Catholic Church up to their old tricks again
- Thread starter personal touch
- Start date
You copy the URL and then pase it into the message box.
Well, I suppose the Church ought to be allowed to do that. However, it seems to be a little judgemental towards thy neighbour, no?
Let's say the person asked for assisted suicide because he couldn't bear the pain anymore. Okay, one could argue that his decision was wrong. But is it up to God to judge it or up to Bishops? Are they above God? Does giving someone a proper burrial condone that person's actions?
I don't follow the logic behind the decision. But in the end, the Church should be free to decide for itself.
But did he get a proper Catholic burrial?
Trouble is when a catholic wants to go ( ...and there is a time when it IS time)
You have to volunteer and do them, or they may wind up in hell...just for asking...
So, by honoring their "request"
You damn yerself...
Sounds like a great catch-22...straight outta the catchekism
You have to volunteer and do them, or they may wind up in hell...just for asking...
So, by honoring their "request"
You damn yerself...
Sounds like a great catch-22...straight outta the catchekism
You should have mentioned it to whoever he was with and then just walked away.
The breath of life in all people returns to God as that is where it came from. The rest is dust in the wind.
Far be it from me to want to defend the Catholics. I'm not a believer. Moreover, the Catholic clergy has been the most steadfast allies of the English for a hundred years to keep Quebecers in ignorance and servitude.
However, I note that the media are more comfortable criticizing the positions of the Catholic clergy as Jewish, sikh or Muslims representatives
However, I note that the media are more comfortable criticizing the positions of the Catholic clergy as Jewish, sikh or Muslims representatives
In my case at least, it has to do with the fact that the Catholic Church enjoys an official status in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the separate school system. So whereas the Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, and other Faiths are truly separate from the state, the Catholic Church is entrenched in the state constitution. So whereas the other religions belong to the personal domain, the Catholic Church falls under public polcy.
Last edited:
frick...
I come from the only town in Ontario, possibly in Canada, that has the catholics as it's public school board
and the protestants are the separate school board...
It's effed up too...explains why the principle industry in town is a major mental health center, I guess.
See...priests and witch doctors..side by side...cats and dogs, living together.
they also had the highest per capita drug and alcohol consumption records for Ontario for many years too...Lol
not sure what came first
I come from the only town in Ontario, possibly in Canada, that has the catholics as it's public school board
and the protestants are the separate school board...
It's effed up too...explains why the principle industry in town is a major mental health center, I guess.
See...priests and witch doctors..side by side...cats and dogs, living together.
they also had the highest per capita drug and alcohol consumption records for Ontario for many years too...Lol
not sure what came first
True enough, Protestantism falls under public policy in Canada too, and so like the Catholic Church, it is a quasi-state religion.
No you confuse entirely different things.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in the Constitution by "mr canada" itself in 1982. And christians and other specific religions have no special rights... it's more all religions that are protected by this Charter.
The separate relegious education systems were more a way of buying linguistic peace. In theory, the constitution gives to Anglo and Franco theirs own system across canada. When it have been implemented, Catholics and anglican Church mean.... English and french. Except we all know that only Quebec has really respected this constitution mandatory. It's still the case today. By the way, the constitution have been changed to talk about linguistic schools systems instead of Catholics and anglican schools.
The deal between catholic Church and British Crown was to keep Quebecers away from power, politics and economy.... and the Catholics can keep their religion.
The separate school system is still in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and very much applicable to Ontario today, so no it's not just some historical situation. It's current. These schools are publicly funded and have already been criticized by the UN High Commission for Human Rights on the grounds that they violate the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights since they discriminate on the basis of religion. The separate schools are Catholic or Protestant only, Jews and others need not apply.
No it's not Under the Chareter of rights and freedom. It's part of the constitution of 1867. This parts have been changed in different level for each federated state. Québec get rid of it. We kept 2 separated systems based on the language only. In Ontario, the language have more importance but some "relegious" particularity can still be allowed.
We`re both right. It`s in the BNA Act and reitirated in the Charter. Since most people are more familiar with the Charter though and since it is more recent than the rest of the constitution, I consider it to be more pertinent.
Article 29:
Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed
by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
Though granted the BNA Act covers it in more detail. So you are more correct than I am in that the CCRF covers it only briefly in reference to the BNA Act. It was necessary to mention it in the Charter since otherwise the equality provision pertaining to freedom of religion could have been interpreted in such a way as to abrogate the system.
Last edited:
it's just to tell that the Charter can't interfer with the previous disposition of the constitution.
But it did have to mention it since the charter also enjoins non-discrimination on the basis of religion. Had the Charter not mentioned it, the courts could have interpreted the equality provisions of the Charter to have abrogated the separate school system. In that sense, the article in the Charter is more important than the one in the BNA Act since the Charter could have overrriden the BNA Act otherwise.
[/FONT]
No
in fact, if it is not excluded this way from the application of the Charter, the separate school system will be in contradiction with the Charter. Then the Charter says that the constitution have precedence on the Charter. In other word, it have been decided to keep the same system no matter the charter. So the charter do no give any previleges to catholics or protestants.
15.
(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Had the Charter not mentioned the separate school system, Article 15 would have abrogated it since the separate school system does not make all religions equal before the law since it applies only to minority Catholics and Protestants.
Had the Charter not mentioned the separate school system, Article 15 would have abrogated it since the separate school system does not make all religions equal before the law since it applies only to minority Catholics and Protestants.
Yep.
Then, the constitution give special rights to catholics and protestant, not the Charter. Like I said, these "special rights" have been change and, in Québec, it have been completely abolished.