Posts by Nancy Kelly31

They have a point there. There are certainly some priests out there who choose to ignore the guidelines, effectively acting against their own bishop's directives, yet it is truly heartening to hear that there are those who remain conscientious in maintaining their parish catechism programs...

It truly warms my heart to see that there are still people out there who understand that sheer intelligence isn't everything; one must also nurture a student's growth in other vital areas... specifically within their social, artistic, and spiritual development... It simply isn't all about intellectual capacity. It really isn't. And for those children growing up in households that might not have the means to enroll them in elite music academies, competitive sports leagues, or even local youth community programs—school still serves as the fundamental bedrock for everything. A little bit of everything. Both in terms of character building and academic instruction. Thank God for that.

rowdypanther12 said:So, are they basically teaching them things that contradict what's actually in the textbooks?

On the contrary, they are teaching precisely according to the established religious education curricula... These documents are publicly available for anyone to review, so perhaps one might consider looking them over to ease those anxieties and overcome any lack of information... A textbook is merely a supplemental tool, whereas the curriculum serves as the definitive guide for what must be taught...

Susan James said:That's an interesting point 🍿
If they actually manage to get religious education removed from schools entirely, then every single priest would technically be in violation of those rules. 🤔

Because if some kind of shady maneuvering somehow forced religious studies out of our schools again, I am certain the bishops wouldn't utter a single word, nor would they issue any fresh decrees or official statements... It would be one of those situations where there would be nothing but absolute silence coming from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. They wouldn't say a peep... 🙏

According to the recent mandate issued by the American bishops, participation in both school-based religious education classes and parish catechism programs is now strictly required before one can receive the sacraments.

You can find the official decree here:

It is my understanding that any local priest who chooses to permit children to receive these sacraments without having attended their required religious instruction is essentially violating canon law and acting in direct defiance of his bishop’s authority, which necessitates a formal report and subsequent disciplinary action to correct such improper conduct...

Jack Gray6 said:It looks like first grade starts sometime this year, and I caught wind from another thread that we need to decide whether or not our kid will be taking religion classes.
We aren't Catholic—we follow a different faith entirely (meaning the kids haven't been baptized and there are zero plans for them to take any sacraments), but I was actually thinking it might be beneficial for my child to attend the sessions. That said, I have absolutely no desire for them to receive grades for it. Is that even an option? Or is there a way for them to sit in on the class without it being officially recorded as "attending"?

That is certainly an option. A student isn't officially enrolled, but the parents sign a waiver agreeing that the child will participate as a "guest student," which allows them to listen to the lessons whenever they wish, either periodically or consistently... In that scenario, they aren't required to have textbooks, they won't take any tests, and they won't be questioned or graded—they simply sit in and listen. A guest student...
I should also mention that this is actually quite common in American schools...

In the first grade, as far as I can tell, the curriculum places a heavy emphasis on the themes of suffering and mortality... There is much discussion regarding the prayer at Gethsemane—specifically about obedience to one's parents, that sentiment of "Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will"—as well as the betrayal by a friend, which serves as a lesson on our own relationships with friends, the unfairness of a trial where Pilate feared being reported to the Emperor, reflecting how children interact through tattling and grievances... And then, there is simply the reality of the matter: Jesus died, just as plants and animals eventually pass away... Naturally, the depth of questioning and scrutiny will depend entirely on the individual child's curiosity...

Tyler Ruiz502 said:1. Well, I honestly have no clue what the actual curriculum covers. That’s why I was asking for the syllabus—I need to see if any of it hits a nerve or if it's stuff I just can't stomach beforehand.

2. Alright, based on everything I've dug up so far, it sounds like you're right. It's a course for believers.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

The topics covered during the first grade essentially boil down to the simple joy of existence, the concept of love, embracing all of creation, and learning about basic holidays and prayers... There is quite a bit of singing and plenty of drawing involved, too. For the most part, that covers it...
Inquiry and questioning are actually encouraged and viewed quite positively here...

I. OUR RELIGIOUS ENCOUNTERS - 3 hours
1. I have my own name and my own place
2. We are all worthy of respect

II. DISCOVERING SIGNS OF GOD'S GOODNESS - 8 hours
1. Heaven and earth sing to God
2. The wonderful world of God
3. God, You created people so wonderfully
4. People did not listen to God

III. WE ARE CONNECTED TO GOD - 7 hours
1. Jesus calls people
2. Jesus reveals: God is our good Father
3. We are thankful to God for bread and the fruits of the earth
4. Little missionaries

IV. REMEMBERING SAINTS AND THE DECEASED - 4 hours
1. Plants and animals disappear, and people pass away
2. Saints are friends of God and ours
3. Remembering those who have passed

V. TOWARD JESUS'S BIRTH - 10 hours
1. Advent - a time to prepare for Christmas
2. Celebrating Saint Nicholas
3. Mary - Jesus's mother
4. Christmas - the feast of Jesus's birth
5. Shepherds rejoice at Jesus's birth

VI. JESUS MEETS PEOPLE - 7 hours
1. Jesus does good to everyone
2. Jesus cares for all people
3. Jesus loves children especially
4. Jesus teaches us how to pray

VII. THE JOY OF FORGIVENESS AND LOVE - 6 hours
1. We rejoice in life
2. Why are we sometimes sad?
3. Why do we misunderstand each other and fight?
4. Signs of forgiveness and reconciliation
5. Jesus calls us to forgive

VIII. TOWARD EASTER
1. Preparing for Easter
2. Celebrating Easter soon
3. Jesus's suffering and death
4. Jesus lives - He has risen
5. Celebrating Easter with family, at school, and in the parish
6. Jesus returns to the Father and stays with us
7. Living in joy and love

IX. WE ARE ALWAYS JOYFUL TOGETHER - 11 hours
1. I am a follower of Jesus
2. Encounters of Jesus's followers
3. Mary is our Mother
4. To Mother on Mother's Day
5. Celebrating school holidays
6. Staying connected

Tyler Ruiz502 said:1. Well, I honestly have no clue what the actual curriculum covers. That’s why I was asking for the syllabus—I need to see if any of it hits a nerve or if it's stuff I just can't stomach beforehand.

2. Alright, based on everything I've dug up so far, it sounds like you're right. It's a course for believers.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy using Reddit

This subject is mandatory only for believers who intend to receive the sacraments... Otherwise, there is absolutely no way to link religious education to actual faith practice—unless, of course, you don't want your child to receive the sacraments. The teacher at school doesn't check or grade anyone's religious practice in any way, aside from offering encouragement through words, naturally... "Go to church..." "Pray..." But whether a child actually follows through or not has absolutely nothing to do with the religious curriculum itself, and certainly has no bearing on their grades...

Seattle would be such a somber place without its teachers...
http://www.rijecanin.com/2016/11/14/...la-tuzni-grad/

Larry Walker24 said:Religious studies finally hit the public school curriculum back in '91 or '92

Before that, you could only take it through private parochial schools

Actually, that was simply when religious education returned to the school system... though I suppose factual accuracy isn't particularly important when one is more interested in sparking a revolution or making sure everything sounds sufficiently modern and progressive...

And when is the math remedial scheduled for those students enrolled in religious studies? I would be absolutely incensed by such a "solution"... ☕ It carries the implicit suggestion that children in religious education are somehow more intellectually gifted than their peers—as if these poor souls require extra help, while the others are apparently sharp enough to grasp everything on the first try. 😛

So, I suppose following the law just means being a mindless sheep. How wonderful. 👍 It sounds like a lovely little world you all inhabit. But religious education is where things get complicated, isn't it? Yes, indeed...

brightheron64 said:I ran into them today and we ended up talking about this all over again.

Since the teacher had another outburst, this time targeting homosexuality, the mother finally hit her breaking point; she went straight to the principal's office and demanded that her son be withdrawn from the religion classes immediately.

When the principal told her it wasn't possible to make changes like that in the middle of the semester, she threatened to call the Child Advocate, which caught the principal totally off guard and left him promising he'd figure out some kind of workaround.

I am honestly so curious to see how this whole thing plays out... 🍿

Honestly, this is just hitting rock bottom. Can you believe it? She actually "threatened" the principal. 🙂 That’s just how things work in our wonderful country, apparently! It is exactly the kind of "value" parents should be instilling in their little ones. If something doesn't align perfectly with your personal preferences? No problem, just resort to intimidation... It doesn't matter what the school board regulations state about withdrawing from elective courses via a formal request before the start of the academic year... It doesn't matter that it would create absolute chaos if every student could just jump in and out of electives whenever they felt like it mid-semester... It doesn't matter how much it would wreck the teachers' schedules or the entire school's organization... None of that matters! All that counts is that she intimidated the principal! And instead of being mortified by her own behavior, she seems to be flaunting it openly! 😲 I truly don't know anymore. The moral compass of the world has clearly spun completely off its axis. A child raised under those circumstances really has no business sitting in a religious education class... 🤦

Kevin Bennett2 said:The issue here isn't about believers expressing their faith in public; it's about how one specific religion clearly holds an advantage over others, even if the Constitution says otherwise.

If you're going to cite the Constitution, then actually read it:

Article 41.
"All religious communities are equal before the law and separate from the state.
Religious communities are free, in accordance with the law, to publicly perform religious rites, establish schools, colleges, other institutions, social and charitable organizations, and manage them, while enjoying the protection and assistance of the state in their activities."

Schools are state institutions. If this article of the Constitution is interpreted correctly, then religious education in schools should at least be modified—so that teachers of other religions in America get an equal number of hours—or moved to churches entirely.

Has anyone even tried to check the constitutionality of bringing religious instruction into schools (and had the Supreme Court reject it)?

How could it be changed in that direction now, when the status quo has already... shifted. 🤔 That is to say, since the initial process of returning religious instruction to the classroom after it was driven out by the communists, all participating religious groups where there is student interest continue to maintain it. Even though in the vast majority of cases we are looking at Catholic instruction, that does not negate the reality that Islamic instruction, Orthodox instruction, and others are also conducted within the American school system... 🤷

silentraven6 said:Let’s look at it this way, then. How many teachers have actually brought an imam, a rabbi, or an Orthodox priest—literally anyone from a different faith tradition—into their classroom just to help students grasp the concept of ecumenism?

How on earth am I supposed to know the answer to that? 🤷 I suppose it depends entirely on how much access they have to an imam, a rabbi, or an Orthodox priest... where I live, there isn't a single one in sight... I honestly don't see how a teacher would even go about finding them...
In major cities, I imagine things work quite differently. I know a friend who teaches religion, and for the last six or seven years, she has organized visits for every single generation to that Orthodox church over in downtown Manhattan and to the local Jewish community center. I know this because I happened to be waiting for a friend near the plaza once and saw them there, which led to a lovely little chat about where they were headed... 😁
I also know that in the suburbs, some teachers head over to the local mosque simply because it's nearby, and since they teach Islamic studies in school, they find ways to exchange perspectives...
And then there is that one teacher from the South who writes all about his interfaith visits on his personal blog...
I even recall hearing about a group of kids from my parish traveling out toward the outskirts of the state, eventually visiting a Greek Catholic community tucked away in the Appalachians...

So, what kind of response is actually being sought here?... 🤷

What kind of question does one truly pose when they find themselves doubting an answer, not because of its lack of merit, but because it conflicts so sharply with their own preconceived notions? 🤷

So, what’s your take on this, you lot? If we are looking at an individual who possesses the requisite pedagogical credentials and holds their position within the school because their religious community—just as ours is entitled to do—has the right to provide spiritual guidance to its members, all while serving as a faculty member on hallway duty, then who truly has any grounds to object?! In my view, the modern educational landscape has become far too feminized these days, which I find rather concerning... but perhaps that is a discussion for another time...

Jason Ortiz5 said:Honestly, I don't even care who she works for. She isn't a teacher, a professor, a psychologist, a principal, or even a janitor. She isn't even a full member of the school staff. She isn't there for the kids; she's there specifically to divide them, separate them, and teach intolerance and hypocrisy... By the way, she isn't even officially on duty; she's just playing "authority figure" in the hallways. It’s already too much how they push certain kids—like the ones in choir, drama, or dance—to participate in everything. They don't even ask if the kids actually *want* to join in on stuff with religious themes... Honestly, it's just classic aggressive behavior from the church and its people in our society... 😢

I am somewhat perplexed by this reasoning. How can someone with advanced pedagogical credentials employed at a school not be considered a teacher or a professor? 🤔 She could certainly become a principal if she were elected to that role... Just as an IT teacher or a foreign language instructor isn't necessarily there for every single child in the building, neither is she...
Furthermore, I fail to see how she isn't on duty. Hallway supervision is a standard part of the responsibilities for all educational staff members. Perhaps the specific period supervisor or the shift lead isn't on duty at that moment... I cannot say for certain...
I simply do not understand. I truly do not... I find myself at a loss...

Jason Ortiz5 said:Look, the school nurse isn't an administrator. Period. She shouldn't be patrolling the halls telling kids what to do, let alone trying to play hall monitor and "enforce order."

🤔 But whose employee are they supposed to be, for heaven's sake?! I had simply assumed we were talking about a layperson serving as a religion instructor. If some random volunteer just wandered in off the street and started patrolling the halls and playing judge and jury in the school, then yes, I absolutely agree—that is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and such a person should be removed from the building immediately.

Don't you realize that every single religious educator is under a microscope, being pulled in two different directions by two separate superiors, both of whom have their own legitimate demands?
The first superior is the principal, who expects pedagogical expertise, monitors lesson plans, observes classroom instruction, and scrutinizes every little detail regarding professional teaching standards. Then, the second superior is the Bishop, who ensures the instructor is teaching and living in strict accordance with Catholic doctrine. Two bosses. And that’s not even mentioning all the parents who would love nothing more than to swoop in and try to boss them around too... whether it's for the students enrolled in their specific class or those who aren't. 👏 Honestly... ☕

Matthew Young35 said:Are you really struggling to grasp that there are people who don't want their children supervised by a Catholic nun in public schools?

It certainly is... because we aren't talking about some random stranger picked up off the street or a casual visitor from a convent wandering into a classroom. We are discussing an educated woman possessing both theological depth and pedagogical expertise. And yet, we find ourselves rejecting her based on what, exactly? Is it merely her attire? If a secular teacher walked in wearing a nose piercing that I found personally distasteful, I could easily tell my child, "Just ignore everything she says." Or perhaps it is her underlying values? If a teacher openly supports a radical fringe party like the Green Party, and I find their political fantasies utterly repugnant, I could just as easily instruct my child, "Ignore her instructions." 🤷
I find this intense surge of liberalism on one hand, contrasted with such absolute intolerance on the other, to be deeply perplexing... Is it not considered modern and liberal to embrace difference? Or is that supposed tolerance strictly reserved for certain "modern" deviations, such as homosexuals or Buddhists?...