Loyola decision protects religious freedom

"Church and state can work together for the common good"

In 2008, as part of the continued secularization of the Quebec school system, the province adopted a mandatory Ethics and Religious Culture (ERC) Program to replace religious education in schools. A statutory provision gives Quebec’s Minister responsible for education the discretionary ability to grant an exemption from the ERC program if a school offers an alternative, equivalent program. Loyola, a private Catholic high school run by the Jesuit order for over a century, applied for and was denied an exemption because the proposed program would be taught from a Catholic standpoint and not from a neutral position.

The objectives of the ERC program are the “recognition of others” and the “pursuit of the common good”.  Through the program’s three components - world religions and religious culture, ethics, and dialogue - students are expected to develop attitudes of openness, diversity, tolerance and respect. They are to learn the skills necessary for engaging in respectful dialogue with others who hold differing views. Loyola had no quarrel with the goals and competencies of the provincially mandated ERC program but wanted to teach from the Catholic perspective that animates the school.

The Court found that the minister failed to proportionately balance the objectives of the ERC program and the religious freedom of the individuals of Loyola’s faith-based community. The minister erred in her presumption that the ERC program could only be taught from a secular, neutral stance. Loyola’s version of the curriculum could achieve the goals and the competencies of the ERC program.

While the justices of the Court ruled unanimously in Loyola’s favor, they were split 4-3 on the remedy. The majority referred the matter back to the Minister for reconsideration, while the minority recommended that Loyola be allowed to proceed with its proposed program.

In the majority decision, Justice Abella writes, “Preventing a school like Loyola from teaching and discussing Catholicism, the core of its identity, in any part of the program from its own perspective, does little to further the ERC Program’s objectives while at the same time seriously interfering with the values underlying religious freedom.”

At the same time, the decision reaffirms the role of the state in administering education in religious schools. The state does not have “to abandon its objectives by accepting a program that frames the discussion of ethics primarily through the moral lens of a school’s own religion.”

Writing for the minority, Chief Justice McLachlin and Justice Moldaver did not see a problem with the discussion of ethics occurring through Loyola’s Catholic lens. “Loyola’s teachers must be permitted to describe and explain Catholic doctrine and ethical beliefs from the Catholic perspective. Loyola’s teachers must describe and explain the ethical beliefs and doctrines of other religions in an objective and respectful way. Loyola’s teachers must maintain a respectful tone of debate, but where the context of the classroom discussion requires it, they may identify what Catholic beliefs are, why Catholics follow those beliefs, and the ways in which other ethical or doctrinal propositions do not accord with those beliefs.”  To prevent them from doing so would render Loyola’s teachers “mute.”

I welcome the Supreme Court decision from my perspective as a Catholic who supports faith-based schools and the rights of individuals who choose those schools. I welcome it, too, as a former teacher with experience in both the Catholic and public school systems, and as a Canadian who values the freedoms of our secular democracy. 

Lauded as a victory for religious freedom, in my view, this decision strikes a balance between religion and secularism. On one hand, the Court affirms the legitimacy of the state in prescribing and regulating curriculum in religious schools. State oversight helps to prevent religious indoctrination and the intolerance that accompanies it. On the other hand, the decision protects freedom of religion. A religious school may teach from the perspective of its tradition and doctrines provided its beliefs or practices do not “conflict with or harm overriding public interests.”

At a time in Canadian history when the courts are frequently asked to rule on cases that pit religion and secularism, Loyola serves as a reminder that church and state can work together for the common good.

Pastor Lee: A man with a mission

Disabled son inspires drop box for abandoned babies

Pastor Lee Jong-rak of Seoul, South Korea is a man with a mission. The documentary film The Drop Box tells his story. 

In  2009, after a mother left her baby on his doorstep one cold night, Lee created a system to safely receive abandoned babies.  He installed a drop box equipped with a bell on the side of his home. The sign above the drop box reads, “Please don’t throw away unwanted babies. Please bring them here.”   It is a message reminiscent of the words of Mother Theresa who said “…please don’t destroy the child, we will take the child”, while speaking about abortion in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Since its installation, Lee and his wife, Chun-Ja, have received six hundred babies. They have either adopted or become guardians of fifteen abandoned disabled babies.

A source of controversy

Lee’s drop box has been a source of both praise and controversy. Some critics think the drop box enables mothers to abandon their baby, while others think it interferes with social programs that provide counseling for mothers, making them aware of other options and of the consequences of abandonment for both mother and child. There are concerns about the anonymity of the drop box; children without birth records do not officially exist and are vulnerable to abuse and trafficking.

Lee’s drop box, like many other well-intentioned charitable works, is indeed a band-aid solution to a social problem. This, however, does not invalidate its important role in preserving lives.  To draw an analogy between the story of the child who throws one starfish back into the ocean when there is an entire beach of starfish that she cannot save, Lee’s drop box makes a difference to those babies whose mothers choose the drop box over abandoning them on the street where the possibility of death is very real.

Faith is at the heart of Lee's story

Faith is at the heart of Lee’s story. He clearly feels that God has called him to this task, a task that he executes selflessly, without counting the cost. Lee suffers from sleep deprivation, diabetes and high blood pressure. Then, there is the emotional toll of his ministry, which comes through poignantly when Lee talks about Hannah, who was born with brain damage and died unexpectedly at age six. Lee’s lingering sense of loss is palpable, as is his concern about the future of his children when he can no longer care for them.

The inspiration for Lee’s drop box came from his son, a severely disabled twenty-six year old who was hospitalized for fourteen years. Lee admits that accepting his son was difficult and prompted serious existential questions. “Why did God give me this child? I wasn’t grateful for this baby.”  Through his struggle to find answers, Lee came to see in his son the preciousness of each human life. He named him Eun-man, which means “full of God’s grace.” 

Lee’s devotion to the disabled reminded me of the work of Jean Vanier, who founded the first L’Arche community for developmentally challenged adults over 50 years ago.   Vanier, who sees and accepts imperfections as part of being human, has said, “The weak teach the strong to accept and integrate the weakness and brokenness of their own lives.” 

This may be the purpose that Lee alludes to when he describes Eun-man as his teacher, and when he says of the disabled babies that others would throw away, “They’re not the unnecessary ones in the world. God sent them here with a purpose.” 

A critical message for our time

Mother Theresa, Jean Vanier and Pastor Lee have a message that is critically important for our time: every life has value and purpose. As a society, we struggle with this message. It contradicts the parallels we draw between human dignity and quality of life with bodily vigor and intellectual vitality.

Vanier wrote in Becoming Human, “As soon as we start judging people instead of welcoming them as they are – with their sometimes hidden beauty, as well as their more frequently visible weaknesses – we are reducing life, not fostering it.” 

In the process, we reduce our own humanity. 

Assisted suicide is not the only answer to suffering

"We operate under a false premise when we equate the suffering arising from disease, illness or disability with a loss of dignity."

The Supreme Court of Canada rules in favour of physician assisted suicide

It is eloquent, persuasive and based in law; it almost had me convinced that physician assisted dying is the correct response to suffering.

In the Carter decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that a competent adult who consents to death, and has a “grievous and irremediable medical condition (including illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition” has a right to physician assisted dying.  The ruling does not restrict physician assisted dying to those who are terminally ill.

The Court found that a total ban against physician assisted dying is broader than necessary to achieve its objective of protecting  “vulnerable persons from being induced to commit suicide at a time of weakness”.  In the view of the Court, the consequences of the prohibition impinge on the individual’s right to life, liberty and security of the person.

In the words of the Court, “the prohibition deprives some individuals of life, as it has the effect of forcing some individuals to take their own lives prematurely, for fear they would be incapable of doing so when they reached the point where suffering was intolerable. The rights to liberty and security of the person, which deal with concerns about autonomy and quality of life, are also engaged. An individual’s response to a grievous and irremediable medical condition is a matter critical to their dignity and autonomy. The prohibition denies people in this situation the right to make decisions concerning their bodily integrity and medical care and thus trenches on their liberty. And by leaving them to endure intolerable suffering, it impinges on their security of the person.”

As I read through the lengthy decision, it was difficult not to let the logic of the Court inform my belief on the matter.   It is hard to argue against the individual’s right to autonomy and dignity when I like to make my own decisions, and have no wish to endure suffering, nor watch someone else endure it.

Still, I have issues with physician assisted dying.

A different view of suffering

My attitude towards suffering differs from the negative approach towards suffering implied in the term “dying with dignity”, and endorsed in the Carter decision. In my view, the human person is created in the image and likeness of God. This divine stamp on the individual sanctifies every human life, and gives each of us an innate and inviolable dignity.

We operate under a false premise when we equate the suffering arising from disease, illness or disability with a loss of dignity. I have known people to endure each of these with great dignity, allowing their suffering to transform them, and in the process, their relationships and those who cared for them. Rather than losing their dignity, they grew in graciousness.

Archbishop Antonio Mancini of Halifax-Yarmouth, in a homily I happened to hear while visiting Halifax a few days after the Supreme Court decision, addressed our struggle to make sense of suffering.  “When there is no meaning to suffering, it is only pain, and of course people are afraid… But where there is meaning, where there is love and proper care, where there is community support, suffering can become sacrifice. Sacrifice is not just another word for ‘put up with’. It literally means…to make something “sacred”. To take suffering and to transform it with meaning is to make the reality of suffering a manifestation of the holy and the sacred.”

While this view of the relationship between suffering and dignity differs from that of the majority of Canadians and of the Supreme Court, there is the same desire to act compassionately towards those who suffer. From this standpoint, the compassionate response begins with a willingness to share, not to avoid, the suffering of another, and encompasses support and care.

For those who do not applaud this decision as one giant step forward for Canadians, and who seek an alternate response, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a statement that may be helpful. The bishops recommend that legislators interpret the decision as narrowly as possible so as not to open the door to euthanasia. They urge governments and professional associations to implement policies that will protect the freedom of conscience of health-care workers who oppose physician assisted dying. And, they renew their call for universal access to quality hospice-palliative care.

Undergirding these action points is an unshakeable belief in the sanctity of human life as a reality that defines the human person, and in the power of love to ease the transition from life to death in even the most difficult of situations.