Ontario Catholic schools grapple with court’s no-religion ruling: Walkom

As my Star colleague, Louise Brown, reported Monday, a panel of three superior court judges has ruled that a Brampton teen attending a nearby Catholic school is under no obligation to attend liturgical services or take part in any other religious activities that the school deems compulsory.

The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District school board had already, reluctantly, agreed that Ontario’s Education Act gives Grade 11 student Jonathan Erazo the legal right to skip religious classes.

But the board balked when the boy’s father, Oliver Erazo, asked that his son also be allowed to skip Catholic religious services held in the school auditorium, as well as an annual religious field trip.

The board argued in court — unsuccessfully as it turned out — that both should be compulsory for all students.

The Brampton decision (which the board may appeal) is the latest twist in the ongoing saga of Ontario’s publicly funded Catholic schools.

Its origins lie in the political bargain struck by the architects of Canadian Confederation more than a century ago. As part of that arrangement, Ontario agreed to fund a Catholic school system while Quebec agreed to set up one for Protestants.

Throughout the 19th and much of the 20th centuries, religion and schooling remained a divisive issue across Canada. But in most provinces, passions eventually cooled

In the late 1990s, Quebec replaced its religiously demarcated education system with one based on language.

But in Ontario, the issue quietly simmered on. A 1984 Conservative government pledge to fully fund Catholic schools is credited with the triggering the party’s poor electoral showing and ultimate defeat a year later.

In 2007, the Tories went down to defeat again in an election fought over the issue of religious school funding.

The compromise that emerged from all of this was a complicated one. The province did extend full funding to Catholic schools. But, in exchange, Catholic high schools had to admit non-Catholic students — and allow them to opt out of any religious instruction.

It was over the question of what exactly constitutes religious instruction that the Brampton court case was fought.

The judgment raises two interrelated questions.

First, why do parents who don’t want their children exposed to religion send their children to religious schools?

The answer, it seems, is that many Ontarians think Catholic schools are better than their public counterparts.

Some parents like the dress code that certain Catholics schools require. Some think they put more emphasis on discipline. Some think they provide a better education.

Oliver Erazo sent his son to Brampton’s Notre Dame high school in part because it was close by.

The second question is more fundamental: Can schools that accept public funds realistically hope to give their students an education based on religion.

The public sphere is inclusive. Religion is not. With religion, you are either in or out. You are either part of a body of believers or you are not.

Some religions, including Christianity, welcome converts. Many preach tolerance toward other faiths.

But in virtually every religion, there is a fundamental distinction between those who accept certain precepts as true and those who do not. And non-believers are — by definition — wrong.

Ontario’s Catholic schools have already found it hard to navigate the tricky path between church orthodoxy and public acceptability, most recently over the issue of gay-straight student clubs.

Thanks to a 1997 court decision, they have managed to retain the right to discriminate in employment. Catholic schools need not hire non-Catholic teachers.

But if they can’t make their students experience even a little bit of Catholicism — if, in order to qualify for government support, they are simply public schools with a dress code — why bother?