Catholic direction to schools.

[ditch]

Sydney Archbishop George Pell reinforces his ultra conservative image and forces school principals to toe the strict Catholic line.

The Catholic archdiocese of Sydney wants its school leaders to publicly commit to a vow of fidelity by adhering to church teaching on homosexuality, birth control and women's ordination.

From the SMH today (http://www.smh.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Catholic-teachers-must-take-public-vow/2007/06/04/1180809367420.html).

Pell is a strong supporter of the late John Paul II and therefore the current Pope. I'm wondering if he is simply acting under guidance from Rome which would mean the type of instruction he's issued will be reflected elsewhere, or is this all his own idea? Whatever, he doesn't get my admiration for doing this now or did he anyway. An odoius character is Pell. Not my favourite.....err, person.

[SixofNine]

Bishops have a lot of authority in their territory. If this came from Rome it would probably be happening all over the place, so my guess is that this is Pell's idea.

[jfcjrus]

Sydney Archbishop George Pell reinforces his ultra conservative image and forces school principals to toe the strict Catholic line. {/snip}
This is regarding CATHOLIC schools, right?
I gather these schools are supported by the CATHOLIC religion, and the CATHOLIC religion does has a certain dogma, right?
So, if one doesn't want their children to be educated in the beliefs of the CATHOLIC religion, then I'd think one wouldn't send them to a CATHOLIC school!
Pretty simple, what's the problem?

Do you think this Archbishop has exceeded his authority in demanding that the basic tenents of the CATHOLIC religion be adhered to in their schools?
Do you really think he needs permission from 'Rome' to do so?

In my opinion (having been once raised a Catholic) a CATHOLIC school can offer a child a great education, but, there WILL be the presence of Catholic religious beliefs.
Frankly, why the hell would that surprise anyone?
And, if that's offensive or surprising to anyone, then the solution is obvious, educate your child elsewhere.

But, as usual, I probably missed the point Ditch. ;)
Regards,

[ditch]

No you haven't missed the point Joe. I think your reasoning makes sense. I wasn't sure though of the degree of independence the local officials had, as a good deal of authority is exercised by Rome and this directive by Pell is unusually strict for a local to lay down.

But I agree. If you don't want a Catholic education, go elsewhere.

[ditch]

Not happy to let Catholic schools know how to behave and think, Pell is now extending his influence to politicians.

Cardinal George Pell has warned Catholic politicians they face "consequences" in the life of the church should they vote for an "immoral" bill before the NSW Parliament to expand stem cell research.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/vote-against-cloning-or-else-pell-warns/2007/06/05/1180809486096.html

Politics and religion don't mix too well I thought. Doesn't seem to worry George. When god is on your side everyone else can go to hell. :)

[ditch]

Looks like Cardinal Pell won't be having it all his own way. Catholic politicians have responded to his warning on how to vote on stem cell research with a fairly emphatic "up yours".

THE Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, could be compared to "that serial boofhead Sheik al Hilaly", the NSW cabinet minister Nathan Rees has said in an explosive speech in Parliament.

Mr Rees, a Catholic, accused him of "emotional blackmail" for warning that Catholic MPs faced "consequences" in their religious lives if they supported a bill that would expand stem cell research.

Sheik al Halaly being the muslim cleric who labelled girls who don't dress according to his standards as "fresh meat" and looking to be raped.

The Catholic Labor frontbencher Kristina Keneally said she would not support the bill but criticised Cardinal Pell, accusing him of not taking a "pastoral approach to this issue".

"If the cardinal's approach is to start excommunicating Catholic MPs, I think he might want to know of my support for the ordination of women."

.......which is not supported bt the Cathjolic church.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pell-as-bad-as-boofhead-hilaly/2007/06/06/1181089151633.html

[drntdrtydg]

No you haven't missed the point Joe. I think your reasoning makes sense. I wasn't sure though of the degree of independence the local officials had, as a good deal of authority is exercised by Rome and this directive by Pell is unusually strict for a local to lay down.

But I agree. If you don't want a Catholic education, go elsewhere.

My first four years of school were in a Catholic school and I loved it. None of the children blabbered away-complete silence. We were able to learn. The discipline was phenomenal. The nuns were great, very strict, but very loving at the same time, never felt they didn't like us. We had to follow the rules was all.

[ditch]

I lived for 5 years of Uni residence at a college run by the Dominicans. I had no complaints. They didn't interfere in any way other than ensuring the noise wasn't too loud and there was a respect for property. Fair enough. But for an official of the church to start threatening politicians if they didn't vote in line with Catholic thinking is unacceptable. The exertion of authority to schools, Catholic schools that is, is their, Catholics', business I guess. To me, religion having any degree of influence on the education of children is unacceptable. My children were educated without being indoctrinated and that's the way my wife and I wanted it. It's a personal thing and a religious education running in tandem with maths, history an science education is accepted by many. I understand that.

[Steve]

It doesn't sound to me as if Pell is doing more than reiterating orthodox Catholicism, for all the good it will do.

It's been my personal observation that significant percentages of people who claim to be practicing Catholics do use birth control, have had abortions, don't meet all of the holy days of obligation, don't attend church very regularly, and generally either disagree with or simply ignore much of the Church's teachings and guidance on secular matters.

Not all Catholics are like that but it seems to me that a significant portion of them are like that.

In that context, Pell's comments could be viewed as an attempt bring the flock closer to the fold.

[ditch]

A good many of the Catholics I know would fit the profile you describe. And it's part of any church official's role to spread the word and bring the flock together. I've got no problem with that and didn't object too much to his exercising his authoority with schools. But to attempt to extend his role to a threatening of politicians be they Catholic or otherwise, I object to. If he had in fact made clear Catholic policy regarding stem cell researech with the vote coming up in parliament, there would have been a lot less, probably nothing, to object to. It was the threat that raised many peoples' hackles.

The vote was passed in favour of the research today by 65 to 25, or numbers very close to that.

Pell has now neen linked to negative comments directed towards federal Catholic MP's by a Catholic journal.

A CATHOLIC journal which named and blamed Catholic federal MPs who supported the cloning laws has been linked to the stepped-up campaign by the Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, against the NSW legislation.

The journal, AD 2000, lambasted the Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, and 10 other Catholic MPs as "anti-life politicians" who had professed adherence to the Catholic faith.

......................But the Treasurer, Peter Costello, a Baptist who voted against the cloning bill, defended Cardinal Pell's warning of consequences against MPs, saying "the church is entitled to propagate its doctrine".



The SMH article. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/journal-linked-to-cardinals-campaign/2007/06/06/1181089151654.html)