Why Catholic Schools Should Be Allowed To Discriminate Against Gay Students
Why exactly this is news I can’t imagine, because it’s been brewing for years now. It was brewing when I was living in Ontario — and I’m not anymore. But anyways, as you’ve no doubt heard by now, the Catholic Church is enraged that the provincial government is putting strings on the education money it receives in that province. Specifically, that like all other schools, Catholic schools must allow students to form so-called “gay-straight alliance” clubs if they wish, and use those clubs to reduce bullying of gay students.
The conservative media is up in arms, naturally. The Sun chain says this amounts to the bullying of the church! So does the resident Catholic priest at the National Post. Michael Coren’s rant is typical, involving a bizarre diatribe about “gay organizations” — which I assume are organizations attracted to other organizations of the same gender — and then wandering off into some strange musings about lesbians: “in some schools it is even a fashion statement to come out, and silly girls regard having a gay friend as the ultimate fashion accessory.” Yes, well.
My real point, and I’m sure many of my readers will be surprised to hear me say this, is that the Catholic Church is right. They should not be forced to practice equality if that’s not what they want. If they don’t want gay-straight alliances in their government-funded schools, they should be allowed to ban them. However, in exchange, they must tell their students that they are not allowed to have gay-straight alliances because the Catholic Church believes that homosexuality is a disgusting sin, just like using a condom or birth control pills (you know, for all that sex that I’m sure the Catholic high school students totally aren’t having). And they must tell their students that there are other schools in the province, secular schools, where gay students are treated better. In short, they can be just as discriminating as they want, as long as they’re explicit about it.
And while they’re at it, I want them to explain to their female student population why in their minds the pope and all priests must always be male, because God himself came to us as a man, and it just wouldn’t be right for someone with the wrong private parts to say the magic words that turn the wine into blood and the bread into flesh. I want them to explain that even though men and women are equal, men must always be in charge.
And just to show how tolerant and open-minded I am about allowing bigotry in our midst, I thought it might be a good opportunity to share some sacred moral teachings from the holy scriptures of Christianity. I look forward to the day when we can finally unseat the human rights tyrants and let these great and righteous teachings reach the ears of the children of the province:
If a man has sexual relations with another man, both of them… are to be put to death. (Leviticus 20)
On the eighth day (after menstruating) a woman must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest… The priest will sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the Lord for the uncleanness of her discharge. (Leviticus 15)
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, because he has raped her. He can never divorce her. (Deuteronomy 21)
And my personal favourite, just because it’s such a bizarre non-sequitur in the midst of all of the above carnage:
When you lay siege to a city, do not destroy its trees… Are the trees people, that you should besiege them? (Deuteronomy 20)
Now, I am fully aware that today’s Catholic Church no longer believes that gay people should be executed, that women should be fined for having their period, or that marriage and a small fine are the appropriate retribution for rape. But if they are not going to use the capricious legal code of the Bible as a guideline for determining that homosexuality is sinful, I would like to know on what authority they do claim that homosexuality is sinful and therefore that gay-straight alliances can’t exist in Catholic schools.
Tweet
bcwaterboy
Brilliantly stated! I really do think we need to stop pussy footing around about religion and gets those good old “moral codes” out there for all to see. We should not let them away with the love the sinner hate the sin crapola. They should tell the real truth, that they see people like gays and women as inferior based on this weird text from thousands of years ago, there’s nothing at all loving about any of this stuff and lets get it out there and ridicule it for the garbage that it is.
Bytown Bohemian
Let’s cut to the chase – the Roman Catholic church is little more than an organized crime syndicate that extorts money from the weak-minded and gullible in the world.
Sure it has a doctrine, but it’s one which has as strong a historical basis as the Lord of the Rings or any other mythology or works of fiction. The church may have a moral code. Big deal, so does the Mafia with one glaring difference – the Mafia has a better track record of adherance to that code than does the church. Moreover, as far as I know, the Mafia bears no responsibility for the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch hunts, and pedophile priests preying on the innocent.
It’s high time that the scam be recognized for what it is. It’s time to strip religion of its tax-free status and to block its claims to the right to indoctrinate, I mean educate, children in its so-called values as espoused in a fictional “holy scripture”.
Right-wingers and religious fundies may rant about another intrusion from the so-called nanny state and scream religious freedom but what they really want is to replace the nanny-state with their own theocracy run by octogenarian virgins and perverts in robes who will impose their own wishes in order to exercise power over the masses.
Instead of spending a glorious Sunday morning worshipping a non-existent deity, families would be better off going to the park and enjoying the real god in our lives – nature.
Fred Ziffel
I would be curious to hear you develop a theory of freedom of (not from) religion in a tolerant society, given the animus in the present blog entry.
How would you or your readers respect and get along in life with a segment of the population whose basic worldview is theocentric instead of anthropocentric? Just askin’
Sixth Estate
Fred — Well, I can only speak for myself on this, but…
I’ll grant you that this is a fairly hostile post, but I’m not sure that anything I’ve said here impinges on freedom of religion. I think I went out of way on that. I not only accepted the church’s right to teach these things to church school students, I didn’t even call for the end of a fully government-funded religious school system in Ontario. I could have. Most other provinces no longer have such systems.
If by theocentric you mean believing in God and trying to structure your life accordingly, I have no difficulty living or working alongside someone who is “theocentric instead of anthropocentric.” I respect their belief in the existence of what I think is an imaginary force to the same extent that they respect my belief in what they think is a wrongly shallow and naturalistic universe. Which is to say that the majority of time, it really doesn’t even come up in conversation, let alone matter in any particular way.
kirbycairo
I appreciate the well-placed irony. Good satire is often better than a baseball bat.
I think the easiest solution is for the Catholic school boards to stop using public funds.
Gail
Aren’t you forgetting the Catholic schools receive public funding? Until they #teachignoranceontheirowndime the gov’t can and should intervene to protect citizens.
Sixth Estate
Gail — No, I haven’t forgotten that religious schools receive public funding. The right to Catholic minority education in Ontario is a Constitutional compromise. The normal rules don’t apply in such cases.
I think my solution recognizes the fact that they can continue to receive public funding and retain their distinctive religious position. They should be quite free to ban gay-straight alliances, and feminist groups, and sex education, and anything else that offends their religious sensibilities. As a publicly funded school, however, they MUST be required to teach their students that other schools DON’T have a problem with homosexuality or ban gay-straight alliances, that other schools DON’T have a problem with the idea that women are equal to men, and that other schools DO teach sex ed and don’t have a problem with contraception. And they should be very clear on their reasons why they have these problems, rather than bandy about piffle about “respecting differences.”
uxordepp
As a woman who is Catholic and does my best to follow all the Church teachings that apply to me, I agree with most of what you’ve written. Catholic schools should be allowed to promote all their beliefs and have a responsibility to explain WHY those beliefs exist.
I spent a lot of years trying to find a legitimate reason to leave the Church. It is very un-cool. But the more I examined its teachings (and not what many would have us believe are the teachings. You really could do a fact check on the end of your post) the more I appreciated the faith I was born into. I have spent years teaching the faith to others (including the “unpopular” bits about homosexuality and birth control) and have found that is coherent.
My kids have many gay friends. My youngest daughter has gay friends in a Catholic highschool. At this point no one has seen the need for a GSA. If people are taught to love one another and treat each other (all others) with respect, it shouldn’t be necessary.
Sixth Estate
uxordepp — Thank you for writing.
I see no problem in a situation where nobody has seen the need for a gay-straight alliance and therefore there isn’t one. There shouldn’t be a need for a GSA in any school. My concern didn’t start with the lack of GSAs in Ontario Catholic schools, it started with those schools’ attempts to prohibit the clubs from being started.
Since you mention “fact checking,” I encourage you to point me towards the actual facts in this respect. I’m not sure what particular statement you’re challenging.
uxordepp
“Now, I am fully aware that today’s Catholic Church no longer believes that gay people should be executed, that women should be fined for having their period, or that marriage and a small fine are the appropriate retribution for rape. But if they are not going to use the capricious legal code of the Bible as a guideline for determining that homosexuality is sinful, I would like to know on what authority they do claim that homosexuality is sinful and therefore that gay-straight alliances can’t exist in Catholic schools.”
If the Catholic Church EVER taught (officially…not what one particular Catholic might have believed, speculated, or even misguidedly enforced) that homosexuals should be killed or that menstruating women should be fined, etc. I am completely unaware. I realize in second reading that you may have been comparing Catholic belief with Judaic belief. It was not entirely clear. At any rate, the New Covenant (ie Jesus) changed a great deal about the interpretation of the Jewish Scripture, at least as far as it is used by the Church.
Also, Catholicism holds scripture as only one aspect of teaching. It does not require that something be explicitly mentioned in the Bible (capricious codes or otherwise) for it to be held as Truth, unlike some Christian denominations. Have you ever looked into the Catholic Catechism for explanation as to our beliefs on homosexuality…or the male priesthood, or birth control? You will find there a start, at least, as to why we believe what we believe. There are also numerous documents which explain our beliefs.
I’m not necessarily saying you will agree with it. but I assure you that if you look sincerely, you will see that the Church has been looking at the world and observing, for over 2000 years (The Church also seriously considers teachings of the ancients, such as Aristotle, who preceded Christianity) and that its teachings are not without foundation.
Lenny
The church is also against couples living common-law and they were the ones who led the fight against mixed race marriage; something we take for granted these days.
uxordepp
Where does the Church teach against mixed-race marriage? They were extremely common in the early years of Christianity.
uxordepp
I should have said where does the Catholic Church teach against mixed-race marriage?
Lenny
Where? In their church where else.
janfromthebruce
I’m with kirbycairo – time for one school system in both official languages.
Sixth Estate
Okay, first of all, let’s side aside the issues of miscegenation and common-law marriages. Most of the anti-mixed-race-marriage laws come out of specific cultural settings — slavery in America, for instance. Although there were religious people involved in these debates, that was never really an organized religious agenda, just churches responding to politics.
uxordepp — Ah, I see your point. Yes, that wording was not correct from me, and I apologize. Historically — including the inquisition, for people who might want to know about this — the Catholic Church has never really advocated, as a first option for discipline, particular criminal penalties (up to and including capital punishment) which would be administered by the government rather than the church. That would include capital punishment for sodomy, although the church seems to have been generally okay with the banning of sodomy, punishable with the death penalty, in various parts of Europe prior to the French Revolution.
What I am referring to are the moral teachings of the Bible. I am quite well aware that the church believes various laws to have been laid aside by the sacrifice of Christ. The Jews, interestingly, believe many of the same laws to have been set aside due to the destruction of the Second Temple. People are quite adept at coming up with explanations for why embarrassing legislation must be jettisoned. The more interesting question, for those who profess that the Bible is the word of God, was why it was EVER moral to stone gay people, fine women for menstruating, or capture sex slaves. And now we’ve kept the moral teaching (i.e. that homosexuality is a sin), but jettisoned the punishment, which is nice for people who want to keep living, but is beside the point for the moment.
We could, if you wish, move to the New Covenant as explained in the New Testament and I could then, for instance, discuss Paul’s interpretation of that covenant — e.g. that women should not be permitted to speak in church, that women are saved through childbirth, that women must show up to church with long hair and the appropriate headgear (and that men must have short hair), and so on and so forth. This last part was Catholic teaching for a while; it no longer is. The other parts have been jettisoned along with other embarrassing claims in the Bible. Some churches, including the Catholic Church, have preserved the principle that women cannot be priests, as it is clearly taught in the Bible. So on this point your church is Biblically consistent, even if the doctrine is formally stated elsewhere.
Now, I’m quite okay with people deciding to live according to a doctrine they’ve set up for themselves, as with the various Catholic teachings on contraception, sexist leadership, prejudice against homosexuality, etc. That’s up to them. But regarding the question of authority, it doesn’t actually resolve the problem. I assume, then, that if the authority is asserted not on the basis of the Bible, it’s asserted simply on the basis that the church says so (and has assembled the appropriate theological and philosophical window-dressing to defend this belief, in the form of natural law, etc.).
To that end, it’s not really a question of me agreeing or disagreeing with it. I don’t think your God exists and consequently I’m not terribly interested in whether the church has correctly interpreted divine or natural law. If you believe that the God who created the universe also took the time to ensure that only men could be in positions of leadership, cares extremely deeply about who we have sex with, and even cares very deeply about making sure every sperm gets a fair chance to fertilize an egg (which doesn’t really seem consonant with observable facts about biology, but whatever), fine. You’re welcome to believe that. You’re welcome to teach that to students in your publicly funded schools. Provided that these students are also taught the background to these beliefs, and also taught that there are other people in other schools who believe that women are equal to men, that the universe does not care whether women have sex with other women, and that contraception is a good idea because it prevents unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease. I don’t imagine it will be tough to persuade people on that last point. The Catholic Church seems to be having trouble convincing the vast majority of its adult followers on that, too.
The Sixth Estate » Why Catholic Schools Should Be Allowed To Discriminate Against Gay Students | Catholic Canada
[...] Estate » Why Catholic Schools Should Be Allowed To Discriminate Against Gay Students The Sixth Estate » Why Catholic Schools Should Be Allowed To Discriminate Against Gay Students Posted by Fr. Tim Moyle at 12:10 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to [...]
bcwaterboy
uxordepp said….”My kids have many gay friends. My youngest daughter has gay friends in a Catholic highschool. At this point no one has seen the need for a GSA. If people are taught to love one another and treat each other (all others) with respect, it shouldn’t be necessary.”
Unfortunately uxordepp, what your church (and most others) preach and teach is not interpreted as respectful from the gay community and certainly not from an atheist who abhors the intrusion of religion on public policy. When you have a leader, the Pope, going around the world denouncing the rights of gay couples to form families and raise children as the rest of society does, we are labelled a threat and dehumanized. That is why gay-straight alliances are needed, because the level of respect is just not there. No amount of hate the sin love the sinner rhetoric is going to provide cover for an obvious prejudice that starts at the top in a very corrupt organization like the Catholic Church.
uxordepp
Again, I absolutely agree that the reasons for Catholic belief be taught. Until they are, people are much freer to disregard them. Many who call themselves Catholic feel very free to disregard what they feel doesn’t suit them (and I’m not saying that is the right thing to do.).
I also know that when the reasons for Catholic beliefs are taught, people understand.
It is difficult to take a teaching out of context (just as it is risky to take a biblical quote out of context) and get that understanding. That includes teachings on sexuality , or on the authority of the Church. Without the big picture, so to speak, teachings can appear petty, simplistic, discriminatory etc. Church teachings are a cohesive unit.
As for only men being in positions of leadership…I can say that you have likely not spent much time inside a busy parish. Women may not be able to confect the Eucharist, as a priest can (women are ordinary ministers of marriage and may, under certain circumstances, baptise) but they certainly can lead and teach. Most parishes would not function well without the women.
Sixth Estate
I’m not talking about parish-level leadership. In my experience of churches (which I will admit is not Catholic, but I assume the parallel applies), the vast majority of the church’s work is done and/or coordinated by women volunteers.
Which is why I find it even more hokey that the church clings to its belief that women may not be ordained, and, consequently, may not assume higher positions of leadership within the church.
Tree tree
I disagree with you here. I don’t believe publically funded Catholic schools in Ontario have the moral or legal right to teach, subject and disseminate disgusting and morally archaic things to children.
For the legal argument, I don’t need to point any further than our constitution. Catholic school boards in Ontario have policies where they can refuse to hire teachers if they’re non-Catholic (for obvious reasons), or even reject non-Catholic students (doesn’t happen as often for practical reasons, but is still on the books for many school boards). And of course, as you already mentioned, they teach certain doctrine and ban certain things.
All of these things are in violation of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. You know, our fundamental rights and legal rights? Yes, even children are individuals worthy of protection from encroachment.
Second, it is repugnant to lie and spread hate amongst children. It is NOT okay. Think of the marginalization, ignorance and hate that gets spread – especially at a younger, impressionable age. I don’t understand how you could be fine with this, morally.
To finish, I don’t believe schools should ever spread unscientific, unfounded or hateful – and anachronistic – doctrine. But, I’ll compromise on this: if you want to spread lies and hate, get off the public purse. At least then my legal argument will drop.
Sixth Estate
Tree tree — First, regarding the Constitution, there was a compromise at the founding of Confederation which protects Catholic minority schooling. For better or worse, there’s not much we can do about that now. I believe we must respect the compromises which made this country possible. The Charter does not supersede that.
Second, of course spreading hate and lies would be repugnant. I am not okay with anything of that sort. On the other hand, if we’re going to fund Catholic schools, then we’re going to fund Catholic schools. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual behaviour is a sin. Forcing the church schools to create gay-straight alliances is therefore beside the point; we can’t get to the point of gay-straight alliances before we first establish that being gay is no more sinful than being straight.
The only compromise I can see being realistically possible is that the church be required to specify that these are its teachings and that there are other schools where gay people are not marked as unusually sinful, where “natural law” is not invoked to justify everything from anti-feminism to anti-homosexuality to the infamous condom ban, etc., etc. If we can’t force them to drop their position that homosexuality is sinful, it doesn’t make much sense to force them to permit gay-straight alliance clubs.
Third, yes, schools should be required to teach proper science. There should be an established curriculum, and the Catholic schools should be required to teach that curriculum the same as anyone else. In this case we’re not talking about the curriculum; we’re talking about extra-curricular clubs. It’s a problem, I agree. I’m not comfortable with it. But I’m trying to reach a compromise that minimizes harm while preserving the Constitutional compromise.
Which is why I believe that if there is going to be a Catholic school, that school should teach its students quite explicitly both about Catholic teachings and about the fact that some of these teachings are dramatically at odds with those of the society in which we live. And dramatically at odds with the practices of most Catholics, in the case of contraception.
Here is the relevant section (93) from the Constitution:
93. In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education, subject and according to the following Provisions:–
(1) Nothing in any such Law shall prejudicially affect any Right or Privilege with respect to Denominational Schools which any Class of Persons have by Law in the Province at the Union:
(2) All the Powers, Privileges and Duties at the Union by Law conferred and imposed in Upper Canada on the Separate Schools and School Trustees of the Queen’s Roman Catholic Subjects shall be and the same are hereby extended to the Dissentient Schools of the Queen’s Protestant and Roman Catholic Subjects in Quebec:
(3) Where in any Province a System of Separate or Dissentient Schools exists by Law at the Union or is thereafter established by the Legislature of the Province, an Appeal shall lie to the Governor General in Council from any Act or Decision of any Provincial Authority affecting any Right or Privilege of the Protestant or Roman Catholic Minority of the Queen’s Subjects in relation to Education.
Tree Tree
I’ve read that before, and I’m not sure exactly in any of that it says religious schools are allowed to get away with the unconstitutional acts of discrimination. Where does it say, exactly, religious schools somehow are abdicated from adhering to the rest of the constitution? Or is that implicit?
“In this case we’re not talking about the curriculum; we’re talking about extra-curricular clubs.”
You weren’t, but in most Catholic schools in Ontario they also have a compulsory religious class for every year, which drives in the Catholic doctrine.
Sixth Estate
On your first point — Well, it doesn’t say that explicitly. But I’m not sure how you could have a school that was simultaneously Catholic and not discriminating, given that Catholic teaching specifies that women cannot be ordained and that homosexual behaviour is sinful, and that both of these positions are going to be construed as dicriminating by people like yourself.
One solution to this is a Constitutional amendment voiding section 93. Ontario could do this unilaterally, the same way Quebec did many years ago (in that case, Section 93A of the Constitution says that section 93 doesn’t apply in Quebec). Of course, if the gay-straight alliance debate is divisive, I don’t want to think about what kind of fuss would be kicked off by outright secularizing the school system. But there is always that solution.
On your second point — Actually, I think there should be a comparative religion class in every high school. It could include Catholic doctrine. But it would have to include other doctrines as well. It would have to teach them equally, without any particular slant or bias one way or the other. Something along the lines of what is done in Quebec, perhaps.
A useful starting point to spur discussion might be how we can understand what specific aspects of human behaviour on this particular planet are deeply cared about by a God who created a universe currently at least 93 billion light-years in diameter, and containing trillions of Earth-like planets.
Daniel Chavez Moran
fantastic put up, very informative. I ponder why the opposite experts of this sector don’t realize this. You must continue your writing. I am sure, you have a great readers’
base already!