Cardinal Collins in a letter reminded the board’s trustees that they swore an oath of office to be faithful to the teachings of the Church, and questioned how Catholic school board members can fulfill their mission if they have “bought into the fundamentally anti-Catholic narrative that misrepresents Catholic faith as lacking in compassion.”
Good on Cardinal Collins.
Sounds like Toronto Catholic schools are not allowed to be Catholic.
“You’re reading from the Catechism? Sit down and shut up!”
Always liked him, hadn’t heard much from him in a while. He used to speak on EWTN a while back, his talks were very nice.
This exactly what happened when I went through RCiA. The class leader took heterodox positions on contraception, reception of communion, and our Sunday obligation, saying they were all “matters of individual discernment.” When I pushed back saying the Church teaches clearly on these she told me to be quiet. The next week I brought in photocopies of the Catechism to handout she grabbed them and said “When you get a Masters in Theology, you can teach the class.” I was stunned and stayed quiet. From then on the priest attended as well, clearly with the intent to silence me.
I called Fr Pacwa on Catholic Answers radio and asked home how to proceed when they were clearly teaching contrary to the Church. He told me to keep my head down, get confirmed, then get a degree and take over her job.
This kind of stuff is real. And it happens in small towns too.
Well, next time you see her, tell her another MA of Theology (me) says she should retire…
Seems like sometimes the more educated people become in theology, the more they think Church teachings are up for dispute. It’s strange.
Thank goodness, not always.
But yes I think in every field, there’s a not-insignificant number of people who either:
A.) commit some kind of authority fallacy where they think having a credential now means their opinions can help shape reality (and they get lazy about showing their ideas to be justified by the facts and an external standard); and/or
B.) people who learn how to ‘critique’ an idea or find nuance in it – and then mistakenly think that’s what being clever is: critiquing things to death and finding endless nuance in things that actually are quite worthy of praise and have clearly defined boundaries.
Again though, there are still good’uns, who stay both humble and clear minded. The Catholic Answers apologists come to mind.
There are certain things that are open for argumentation and speculation that the Church has not completely defined as of yet. In that case both sides of the issue should be presented and discussed.
However, the issues that @Suudy mentioned are well defined and have been for awhile. I really do not understand why someone would present these as open to individual interpretation.
Did the school give a response to the Cardinal?