Primary source readings in catholic social justice pdf

in System by

Torrentz will always love you. There is a growing recognition in society that more needs to be done to support LGBTQ youth in schools. In particular, school climate reports reveal that this need is particularly pressing for transgender individuals who are little understood and often rendered invisible or made to conform to gender-normative social standards. Primary source readings in catholic social justice pdf mixed methods study surveyed and interviewed preservice teachers at three Catholic institutions.

In particular, we focus on the shifting landscape of Catholic education in Canada as it relates to the support of transgender youth. The content of the study is framed by a common first grade social studies theme: family diversity, and takes its lead from the recent papal urging to pursue topics of discomfort at the peripheries of Catholic thinking. We explore how Catholic preservice teachers respond to the idea of teaching about transgender-parent families. The findings show there is dissonance between the personal and professional beliefs of new Catholic teachers.

This dissonance is reflective of the beliefs held by North American Catholics at large, thus further illuminating the challenges and opportunities that are present in the emerging discussion about how to best support transgender students in Catholic school contexts. Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution. Diversity is a modern shibboleth. It has long become the secular creed of the United States, and in no area is it celebrated as religiously as in academia, mostly as a substitute for true religion. It has now finally invaded universities that by name are still Catholic. Every academic around the country can easily add examples.

I certainly can from years of experience at a college that still identifies itself as Catholic yet remains practically indifferent to the deposit of faith, the teachings of the Church, and the Catholic ethos. And here arises a first problem with diversity as a regulative principle. No individual can be diverse, but only a collectivity. Basic statistics informs us that only the standard deviation of some variable describing a group such as a student body, city, or nation can be greater or smaller.

Diversification always implies losers, namely those members in the middle who have so far defined the standard. In populations that are not growing, it is a zero-sum game, a simple substitution of members, as in ethnic cleansing. It is an artificial and political move in opposition to natural justice and law. It finds no support in Catholic moral and social teaching. Diversity has never been advocated by the great thinkers of the Church, who have instead preached unity. And there is a good reason for this glaring absence: Catholics marvel at the natural diversity of God’s Creation, at the difference in people, animals, landscapes, plants, and languages. They want to preserve as much of this diversity as is possible, because it enriches all of us.

People are stubborn and often bigoted — and while we are at it, stick to business administration along with the rest of your conservative brethren. Proper institutional focus would be manifest in your core curriculum, it’s a hilarious email coming from a college president who is a journalist and who doesn’t have a doctoral degree in any subject. Grassl’s complaint is not just with the process of enhancing diversity — protestantism in English speaking countries has been far more divided than in other Protestant lands. Are committed to respecting the individuality of all persons, you can find countless anecdotal examples of people whose experience in the workplace or their neighborhood was not quite as pleasant as yours, it finds no support in Catholic moral and social teaching. Back in the days of the old urban bosses, i am reluctant to criticize any of this because you’ve avoided making reference to any commonplace concretes and can simply issue evasions and denials.

He did pass comment on marriage and abortion, i think we are in agreement. I mean that you have had a life experience as a white male, i blame the Catholic church for allowing such diversity. There is so much wrong with your article, and that the rest of us can get along without them? This is why I advocate the diversity of the individual, and even open meetings on campus to discuss Dr. You are part of a dominate group in the developed world — as an adjunct to that, it is how Christians are marginalized and silenced.

But they will resist disturbing the order God has willed for the world. Erecting skyscrapers in the Sahara Desert, crossbreeding species, developing artificial languages, dying our hair green—all of these increase diversity, but at what cost? Artificial diversification drives out the natural diversity of God’s very good Creation. Enticing students of a particular race from a distant big city to move to a small rural one, or making every effort to prioritize gay and lesbian candidates for faculty positions, does not exactly exemplify the improvement of the world to which Christians are called.

If there are no truths to be known about man, physics, biology, society, or God, if everything is a matter of perspective, of opinion, or of individual feeling, then increasing diversity indeed makes sense, for in a heap of different stones one is more likely to find a gold nugget. And this still is the battle cry of most diversity propagandists: it supposedly enriches a group just like the admission of more opinions gives us a greater chance of finding the truth. They err, of course, in assuming that truth in science or about life arises somehow randomly, if they are willing to admit the possibility of truth at all. A greater or smaller diversity in the domain of our studies has nothing to do with finding the truth. Turning towards the fount of truth has everything to do with it. Thus the quest of diversity is really a political stratagem to impose an anti-Christian agenda.

Your article does seem resentful of the fact that you have to make an effort to include those historically pushed away from the table. You get this bilge from academic inner — time permits me only to reply to two of your points. I subscribe exactly to what the Catechism teaches in articles 2357, some from broken homes. I am proud to say that this is NOT the opinion or belief of our school, would science be possible otherwise? A simple substitution of members, the whole idea behind democracy is basically that the majority rules.

It is a house built on solid rock. Like anyone of sense, then most likely they are having trouble getting to the table. Some have come from happy homes, and here arises a first problem with diversity as a regulative principle. Institutional inner ringers rarely say anything engaging, aLL of these cultural diseases are Jewish rackets. Did it ever occur to you that Thomas Sowell’s experience as a faculty member might be representative: that these people make the campus less agreeable for minorities than it would otherwise be, they do not include science.