I and a number of my colleagues are disappointed Toronto Conference has said this.As a churc we have come down on the side of the anti-Roman Catholic groups.

Excellent point. But it was released yesterday morning at 9:00 AM. At least that's when I received it.

Not quite ideal, but that still doesn't make it useless.  Remember that the optics of the Church's stand (or lack thereof) were your main stated concern:  Seeing (or not seeing) a large religious organization taking a position against these bigoted groups.  That is what has happened, no?

My main concern was that the UCCan had the opportunity to be relevant in the lives of Ontario's kids.  The support of Canada's largest Protestant denomination would have been encouraging to a lot of kids.  The UCCan even stood a chance of attracting some recovering Catholics.

One Conference releasing a statement the day of the vote is weaksauce.  Now, they've still got Catholic supporters like DKS mad at them, while having no influence over the debate or the vote whatsoever.

Why should Catholic kids feel the UCCan has their back?  And, of course, DKS reminds us that there are still UCCan ministers who think kids should shut up about wanting Gay-Straight Alliance clubs, and that the Catholic church should be able to accept public money without submitting to public laws that aren't in agreement with their hateful dogma.  So really, it's a crapshoot whether or not the local UCCan church supports Catholic students in this endeavour.

So, the net effect of the statement is the vote was uneffected, Catholic "leaders" are mad, some other Christians are mad, some within the UCCan are mad, and Catholic kids who are fighting bullying while fighting their own church, sort-of have a friend in some UCCan circles.

Don't get me wrong - I don't give a damn about the people who are mad about this, but the response could have been so much more.

There, there.

Hey, maybe you can repair the damage between the UCCan and Catholics by publicly referring to homosexuality as a disorder?

Excellent news. A little later than some of us might have liked, but well spoken.

Why? It isn't.

Any weaker than you constant harangue and anger?

The Vatican says it is.  I'm just suggesting that if you could find it within yourself to accept hateful Catholic dogma, you might convince Catholic leaders to like you again and that the UCCan is not so reasonable after all.

So? I don't follow or agree with all Roman Catholic theology. That's not the issue here, although lots of people who have a hate on for the Roman Catholic Church like to believe it is.

It is hateful.  The Vatican's position is that homosexuality is a disorder:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html

This, from the people who brought you child raping priests.

So, if people have a "hate on" for the Roman Catholic Church, they kinda have a smorgasbord of reasons to choose from.  I mean, the Vatican is even going after their own nuns these days, and last I knew, the nuns aren't raping anybody.

On what grounds do you have the temerity to disagree?  Is divine truth up to you to detrmine?  That's the Church's job, not yours.

Thank you for proving my point about hate.

Fortunately, I am under no obligation or oath to the Roman Catholic Church.

Ahh, mea culpa.  I had thought that you were Catholic and thus held to Catholic beliefs.

Why such a fuss about the church to which you do not defer for belief or leadership, then?

I think that opposing hate, crime and corruption...isn't hate.  High ranking members of the Catholic Church have been convicted, charged, or under investigation in multiple countries now, accused of many different crimes.  It would be interesting to compare the number of Hell's Angels facing charges to the number of Catholic leaders facing charges.  And of course, what I'm writing isn't libel, because it's true.

So if I appear to be anti-Catholic Church, it's because I am.  I think it's easily comparable to a criminal organization.  I think that opposing the Catholic Church and lessening their influence on education in Ontario is the right thing to do.

I wish the United Church would challenge the Roman Catholic church on some of their positions and beliefs (like being the only true Christian church). The RC church certainly don't ever seem to hesitate and think about the position of other denominations when they come out against something - this bill is a good example. 100 time better to show how different we from them than to just take this crap and let them speak for us. (No offense to Catholics in general, its your denomination leadership that pisses me off.)

So, if tomorrow someone in a faith wanted residential schools again, we should stay silent out of respect? Out of their right to do what they feel is faithful?

Do we understand that churches, clergy--- tell parents the godly thing is to send their children to be trained or retrained.... to  Exodus and other programs?

Do we understand what "reparation therapy" can be? Do we care to find out? It can be masturbation therapy. It can be electrocution of the genitals.

So, we are to remain silent because Jesus would want us to? Or the Charter would? Out of respect for religious freedom?

If the law in this land protects or encourages the harm and abuse of its people, the law should be challenged. The law of the land is not always just, good, right.... It is never God.

The little referenced  Gospel of Max had this to say.

And as Max and his buddies was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest: And when she saw Max  and his buddies engaged in a debate and enjoying food and wine , she looked upon them , and said, “And thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” But they  said , “Wait and we will discuss first what you are actually asking , and than debate  what our answer will be.” And so she approached Peter and asked him the same question. To which he said "I do not know any Jesus."  Max and his buddies continue the debate and after two weeks of debates they decided not to be cowards like Peter and to affirm that they knew Jesus. However they could not find the maid of the high Priest. After searching for another week they  proclaimed the truth on Calvary in front of a crowd of two , Max and his buddies felt proud, they had been brave and done the right thing, and affimed Jesus rather than deny him.

Max 14:66-72

Unlike the Gnositc gospels, the Gospel of Max were nevr lost. It's is not well known howevr because it seems it did not inspire many people.  

Thank you for making my point again. You are, indeed, full of hate.

If one denounces the Hell's Angels for their criminal activities, lists them, is outspoken about them...isn't it a bit misleading to call that person "full of hate"?

If so, then isn't it equally misleading here?

Insult the Roman Catholic Church and you insult those who follow the tenents of that particular branch of Christianity.

Would it surprise you to know that United Church ministers are largely trained in an ecumencial environment, including courses with Roman Catholics and taught by Roman Catholics?

Last time I checked, the Hell's Angels were not a religious denomination.

So that's the difference.  If the organization is religious, then any criticism of its criminal activities is necessarily based in hatred.  Hmm.

It is IMO not hating Roman Catholism or Roman Catholics when you criticize their objection to condoms and cite deaths in Africa of AIDs. It is not hating to discuss the sex scandals and cover-ups. It is not hating to say children of Christian Scientists must provide medical treatment to underage children.... It is criticizing a policy. It can be criticizing doctrine or dogma or stance.... or even belief.
 

It is not hate.

People can disagree with the UCC on an issue and it does not mean they hate us or our denomination.

People get the Roman Cathic Church confused with it's governement.  The church is made up of all it's member. Just as it's governement leaders are against artificial birth control, while the church members in numbers exceeding 90% believe in it.

The same is true. Most Catholic Students and Teachers, and Parents support GSAs. Most BIshops oppose them.

When one critque the bishop positions, than one is not attacking the church. Just as when one attacks Steven Harper's views one is not attacking Canada, or Canadians. In reality by attacking the leaders psoitions, one is often supporting the church, or Canada in the case of Harper.

But the law does not encourage harm. I simply guarantees certain rights of education.

The Roman Catholic Church and the separate school system are just as against bullying as the public school system. The difference is the methodology. The public system legislates against bullying. The last time I had a discussion with a separate School principal, their approach to to emphasise the Great Commandment and the principles of social justice common to all Christians. Those find no place in the public school system.

DKS,

One can debate what is harm and what is not harm. For me, a guidance counsellor or anyone at ANY school recommending a student who is gay be reconditioned, cured, treated for homosexuality IS harmful.

Separate schools are different than parochial schools, privates schools or charter schools.

A separate school is reflective of theology, doctrine, practices... and that is reflected in the mandate. The mandate IS and has been limited by the application of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other judicial decisions.  

A separate school has never been independent of the law or free to do what they will and call it religious freedom.

Separate schools do not exist for Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc... and if Roman Catholics or Protestants wish "separate school" status complete with funding, then they must be within the law even if they do not like the law or disagree. The alternative is to become a parochial or private school.

???

What Protestant schools are complete with funding? I don't know of any.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

There is a fundamental difference, Alex, in that Canada is a geographical entity.  In order for one to leave Canada, one must seek another country to live in.  Ocean-boating aside, there are no other options.  And one must uproot one's entire life in order to make such a move.

Affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church is not like that.  It is a membership, rather than a residence.  Rescinding one's membership in a group does not require that one join another group.  And while it may disrupt one's life, it will generally not uproot it entirely.

A better analogy than yours, would be that of political party membership.  A card-carrying member of the Conservative party is presumably a member due to agreement with the policies/beliefs of the Conservative party.  (S)he voluntarily pays fees to remain a member.  (S)he could choose not to be a member at any time, and if so, would be under no obligation to join any other political party.  And when (s)he decides to remain a member after Harper (for example) decides to prorogue parilment as a debate-stalling tactic, some measure of the criticism of Harper does justly fall on him or her - because (s)he says that the party is worth supporting, even given its corruption (or whatever).

All of those points apply to church membership as well.

The ties to a church are different than the ties to a political party. The church is more than it's leadership to most members, in fact to many it is the local community that they engage with not the bishops. It is als an idenitity and belief system that goes beyond simple membership. Many Catholics (in fact 98% on Birth Control) just ignore the bishops, and in the US  demand that civil authorities investigate and arrest those involved in the coverup.  Likewise in Ontario Catholics in large numbers ignore all teachings about sexuality  and do so easily.  

Howevr regardless of that there is a  war,going on in many churches,  and in the Roman Catholic Church there is a least two seperate wars ( and dozens of factions)  for the future. It has not been decided yet,, those in opposition to the current administration are troubled by the consequence of giving up and leaving the governement to do more damge.  They are staying and fighting. A recent article in the National Catholic Reporter has in fact speeled out a strtegy of the Bishop to force liberals and mainstream Catholics to leavce.  The recent takeover of the US association of Religious women (Nuns) is being seen as a cash and property grab. By leaving they will be helping the BIshops acheiev there goals, in not only seizing the Nuns  property and disrupting their political work on behalf of the poor (the support Obamadcare while the Bishops oppose it) but also to define what it means to be Catholic

That's a valid difference, and I'm sorry I didn't acknowledge it.  Political parties are necessarily very top-focused, whereas churches need not be so.

Labels have meaning, however.  Why call one's self Roman Catholic if one dislikes the state of the institution by that name?

It is not the institution they dislike but the leadership. It also not just a question about likling they just beive that the Bishop are wrong on many different issues. They are more likelt to like the local parish Priest or the Sisters who teach or run programs. 

Fr. Doug Koesel a parish priest serving at the Blessed Trinity Catholic Church in Cleveland, Ohio wrote this letter last month to Catholics in his parish about the attck on religious women by the Vatican.  It was posted on Huffingtonpost.

What the Nuns’ Story is Really About

 

Many of you have asked me to comment on the recent investigation into the US nuns. Here goes. In short, the Vatican has asked for an investigation into the life of religious women in the United States. There is a concern about orthodoxy, feminism and pastoral practice. The problem with the Vatican approach is that it places the nuns squarely on the side of Jesus and the Vatican on the side of tired old men, making a last gasp to save a crumbling kingdom lost long ago for a variety of reasons.

 

One might say that this investigation is the direct result of the John Paul II papacy. He was suspicious of the power given to the laity after the Second Vatican Council. He disliked the American Catholic Church. Throughout his papacy he strove to wrest collegial power from episcopal conferences and return it to Rome.

 

One of the results of the council was that the nuns became more educated, more integrated in the life of the people and more justice-oriented than the bishops and pope. They are doctors, lawyers, university professors, lobbyists, social workers, authors, theologians, etc. Their appeal was that they always went back to what Jesus said and did. Their value lay in the fact that their theology and their practice were integrated into the real world.

 

The Vatican sounded like the Pharisees of the New Testament;—legalistic, paternalistic and orthodox— while “the good sisters” were the ones who were feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick and imprisoned, educating the immigrant, and so on. Nuns also learned that Catholics are intuitively smart about their faith. They prefer dialogue over diatribe, freedom of thought over mind control, biblical study over fundamentalism, development of doctrine over isolated mandates.

The reference to the Second Vatican Coucil is key, because in Roman Catholic Theology Church Coucil have a higer authority than the Bishops and the Pope.

Here's a commentary on the current state of Affairs in the Roman Catholic governement by Father Charles Curran. ,  His point of view represent\ts the mainstream of Canadian Catholics, whiuch is one firmly on the side of SGAs. Theolgian in Canada and professors at Catholic Universities tend to be to the left of Father Curran.

http://ncronline.org/news/condemnation-just-love-not-surprise-day-and-age

 What is happening here is that the pope and the Vatican are more and more defending the idea of a remnant church -- a small and pure church that sees itself often in opposition to the world around it. It seems as if church authorities are not concerned at all about those who leave the church. Any other organization would take strong action to remedy the loss of one-third of its members. But the remnant church sees itself as a strong church of true believers, and therefore is not worried by such departures.

 

This concept of the church is opposed to the best understanding of the Catholic church. The word "catholic" by its very definition means big and universal. The church embraces both saints and sinners, rich and poor, female and male, and political conservatives and liberals. Yes, there are limits to what it means to be Catholic, but the "small 'c' catholic" understanding insists on the need to be as inclusive as possible. Many of us were deeply impressed by the gestures of Pope Benedict at the beginning of his papacy by reaching out for dialogue with both Hans Küng and Bishop Bernard Fellay, the head of the group originally founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Unfortunately, today, dialogue is still going on with Bishop Fellay, but not with Hans Küng.

 

The basic problem in all of this is the understanding and role of authority in the Catholic church. This issue is much too vast and complicated to be discussed here in any detail, but three points should guide any consideration of authority in the church.

 

First, the primary authority in the church is the Holy Spirit, who speaks in very diverse ways, and all others in the church, including office holders, must strive to listen to and discern the call of the Spirit.

 

Second, the church has to put flesh on the understanding of Thomas Aquinas that something is commanded because it is good and not the other way around. Authority does not make something right or wrong. Authority must conform itself to what is true and good.

 

Third, the danger for authority in the church is to claim too great a certitude for its teaching and proposals. Margaret Farley developed this point in a very significant essay, "Ethics, Ecclesiology, and the Grace of Self-Doubt." The grasp for certitude too easily shuts the mind and sometimes closes the heart. The grace of self-doubt allows for epistemic humility, the basic condition for communal and individual moral discernment.

You're joking right? Did I insult the Catholic church? No, I disagree with some of their tenents and political positions and think the United Church of Canada should come out and oppose them publically. Like I said, they didn't seem to have any hesitation in saying what they think even though it might offend and attack United Church positions. And actually, many many Catholics are with me on opposing their heirarchy on this.

Does it make you feel good to hear your church called "gravely deficient" by the Pope? Or not to be considered eligible to partake of communion when at a Catholic wedding or service? Not me.

In Ontario there is the Burkevale Protestant Separate School, the only school still operated by the Penetanguishene Protestant Separate School Board.

Alberta has the St Albert Protestant Separate School District and the Glen Avon Protestant Separate School District.

HOwever the St. Albert example (being the school district in which I was raised) is slightly misleading.  It is also somewhat an accident of history.  St. Albert was originally a heavily RC community and so when the schools were first organized the Public School district was formed as an RC district.  So, when the population warranted it the Seperate District was named as Protestant.  But by the 1970's when I entered the system PSSD #6 was functioning as a de facto public system and the "public" district was functioning as a de facto Catholic Seperate district.  Because of the history the names were never reversed.

In short PSSD #6 is not now, nor has been for at least 35 years, a "Protestant" school district.

GordW,

It makes perfect sense that may be the case, if I recall my "learn to be Canadian" stuff.

Settlers built community, thus public schools. It did not mean secular. Religious instuction and doctrine was taught... It did not mean parochial or private It was THE public school.

They were Protestant or Catholic and majority religion ruled and was taught in the community/public schools.

With the Battle of the Plains of Abraham and Treaty of Paris and colonists in the US revolting, who wanted Quebecois insurgency. The British could not push Protestantism on the Roman Catholics, but they felt a need to protect the British Protestant children from religion in schools, as RC was the majority. The answer was to establish separate schools funded by people of that particular faith that ran parallel to the community/public system.

It spreads to where Catholics are in the minority. Some provinces adopt it, some do not. Some who had it vote to end it... and Alberta and Ontario still have it.

People of that faith move to be near the school or over time the demographics change. The school once established stays whether it is still a minority or not, whether it includes religious instruction or not....

BTW St Alberts Protestant School District officially becomes St. Alberts Public School District July 1st.

I believe  that most Protestant School Board in Canada, ended up as "Public" school boards, due to the diversity of opinions among Protestants. 

I believe the we need to extend and strengthen the legal protection MPs have against beeing threaten with religious sanction to Catholic School Board Trustees.  It has always been against the law to threaten MPs for voting their concious on issues. This would allow Trustees to better reflect the diversity of thought inside the Roman Catholic Church, and prevent the minority view dictating policy to the majority of Catholics.   

It is also a better solution than abolishing Catholic Boards. The two main argument against these board is it prevents kids from being exposed to diverse views and control by the Bishops.

The Catholic Church is the most diverse religious  group in Canada after Islam, and so by preventing the BIshops from having control it would also ensure that Catholics are exposed to a diversity of views and realities.

I had not heard that.  It is a couple decades overdue

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2012
Thessalon, Ontario
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 8, 2012
Thessalon, Ontario

Funding provided for participants in a safe space at Rainbow Camp this summer!

Rainbow Camp is offering a camping experience for LGBT and Allied youth (13 - 17) to enjoy northern Ontario in an accepting environment for 1 week from August 5 – 10, 2012.

LGBT youth from across Canada can now apply to secure funding for their registration and transportation making it a truly national camp.

Paid counselors will be specially trained to relate to participants with Safe Space as the theme.  Volunteers’ food and lodging will be paid.

Funding has been generously offered by Westminster College Foundation, “The Living Spirit Fund of The United Church of Canada”, businesses, local Gay Straight Alliances (GSA), and Queer Straight Alliances (QSA).

Schools, businesses, churches and non-profit organizations may support the camp by nominating and sponsoring a deserving LGBT youth in support of a safe camping experience in a picturesque location with sandy beaches and breathtaking sunsets.

To register for camp, apply for financial support, sponsor a youth, apply to be a counselor, or volunteer, go online to www.welcomefriend.ca and/or contact Harry Stewart @ hstewart@welcomefriend.ca and/or by calling 1-888-909-2234 (toll free)

Welcome Friend Association promotes understanding, cooperation and support for and among members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered, Two-spirit, & Queer/Questioning (LGBT2SQ ) and their allies. Welcome Friend Association focuses on community matters concerning family life, social inclusion, raising children, living healthy and productive social and economic lives, faith communities, and contributing to society and the communities in which we live.

I went to one of the St. Albert schools years ago, but was only there for a year or two.  It wasn't very religious at all, back then.  There were children of many religions attending.

I think we did have Easter and Christmas break, instead of Spring and Winter break.  We also sang O Canada more often (in public schools we only did so at assemblies, and some would not be present for that).

There were issues recently in the GEA (Morinville) about a lack of a non-religious school.  I think the St. Albert school board was somehow involved with that.  I don't really keep up with the school information.

http://queerontario.org/

This is just a quick note reminding everyone that Bill 33, also known as Toby’s Act, will be given its third and final reading tomorrow at 9:00 am in the Ontario Legislature.
.
The Bill, which seeks to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code to include ‘gender identity’ and ‘gender expression’ as protected grounds, is supported by all three political parties in Ontario. This is the fourth time the bill has been considered by the Ontario Legislature. http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=2574
.