The principal is not "responding to a situation that arose in the classroom and offering an explanation." The classroom discussion should have been political in nature. It would be one thing to offer and explanation in the classroom as to why Catholic doctrine does not support Obama's position and quite another to systematically pull children into the office to reprimand them and to remind them about their duty as good little Catholics. And lastly, harrassment in the playground is not Catholic doctrine.
I, too, attended Catholic grammar school and college 100 years ago. Things were different then. But even in college no priest would ever dare corner a student and preach doctrine. Of course, I was educated by Jesuit heathens so I guess that explains it.
I, too, attended Catholic grammar school and college 100 years ago. Things were different then. But even in college no priest would ever dare corner a student and preach doctrine. Of course, I was educated by Jesuit heathens so I guess that explains it.

And I don't mean one or two deviant teachers who refuse to teach it (there are bad teachers everywhere, unfortunately), but the schools who don't include it in the curriculum to begin with. Anyway, like you said, what the teacher did wasn't just something that "comes with the territory," right? It's an outright attack (in the loosest terms) against a child for their beliefs. Yes, the church will teach their beliefs, but is no one allowed to disagree? Isn't the purpose of school to help children formulate their own ideas and find ways to back them up, as we all have to do in the real world? Many Catholic schools (and any other schools of a specific religious denomination) do operate that way, but I really don't understand the schools that don't.