{"id":16074,"date":"2013-11-22T12:26:08","date_gmt":"2013-11-22T17:26:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.cccc.org\/news_blogs\/?p=16074"},"modified":"2021-10-07T12:12:32","modified_gmt":"2021-10-07T16:12:32","slug":"only-a-little-pork-in-the-soup-can-religious-beliefs-be-put-on-hold","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cccc.org\/news_blogs\/intersection\/2013\/11\/22\/only-a-little-pork-in-the-soup-can-religious-beliefs-be-put-on-hold\/","title":{"rendered":"Only A Little Pork In The Soup: Can Religious Beliefs Be Put On Hold?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Loyola<\/strong>, a private high School in Montr\u00e9al, is being forced to suppress its Catholic convictions when it teaches the Qu\u00e9bec government\u2019s Ethics and Religious Culture course (\u201cERC\u201d). The Qu\u00e9bec Court of Appeal<\/strong> appeared to suggest that there was no reason for Loyola to be concerned because it has the rest of the week to teach the Catholic faith outside of the ERC. \u201cThat would be like telling an observant Jew or a Muslim not to worry because there is only a little bit of pork in the soup,\u201d wrote Loyola\u2019s lawyer in his submission to the Supreme Court of Canada.[1]<\/a><\/p>\n

You may have noticed that recently Qu\u00e9bec has been a cauldron of angst regarding all matters religious. The current debate over the \u201cCharter of Values\u201d[2]<\/a> is forming a dynamic backdrop to Loyola\u2019s opposition to the government\u2019s imposition of the ERC as it now gets ready to have its case heard in Ottawa.<\/p>\n

The school does not object to the ERC goals (recognition of others and pursuit of the common good) or competencies (ethical reflection, understanding of religion, and dialogue), but it does object to the ERC\u2019s restrictions against the teacher sharing his\/her religious or ethical views in the classroom. When the school asked for an exemption to the ERC and the right to use its own curriculum instead, the government said no because the school\u2019s approach was faith-based rather than \u201ccultural\u201d. In cross examination, government officials agreed that during the course a Catholic teacher could not favour one moral position, such as marital fidelity, over another.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n

The Qu\u00e9bec government is also making a strident argument that religious corporations do not have a right to religious freedom. Religious freedom, they argue, is only for individuals. I am doubtful that the Supreme Court will buy into that position since the Court has recognized in the past that religious freedom has communal aspects.[4]<\/a>  However, the Court has not categorically defined exactly what the parameters are for the religious freedom rights of religious bodies as distinct from individuals. This case is a prime opportunity to address the issue. Should the Qu\u00e9bec government convince the Court otherwise, then we can expect serious challenges to the operations of religious communities in the future\u2014particularly their internal governance.<\/p>\n

Background<\/b><\/p>\n

Loyola High School in Montr\u00e9al is an all-boys private school run by the Jesuit Order and a registered charity. As a confessional school, it\u2019s very purpose is to inculcate the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church for the next generation of young men. It is very open about that goal. It is why it exists. In fact, the goal of teaching the faith to the next generation is the reason why private Christian schools operate throughout all of Canada. In many ways, the future of such religious communities are dependent on the successful transmission of the faith that occurs in the schools. For this reason, what is and is not taught in the classroom is a cause of great concern.<\/p>\n

Government also has an interest in education. Properly educated citizens have the means to take on their responsibilities to ensure our liberal democracy operates in its best form. Failure to educate a child contributes to financial and emotional poverty. Such a cost is not in our society\u2019s interest. It is not surprising, therefore, that education is the lightening rod that is given to the stakeholders\u2014parents, church, and state.<\/p>\n

The Problem<\/b><\/p>\n

Loyola\u2019s core objection to the ERC is that the teacher of the ERC is not permitted to share his\/her religious or ethical views in the classroom. In other words, Loyola\u2019s teachers cannot use the Roman Catholic viewpoint when instructing their students; they cannot uphold Catholic teachings on ethical issues or teach that  the Christian understanding of God is true.<\/p>\n

In short, during the time the ERC course is taught, Loyola is expected by the Qu\u00e9bec Government to lay aside its Roman Catholicism. It must be neutral. For all intents and purposes during that time it ceases to be a Roman Catholic school. In this way, the state has carved a \u201cneutral\u201d space out of a private religious school\u2019s schedule for students to be taught religion and ethics from a secular point of view.<\/p>\n

The Road To Court<\/b><\/p>\n

Loyola requested of the Qu\u00e9bec Ministry of Education, Recreation and Sport (\u201cMELS\u201d) an exemption from the ERC on the basis that its own program meets the two objectives and the three competencies. MELS denied the request on the basis that Loyola\u2019s program was \u201cconfessional\u201d\u2014it taught from a faith perspective, and that was unacceptable.<\/p>\n

At the trial court, the judge said that the MELS decision could not be based on confessionality but only on the basis of whether Loyola\u2019s program was equivalent. The Qu\u00e9bec Government argued that because Loyola was a corporation, it did not have the right to religious freedom. The trial judge disagreed with the government and held that as a religious corporation and as a religious school it benefited from freedom of religion.<\/p>\n

The judge was not impressed with how MELS handled the matter and said that violating the religious freedom of Loyola was comparable to the treatment of Galileo by the Roman Catholic Church in the 17th<\/sup> Century. The violation was not justified in a free and democratic country.<\/p>\n

The Qu\u00e9bec Court of Appeal (\u201cCA\u201d) took an opposite position to that of the trial judge. The CA did not address the Qu\u00e9bec government\u2019s argument that it had no obligation to guard the religious freedom of Loyola because Loyola was a corporation and had no right to religious freedom. As far as the CA was concerned, the government\u2019s decision was reasonable, and given that government sought to \u201cdeconfessionalise education,\u201d it had every right to use confessional manner of teaching as a criteria to deny Loyola\u2019s request for an exemption.<\/p>\n

The case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. Loyola has filed its factum. Potential interveners have until December 2, 2013 to apply for permission to intervene in the case.<\/p>\n

Why CCCC is Involved<\/b><\/p>\n

As a membership organization of over 3,300 Christian charities across Canada, the CCCC views religious freedom as integral to the right of religious organizations to continue their ministries of service. The following reasons outline why CCCC has taken the decision to apply to the Supreme Court for Intervener status:<\/p>\n