So, Anonymous, you’re saying the Muslim children are attending Catholic schools because a crazed dictator is rounding up all Muslims and turning them into lampshades?
I'm saying that allowing non-Catholics to observe their religious practices, even in a Catholic setting, seems like a charitable thing to me.
It might even seem like we are confident enough in our faith to not be afraid of them.
It does not seem like a policy a Catholic school would go out of its way to seek out, but given the high percentage of non-Catholics in some Catholic schools, it does not seem ludicrous.
I'm saying that allowing non-Catholics to observe their religious practices, even in a Catholic setting, seems like a charitable thing to me.
That would depend on the setting, and anyway the example you cited is not pertinent, for the reason I stated. There's a big difference between not making your saving someone's life conditional on their not practicing his false religion in a Catholic setting, and going out of your way to help someone practice his false religion at a Catholic school where his presence is purely voluntary. There is nothing charitable about actively helping someone to remain in religious darkness. The only reason Catholic schools exist is to teach the Catholic faith and nourish the intellects of the students in the context of the faith. Non-Catholics may attend our schools, but they are not required to, nor do they have a right to. It is charitable not to impose the faith on non-Catholics who attend our schools, but going further and actively supporting their error is uncharitable.
It might even seem like we are confident enough in our faith to not be afraid of them.
It's not about fearing non-Catholics or their religious practices, it's about being party to the practice of an erroneous religion.
It does not seem like a policy a Catholic school would go out of its way to seek out, but given the high percentage of non-Catholics in some Catholic schools, it does not seem ludicrous.
Given the sole purpose and mission of Catholic schools, it is ludicrous for them to help people to remain cut off from the Catholic Church, membership in which is necessary for salvation according to Vatican II.
Much of what you say makes sense (although I don't know how the Church would ever have expanded beyond Jerusalem if the Apostles had the same approach) But it is likely that a decision like this by a bishop would consider a great deal more than either the article or these commments.
Maybe you know a lot more about the circumstances than the article provides.
The author of the article makes a point of saying he is not judging the bishop's decision on pastoral grounds.
I would think Christian charity and faith in the hierarchy would tend to defer to the authority and the judgment of the bishop (who knows the whole story) rather than to judge the policy as ludicrous, and thereby indirectly undermine the bishop, and post it on the internet.
I don't know how the Church would ever have expanded beyond Jerusalem if the Apostles had the same approach
The New Testament indicates they had that approach, and relates how the Church rather quickly spread beyond Jerusalem. Indeed, if the early Church's approach was to make extraordinary accommodations for non-Christian religions, the Church wouldn't have spread beyond Jerusalem.
I would think Christian charity and faith in the hierarchy would tend to defer to the authority and the judgment of the bishop (who knows the whole story) rather than to judge the policy as ludicrous, and thereby indirectly undermine the bishop, and post it on the internet.
On the contrary, Christian charity obligates all Catholics to raise objections when they see scandalous policies enacted that sabotage and undermine the Church's mission and the purpose of Catholic schools.
9 comments:
ludicrous
That's as crazy as the Pope allowing Jews to live in the papal apartments and engage in Jewsih religious practices!
No, wait. That was virtuous, right?
But this is ludicrous because...?
So, Anonymous, you’re saying the Muslim children are attending Catholic schools because a crazed dictator is rounding up all Muslims and turning them into lampshades?
Not quite, Jordanes.
I'm saying that allowing non-Catholics to observe their religious practices, even in a Catholic setting, seems like a charitable thing to me.
It might even seem like we are confident enough in our faith to not be afraid of them.
It does not seem like a policy a Catholic school would go out of its way to seek out, but given the high percentage of non-Catholics in some Catholic schools, it does not seem ludicrous.
I'm saying that allowing non-Catholics to observe their religious practices, even in a Catholic setting, seems like a charitable thing to me.
That would depend on the setting, and anyway the example you cited is not pertinent, for the reason I stated. There's a big difference between not making your saving someone's life conditional on their not practicing his false religion in a Catholic setting, and going out of your way to help someone practice his false religion at a Catholic school where his presence is purely voluntary. There is nothing charitable about actively helping someone to remain in religious darkness. The only reason Catholic schools exist is to teach the Catholic faith and nourish the intellects of the students in the context of the faith. Non-Catholics may attend our schools, but they are not required to, nor do they have a right to. It is charitable not to impose the faith on non-Catholics who attend our schools, but going further and actively supporting their error is uncharitable.
It might even seem like we are confident enough in our faith to not be afraid of them.
It's not about fearing non-Catholics or their religious practices, it's about being party to the practice of an erroneous religion.
It does not seem like a policy a Catholic school would go out of its way to seek out, but given the high percentage of non-Catholics in some Catholic schools, it does not seem ludicrous.
Given the sole purpose and mission of Catholic schools, it is ludicrous for them to help people to remain cut off from the Catholic Church, membership in which is necessary for salvation according to Vatican II.
You may be right. It might be ludicrous.
Much of what you say makes sense (although I don't know how the Church would ever have expanded beyond Jerusalem if the Apostles had the same approach) But it is likely that a decision like this by a bishop would consider a great deal more than either the article or these commments.
Maybe you know a lot more about the circumstances than the article provides.
The author of the article makes a point of saying he is not judging the bishop's decision on pastoral grounds.
I would think Christian charity and faith in the hierarchy would tend to defer to the authority and the judgment of the bishop (who knows the whole story) rather than to judge the policy as ludicrous, and thereby indirectly undermine the bishop, and post it on the internet.
But you MAY be right. It MIGHT be ludicrous.
I don't know how the Church would ever have expanded beyond Jerusalem if the Apostles had the same approach
The New Testament indicates they had that approach, and relates how the Church rather quickly spread beyond Jerusalem. Indeed, if the early Church's approach was to make extraordinary accommodations for non-Christian religions, the Church wouldn't have spread beyond Jerusalem.
I would think Christian charity and faith in the hierarchy would tend to defer to the authority and the judgment of the bishop (who knows the whole story) rather than to judge the policy as ludicrous, and thereby indirectly undermine the bishop, and post it on the internet.
On the contrary, Christian charity obligates all Catholics to raise objections when they see scandalous policies enacted that sabotage and undermine the Church's mission and the purpose of Catholic schools.
I'm not convinced, but I see your points.
I agree it would be better not to have to decide on such a policy either way, but I do not know what happened to cause the bishop to make a decision.
Perhaps it would be best to enforce a more strict code which would keep non-Catholic practices entirely out of Catholic settings, schools especially.
But wouldn't that keep more people away?
Would more or fewer people get to know Jesus Christ and the good news of God's loving plan for our salvation?
I'm not sure.
I am sure that I'm glad I'm not a bishop.
Post a Comment