of mutual service to one another without the compromise of individual authenticity.
2. Education, like religion and all relationships, begins in family. Husbands and wives, father and mothers, grandparents and children need to develop the maturity of seeing each other in the mutual relationship of being teacher/ learner. Unless the mutual sense of education becomes a family habit, it is unlikely to endure as a social habit.
3. Religion of all stripes needs to have the minimum consciousness of seeing itself as socially collaborative in being faithful to reason even as it expects one another to acquire a rational sense of faith. If religion would be true to faith it must see itself as a universal facilitator of holistic education, ongoing and grounded in the “Naturalis Sacramentum Ordinis�; and
4. Common economics and common respect for each other require mutual endeavor, that is, of private and public education, to avail and share means of teaching/ learning that enable families in their roles of being first educators, and in ongoing collaboration in availing people and resources to the collaborative purposes of education within each community.
Pastoral Planning is the
Pastoral Planning is the key. Having been a Director of Diocesan Planning and having been to many national conferences, the way to approach this dilemma is how do we allocate our resources to evangelize and educate the most people given a financially sound budget? We cannot just say something sounds just and commendable so lets do it, especially if it is not feasible or advisable. Catholic education is a privilege, not a right. Putting resources back into a parish budget to allow ministry to be where it should be, from a church - not a school - makes more sense to me. The more a school sucks money from a parish to help educate children, the less money goes towards education of adults, ccd, parish ministry, etc. Let each parish decide how it wants to live out a preferential option for the poor. If it is a catholic school, so be it. If it is shelter, food, education, paying for medical insurance, tutorial classes, so be it. Lets not mandate our parishes to go broke because we have to maintain the massive educational systems we built to accomodate the baby-boomers. Lets look to the future and vision how we can best make an impact today - and tomorrow. (Geez - I sound like I'm running for office!)
jstab, I think you might
jstab, I think you might want to consider adding into your plan the idea that Marie R. had about wealthier parishes sponsoring catholic schools in poorer areas or parishes, as well as other alternatives. Your response says more than you may want it to: "Catholic education is a privilege, not a right" is somewhat off-point from what William brought up to begin with, but by extension, would seem to mean that the privilege belongs to those with money, while William is suggesting consideration of an educational "preference for the poor". I think it makes sense for a diocese to try to figure out how to keep schools in poor parishes open with a diocesan plan asking for help from catholics to do so for their diocese. I think the reason you yourself felt like you were running for office is that you were, in fact, heading for a political discussion which sounds strangely familiar in terms of parish choice and right and privilege etc., strangely like a U.S. political position.
Education is known to be the main way out of poverty, including by those who are poor, so the proposal to offer some preference to keep poor parish schools open by a diocese is simply opening a discussion at the diocesan level that may or may not be there right now. There is no reason to assume it's about mandating any parish to "go broke", or anything extreme. There is a middle, in which people actually work together to solve problems, to make choices, to deal with needs, and if the nation can't do it, then perhaps the place to re-learn how to as within our churches. I like that William put the issue on the table.
Catholic education is a
Catholic education is a privilege; belonging to a parish is a right and canonical obligation through baptism. If the latter suffers viability for the former, than it is obvious which needs to be preserved.
Does William's logic deal with parish grammar schools only, how about Catholic Universities? Should they shut their doors as well? Or should the wealthier universities, rather than the parishes or dioceses, sponsor schools where they can also train teachers and other professionals? The greater question to be asked, "What is the mission of Catholic Elementary Schools in relation to the missions of the parish, diocese, church, and universities and colleges?
Perhaps it will help if we
Perhaps it will help if we just separate the issues.
Catholic education is a RIGHT for the young, jstab, if you want to put things in the context of rights versus privileges. Infants are baptized by a church that then bears responsibility for providing the religious education and community context for their development as catholic christians--raised both by a family and by a 'village'. It is not just a privilege to be given out by those with money for their own. Redesigning the concepts surrounding education, as sylvester and you started doing on here, is the issue I think you want to talk about.
But there is a also a conversation to be had about social justice. One approach--and a darn good one it turns out--is to provide catholic school education in poor parishes. I like that to be on the diocesan table as well. And when undertaken, history suggests that this approach will also bear fruit for both the poor and for society at large. And I'm guessing for those dioceses or universities who might support such a thing. We hear a lot on here about the youth coming back to a traditional church and there does seem to be a greater need for structure among the young now, but youth ALWAYS respond to real mission and real church. Something to do with seeing people walk their talk and all that youthful idealism, and they even will put up with a lot more of the christian hypocrisy issue many of them point out if they see more real works. My guess is that if we realized we could creatively do more for others, we'd find more of those youth who are drawn to Christ's call for others. So this is also a good discussion. I like the idea of both university sponsorship and rich parish sponsorship.
Very much in agreement here.
Very much in agreement here. And I do stand corrected that it is a right, and obligation, by virtue of citizenship to education in the United States. My point, I guess, was that it is not an obligation of the Church. Thank you for clarifying that.
I think the young of this generation are looking for something more. They are so lost in this cyberspace world and desperate for connection - and not just the internet. The educational system is so behind.
Several years ago, in a course for a degree in Organizational Dynamics at the U of Pa, I was part of a group effort to revamp the ailing school system of Philadelphia (not unlike any other school system of a major US city). It was universally believed that it does not meet the needs of students today. Basically, our approach was to meet students were they are and make education more interactive and focused. To put a child in a building to be lectured for several hours is not all that feasible in today's society. They need to be taught values, communications, and practical life skills from a very young age. Many are not getting taught those things at home and they do not have the maturity to translate basic reading, writing and arithmatic into that other skillsets.
actually, I WAS trying to
actually, I WAS trying to say that catholic education is a right of baptism. Once a church community baptizes someone, they are stating their responsibility to that individual. It is not just family and godparents, and our rites show that: we agree to become the village, do we not? HOW that be provided is the issue that you were opening with sylvester and here today, I think. I'm not saying that it has to be by full-time education, although that does have a track record to work from. But we do agree, or i'm agreeing with others, that one-hour a week of religion class is not enough.
I'm not saying that I
I'm not saying that I support William's proposal as it stands, jstab. I'm saying that your rebuttal, which was the format, was simply a re-statement of Republican--or perhaps libertarian--political beliefs. I see that often enough in the cafe to want to respond to that transference of current political extremes in this country to issues in the church. Perhaps I should also have responded to William, but didn't think of it at the time, perhaps because your original position struck a different nerve in me. I think that is a flawed transference of arguments. If I were to take the current extreme Republican position, it would be that the nation not support the social welfare of the people of the nation, (in opposition to the constitution, I might mention). But when they do that, they claim that the private sector can do all charity to help all situations, even given a factual U.S. history which shows that the private sector cannot. Your original statement is exactly what I believe many Republicans and the further right-thinking people do: relate the right's political beliefs then directly to religion and church structure, laying bare the lie. If we don't deal with some of these issues on the diocesan/parish level, just who is going to? The answer is basically this: NO ONE. And that bares the lie, which is always the undercurrent and has even been stated directly on the cafe: why should I have to help anyone else? That is an unbelievable position for a CAtholic christian to take and belies 2000 years of Tradition and catholic social teaching.
I'm not suggesting that churches close so that schools stay open, for instance, so I guess I will have to reject your movement toward some discussion that I'm stuck in past ways of thinking of things. I just think it is good to put something real on the table. There are certainly dioceses that could make some plan that might keep schools open in poor parishes, and for that matter, keep the parishes open! Yes, many people who go there are not catholic. and yes, many children who go to catholic schools have ended up catholic, or ended up with the education that got them out of poverty. Or, a difference in the neighborhood--the mass said on the streetcorner in the 'hood idea--created by the existence of poor church/school complex in those neighborhoods--makes those neighborhoods safer and healthier for the people in them. No small feat, and for all we all know, may be what has tipped us away from greater unrest and violence in some neighborhoods.
William went to an extreme, but so did you in response. Catholic Universities could no doubt do something more for those who haven't the money to get there, including sponsoring elementary schools for teacher training. Now there's a great idea--may already be being done, may not. Let's get it out on table. That was my point. Why respond with some ultimatum about "shutting their doors as well". Again, the middle ground between ideological perspectives is the middle common ground where we meet to talk, to plan, sometimes to compromise, to sacrifice....why not be talking about more in dioceses that aren't? The middle common ground is exactly what the majority of americans want to return to. lost in the ideology since 1980s. Again, I agree about thinking things in new ways as needed, but it begins with putting issues like this on the table to begin with. And working on solutions and negotiations and sacrificing for others etc. So, I think we do come to agreement of some kind there?
Annie, thank you for
Annie, thank you for fleshing out this issue deeper. I am kind of flattered that Republican ideas or showing themselves in my thinking. However, I don't consider myself a right-winged republican. I kind of like moderate republicans, that is why I have supported a McCain presidential bid for the better half of 8 years. (I want Bush to have him as VP in his 2nd term).
I do believe the private sector, through competition, could do a more effective job in many areas. This has been the trend in many municipalities across the country. This would also benefit the Catholic school system and the church in general. Think of how well the church has done in areas of education and healtcare without public funds.
Some of the downfalls of such a system would be cronyism and interference. But, it is worth a try.
"Some of the downfalls of
"Some of the downfalls of such a system would be cronyism and interference. But, it is worth a try."
Jstab, isn't this a pretty good description of the hierarchy and the clerical system? How do you propose to pull Catholic schools out this?
And actually, I'm suggesting
And actually, I'm suggesting that it's time that people leave their politics on the doorstep or out in the vestibule. I don't have a problem with some general notion of competition being good for some things, but capitalist principles per se do not really belong in the discussion, although it's always better that they be out in the open. Moderate republicans did once know how to solve problems, that's true, and we all hope that they massage this part of themselves in the future. But republicans don't really mean too much by social justice by virtue of their beliefs, do they? Or perhaps I should just ask, what do you all mean by social justice? Or charity? Or providing for the general welfare?
Trickle Down Charity.
Trickle Down Charity. Corporate Sponsorship of Soup Kitchens.
Only Half-kidding; What I was suggesting by civic competition would be that, if the school systems did a better job at education, we could focus on Catholic Formation (I prefer the term "formation' to "education" - especially in light of the "right to Catholic education" you spoke of by virtue of baptism. I would say that each baptized Catholic has a right to Catholic Formation which not only includes education, but experience, values, and example) Additionally, parishes themselves should compete for parishioners. Catholics should have "open-enrollment" and parish choice. That may get some priest off their arrogant ego's and prepare spiritually for a Sunday Sermon.
Further, most Catholic institutions have major benefactors who are, surprisingly - the wealthy. Those who, because of their excess wealth and their desire to do good, have donated large sums of money to schools, hospitals, orphanages, and other social services whose ministry would elsewise be impossible.
I am not here to defend the republicans, or the rich. There is good and bad in everyone. We cannot alienate or discount someone based on their political party or economic status.
That's what I thought the
That's what I thought the concept of social justice might be. Not social justice, but charity, corporate-interest kinds of stuff. We do have some of that, and those who need it will take all they can get. But "trickle down charity" etc. is NOT social justice--it's charity, and there is a difference. So, let's call charity: charity. I'm increasingly suspicious that those of some political persuasions have convinced themselves that they accept catholic social teaching when they don't even know what it is, and would never support it. So, our catholic discussions become skewed by the political and economic convictions of people in their secular mindsets. That's what I'm suggesting we need to understand and leave on the doorstep a bit when we talk in our church work. We are called by something different when we meet together over issues of charity and social justice and perhaps it would be better if we saw those discussions in the context that is "not of this world", yes? So, perhaps sponsoring a poor parish/school complex would engage a wealthy person or persons to be involved from a charity aspect, but also may be an excellent social justice project for a diocese and that is a good topic for church discussion, apart from a general discussion of catholic education or formation.
Yes, our many social programs need all the help they can get, from any wealthy source. But, surprisingly perhaps, the relative amount of giving is actually going down not up in this country, during this time of political conservatism and trickle-down talk--what's that about? I am happy for anyone who can engage wealthy catholics in giving, however, since that instinct is often what 'floats the boat' of the programs we do have. All honor and glory to them, without debate.
In your other subject, don't we have "open enrollment" and "parish choice", or did I just take those options on my own? I think that "competition" already exists, but perhaps people who aren't content are also not those who are not not-content enough to take action to drive further? I think this is a non-issue, since any parish will sign up anyone, will they not?
AnnieO, I hear what is being
AnnieO, I hear what is being said here and I note well the points you make. My reaction to this issue stems from examining this issue for a long time from a position that the majority doesn't get to see. It comes down to this, does the dog wag the tail or does the tail wag the dog? If it is between the Church or the School, the answer is clear to me. In the United States, especially for us baby-boomers and before, our parish identity was so intertwined with our school. It was the major source of evangelization, socializing, and community building in the parishes. Our challenges today are quite different. Catholics can mainstream in "public" schools, but what makes us Catholic at the core must be more than having had religion for 8 to 12 years. It must be, as has been stated in this post, how we treat each other and our fellow human beings, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, social class, ethnic background or economic status.
In the past 50 years, the face of Catholic schools has changed immensely. Many who attend Catholic schools in the inner city are not even Catholic. This greatly effects the climate of the schools, especially when the parishioners are being asked to sustain the school at great sacrifices. Even with wealthier parishes subsidizing the poorer schools, the strain on the local parish, its priests and staff is enormous. It is not just about the cash.
I believe there are so many ways to reach out to the poor and have a preferential option for the poor, including securing education, without holding on to the standard bearing parish-based school. I am open for ideas. But we also have to be open for new paradigms of education and evangelization than we have been in the recent past.
Given that all children in
Given that all children in this country are guaranteed by law an education (yes private schools are better, particularly in poor, urban areas), the question of shutting schools if they can't take only poor students is redundant, creating a second public school system, funded by the Church. If we are to fix the system it will have to be much more radical.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
Until then...homeschool!
Dear “here
Dear “here today�,
Thank you for your question: “How do you practically think this should be done?�
We cannot allow our Church to become a church primarily for the middle-class and rich while throwing a bone to the poor. The priority should be given to the poor even if we have to let the middle-class and rich fend for themselves.
Practically speaking, to answer your question, the Catholic Schools must close and the resources used for “Confraternity of Christian Doctrine� and other programs which can be kept open to the poor.
Remember, the Church managed without Catholic Schools for centuries. We can get along without them today. The essential factor is to cultivate enough Faith to act in the Gospel tradition, namely: the poor get priority. The rich and middle-class are welcome too, but the poor come first.
So thousands of children
So thousands of children should be forced out of their schools and into the public system? All faith issues aside, the public schools would be extremely over-crowded in many regions, resulting in worse education for all students, an increased tax burden on all, even the poor (a very real concern in areas like mine where property taxes prevent the poor from owning their own home). In the meantime those who can afford it will send their children to other private schools, perhaps even starting their own Catholic schools (not affiliated with the diocese). Most diocesan schools in America have some sort of scholarship program, and some whole schools are supported by money from affluent parts of the diocese or other dioceses altogether.
So called 'CCD'* classes are extremely ineffective at teaching the even the mere basics of the faith. (I know Catholic Schools haven't done much better recently, but after-school RE is wholly inadequate). I think that time and effort would be better spent trying to figure out how reform Catholic schools instead of shutting them down.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
*I am not aware of any that are actually tied to a branch of the Confraternity, hence CCD is a misnomer.
Finally, we found a common
Finally, we found a common ground, Here Today! We are in agreement on the issue of Catholic Education. Having taught high school religion and CCD classes on an elementary school level, I firmly believe they are, in and of themselves, ineffective as means of transmitting the faith. The missing piece is FAMILY INVOLVEMENT!!!! The parents (or guardians) communicate the faith. 45 minutes a day or one hour a week, doesn't a Catholic make. We need to revisit Catholic Education as a means of transmitting the faith.
So an agreement on Catholic Education - we will enjoy the moment - before we get into discussing the content!!!!!!
That is just what we need
That is just what we need less options for educating our children. Public School is terrible thanks to no child left behind. Perhaps whoever posted this should sell their house and use the money to shelter the poor. People need to posses property. Churches need to posses property as well, that is how society works. Property is not bad. besides if all goes right we teach children the works of mercy so they can go out into the world and be a light.
I think Mr. Horan is right
I think Mr. Horan is right in voicing concern for the poor. He's following Jesus' teachings in doing so. How can we expect our children to be a light to the world for helping the poor if we don't shine our Christian light for them as an example?
AT least Jstab offers a solution in Good pastoral management. My daughter's school is run by the Ursuline order of sisters quite apart from any support from the church.
There endowments and scholarships allow them to offer financial Aid in grants and scholarships to the poor of the community.
If Jesus ask to be admitted to your local Catholic school but had no money to pay, I'm sure the school community and the community at large would be falling over each other offering to pay for Him. Well remember what He said about the poor, "What you do for the least of my brethren YOU DO FOR ME.� Well that's the way we should think of the poor...as Jesus wanting to go to a school that worship's and teaches of his Father…and we should find a way to help them.
We should thank Mr. Horan for reminding us to remember of Bible lessons:
M't:5:2: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
M't:5:3: Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:21 - Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
Mark 10:21 - Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
Luke 14:13 - But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind:
Luke 19:8 - And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.
John 13:29 - For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
2 Corinthians 9:9 - (As it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever.
Galatians 2:10 - Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.
James 2:6 - But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?
or as St. Francis taught jesus' message:
Lord, make me an instrument of your Peace
...
Where there is despair…. let me sow Hope
O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
To be consoled …. As to console,
To be understood …. As to understand,
To be loved …. As to love,
It is in giving that we receive,
…St. Francis.
God Bless you Mavfan and Mr. Horan teaching us compassion for the poor. :-)
The more we discover how much we are Loved by God, the more we want to do God's Will
Wealthy parishes should
Wealthy parishes should consider financially supporting inner city Catholic schools as missions to the poor. San Miguel schools run by the Christian Brothers are an example of such schools.
Bill, (mind if I call you
Bill, (mind if I call you Bill?) how do you practically think this should be done. I agree with you to an extent in theory (Catholic schools should be open to the poor), but practically how do you think this can be done. certainly eliminating many Catholic schools to fund a few would be unjust (why deprive all for a few), and with the demands of paying a living wage for all teachers continually on the rise....
I do see one way that it is possible, the same way that made it possible for centuries: religious orders as teachers. Their financial demands are less, particularly if the entire community is dedicated to the school. The vow of poverty, along with the lack of dependents (or at least more providers than dependents) gives a new definition to a living wage, one that is in favor of the preferential option for the poor.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
An interesting point
An interesting point concerning this discussion.
In Ontario, the state funds ALL schools, including parochial schools.
Over 600,000 students are in Catholic schools.
Church attendance is at an all-time low.
The only answer I got from one of the bishops is: "Perhaps their parents don't take them to church on Sunday." Then the obvious question is, WHY? Perhaps the old adage is appropriate - you get what you pay for. If the parents do not feel strongly enough to contribute (money or time or both) to their children's catholic education, the effect is null.