Catholic schools should give priority to Catholics. In the UK, this is a controversial statement.
Children of married couples should be given priority for places at Catholic faith schools, a leading religious figure has suggested.
Ashley Beck, dean of studies for the Archdiocese of Southwark told Catholic newspaper the Tablet that unmarried couples could not possibly claim to be living in accordance with Catholic teaching.
“If a couple is not in any kind of married relationship, they are not living according to Catholic teaching,” he said.
“Parents in this position should not, as a matter of justice, displace married parents if a school is popular.”
Secular groups reacted angrily to the comment and insisted any such move would be prohibited by the admissions code.
James Gray, British Humanist Association (BHA) faith schools and education campaigns officer, said: “Fr Beck’s views are completely out of step with modern Britain – the public has chosen to reject insular and intolerant religious agendas.
“Fr Beck’s comments have given us a glimpse of the kind of discrimination we may see if the government continues to increase the influence of religious groups in our schools.”
They are CATHOLIC schools. To suggest that those who want their children to attend should not flout Catholic teaching is unjust discrimination? Hogwash.
If you are openly living in sin, why should you get priority over someone who dos their best to live in communion with the Church. It is absurd.
England will surely be tested by fire before it returns to the faith.
October 15, 2010 at 3:23 pm
To quote Chesterton "Don't be so open minded that your brain falls out", Myrtle Beach
October 15, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I agree with the IDEA of this, but it's a little hard to enforce fairly. So, if you're living together unmarried, your child can't attend. What about if you're divorced and remarried, not in the Church? Last names would be the same and admissions would never know. Should they start asking? Should they ask every couple for proof? What if the couple in contracepting? That's flouting Catholic teaching too. To be fair with this rule, you'd need private investigators! Why not just say "you must be a registered parishioner" and leave the rest to the Almighty?
October 15, 2010 at 4:14 pm
Britain is the first fourth-world country.
October 15, 2010 at 8:14 pm
Regina, the difference is if something is public knowledge or not. If someone is publicly out of communion with the Church, then not helping/requiring a fix for whatever is wrong (convalidation of a marriage, for example) implies that it's not a big deal, thus allowing that sin to fester. In such a case when it's public knowledge (or smack-me-in-the-face obvious, like the lesbian couple earlier this year), it confuses others and not just the directly affected parties.
October 15, 2010 at 10:27 pm
Regina,
Mathew has it. It is the difference between private sin and publicly contradicting Church teaching. I think that is a valid distinction to make.
However, I think there is a better argument to be made by asking whether it is really just to force the child to bear the consequences of the parents' actions. I think the real answer is to make the schools so apologetically Catholic that it will be an opportunity for channelization or the parents who publicly contradict Church teaching won't want their kids there.
October 15, 2010 at 11:33 pm
I think single parents who know they made mistakes in their own lives, but wishing their child would learn early not to make those mistakes, should be allowed to send their children to Catholic schools. So, I would oppose this move.
Also, this policy of giving "priority" to children of married couples is the same as saying, "Our prinicples tell us not to admit you at all to our school, but if we have extra capacity and need the money, we will compromise our principles." Another reason to oppose it.
October 16, 2010 at 2:50 am
I absolutely agree. unmarried parents that have children shouldn't be allowed to have their children attend catholic school, period! that is against are beliefs. these women are basically prostitutes and as the bible states they should be stoned to death. period. it's disgrace. their next life should be in hell.
October 16, 2010 at 4:13 am
I think this controversy results more from the weird nature of British education than it does from any conflict about marriage.
The British system is an obsessively pedigreed one, where status of schools trumps almost everything and children get caught up in this insane competition for status. So here we have 'competitive' admissions schools putting up some more roadblocks to admission for kids. Just so they can say they have them (see Regina & Matt's comments above).
People's relationship to God really can't and shouldn't be sussed out by a school principal. Children should have every opportunity to be embraced by the faith and possibly ESPECIALLY children whose parents are living in sin.
October 16, 2010 at 6:36 am
…Why are people talking about women who "made a mistake" and not letting the children of single mothers join?
The only thing the article mentions is couples openly living in sin. Not women who "made a mistake."
October 16, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Isn't there something about those of us without sin casting the first stone? Isn't there also something about Jesus being the new covenant, where children are no longer guilty of the sins of their parents…
We are all sinners. Most of us sinners need an education.
JBP
October 16, 2010 at 4:26 pm
in any case it really is about the children. Children in a family that actively practices the Catholic faith will benefit more from a Catholic school. Children in a family that actively opposes basic tenets of the Catholic faith will suffer in such a school. Children from a family (or 'family') that falls in between may benefit from such a school, depending on the circumstances. If parents undermine the teachings of the Church and school it will be a waste of time and effort. It might be, though, that parents living in sin want their children to have a voice of truth even if they the parents recognize that they themselves cannot provide it.
October 16, 2010 at 7:29 pm
Matt,
Read it again. This isn't about single moms, it's about married vs. unmarried couples having kids they want educated at a Catholic school. Depending on how the policy is actually worded, I would hope the single parents and married couples are treated the same (since there is no clear current on-going sin), while couples shacking up should be told to normalize their relationships (i.e., get married in the Church) or go elsewhere.
NotTheRealTragic…go away, troll. There's a difference between having sinned in the past and continuing to live in a state of sin. We know a single mother sinned in the past. A couple shacking up (whether or not engaging in sexual relations) give the appearance of continuing in sin. The single mother, it should be presumed, has reconciled, through the Church, with God (i.e., Confession, penance, reconciliation). The live-in lovers, it should be presumed, haven't.
October 16, 2010 at 8:36 pm
You know that this isn't really about single parents. It's about homosexual couples and singles with children. The school is trying to avoid one controversy by creating another. It is a shame that Catholics are being forced to behave against their beliefs, but that's the evil we face now. I hope and pray the school wins this battle.
October 16, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Guys, really, read it! At least read the post here….
There's nothing about single parents, it's about unmarried couples with children.
October 16, 2010 at 9:18 pm
I have my children in Catholic School. I WAS asked about my maritial status, if there was Divorce etc… Teachers hired have to promise to follow Catholic Teaching too. What is so hard to understand about that? If you want to be part of the group, follow the rules. If you join lots of things there are rules to follow or you can't be in it. I know if my son wants to be on the swim team, there are a set of rules he has to follow. If he doesn't then he can't be on it. These parents can easily rectify their situation for their child. GET MARRIED. What is so hard about that. I guess they just want to teach their child lack of comittment and superficial values.
October 17, 2010 at 3:22 am
Because we are all sinners, we all have failures. There is plenty of sin to go around, why single one person out over another?
Why are the children responsible for the failures of the adults?
It's a losing argument and drives away well intentioned people. Paving is of course, done via such things, but both the road to heaven as well as hell utilize good intentions for pavement. Why not take the chance that this good intention is on the right track?
JBP
October 17, 2010 at 4:01 am
I have witnessed first hand how sin begets sin. I went to a church & school where the priest allowed everything because the people had "good intentions" and he wanted to be "open". At this place, not only was sin openly present, but after 2 suicides and a murder, I was of the mind set that accepting everything bc of "good intentions" only allows moral realativity which the Devil loves. I never spoke or thought this way before until I witnessed this priest accept everything. The lack of moral guidance, and plenty of money coming in were unbelievable. I felt the Devil there, especially after my friend was murdered by her husband both of whom attended the church. On the other hand, I have now entered a school where doctrine is strictly adhered to. The LOVE coming from this place is unbelievable. You are asked daily to pray for each other. The way people truly go out of the way for one another is unbelievable. I am talking true spirituality where it is not about a high horse, but following doctrine because people truly want to love Christ and not their own selfish desires. They want commitment because God called us to it, fidelity, chasity, charity, faith, etc. It is believed not because of harsh judgement but because it is what Christ taught us and people want to emulate that. If schools allow an anything goes policy, the devil runs rampant.
October 17, 2010 at 4:25 am
Father Steven Schier story. Now the priests at this time seemed to find a need to be just one of the guys, too, a lay person. And that was shown more from the pulpit than any place else in my dealings with priests and laity – because priests would get up and talk about peace, love and joy, not morality, dogma, and what the Church is all about – because this made one unpopular and God help us if a priest was unpopular – because that would mean that the money didn’t come in. So to keep the money coming in you had to tell the people what they wanted to hear.”
On October 18th 1985, Fr. Scheier was traveling from Wichita to his parish and He was involved in a terrible accident: a head-on collision with a pickup truck. Father Schier made a full recovery even though he broke his neck and was near death. One day, after the accident, when celebrating Mass, the Gospel was about the fig tree (Luke 13:1-9). While proclaiming the Gospel, the page became illuminated, enlarged and came off the lectionary toward Fr. Scheier. He finished Mass as best he could and back at the rectory remembered a spiritual conversation that had taken place shortly after the accident. In that conversation Fr. Scheier found himself standing before the judgment of Jesus. He doesn’t know how long it lasted. He says the Lord took him through his entire life, and showed him how he had failed in his priestly service. Fr. Scheier said “yes” to everything Jesus said about his life. Before the accident Fr Scheier had planned that when he would go before the judgment seat of Jesus he would say he was pushed on any day he sinned and couldn’t do anything else. He had a number of excuses all ready. He used to go to confession regularly before the accident but not appropriately i.e. he was not allowing the sacrament to change his life. He did not have a purpose of amendment. After the accident he wondered how many of his confessions were valid because he had no purpose of amendment. Before the accident he was thinking there would be time to convert but during this judgment scene Jesus taught him there is no time. Now before Jesus he was talking to Truth and when you are talking to Truth you can’t give excuses. At the end of his judgment, his sentence from Jesus was hell. Fr. Scheier said “yes” as that was the only logical thing he deserved. At that moment, however, he heard a woman say, “Son, will you please spare his life and his eternal soul?” The Lord replied, “Mother, he’s been a priest for twelve years for himself and not for me, let him reap the punishment he deserves.” “But Son,” she said, “if we give him special graces and strengths then let’s see if he bears fruit; if not, your will be done.” There was very short pause, after which Jesus said, “Mother, he’s yours.”
Father Schier was given a second chance to teach doctrin in a loving way, without leading people astray.
This is the perfect example of the road to hell is paved with Good Intentions. We have been told and taught what is wrong, but if it inconveniences we do what we want. The church should have no part of it, and neither should a school.