Here are some recent comments from Bishop Barber on this:
This May, a controversy erupted in your diocese over changes in your teacher employee contracts. You explained that the new language, which clarifies the responsibility of teachers to model Catholic values — in and out of the classroom — underscores a basic truth: “Each of our Catholic elementary and secondary schools is an integral part of the mission and ministry of the Catholic Church.” Would you explain what that means?
By the fact that “Catholic” is on the masthead of your school, it means you stand for certain ideals. The school is part of the Church, and the Church is part of Christ.
We have to faithfully represent what Christ and the Church stand for. Every teacher is a role model for the students, whether they are teaching P.E. or math. The classroom is their pulpit, and they will help form their students as young adults.
As an employer, my approach to teacher contracts was not to make a list of prohibitive behavior, but, rather, to set an expectation.
That begins by posing the question: What is the mission and goal of education in a Catholic school?
The next step is to describe the role of Catholic education and then invite our laypeople to accept that mission and vision. If they can’t accept that invitation, than a Catholic school will not be a good fit for them, and a public school might be better.
Unfortunately, some Catholic schools haven’t paid attention to Catholic identity. When things drift, alternative visions replace Catholic identity.
When I articulated my vision, one teacher wrote to say, “Who are you to change the mission of the school?” She said the mission of the school was to create an “inclusive and diverse” community, and, according to how those terms are understood today, that usually means all opinions are welcome at the table, except for Christ’s.
The controversy has been spurred by a few teachers and some parents who are not in agreement with most teachings of the Church.
On May 27, when I met with the faculty of Bishop O’Dowd High School, we went around the table, and most agreed that Christ should be the point of reference and that the new language in the contracts did not need to be changed.
I left the meeting relieved and happy that the faculty and I are in agreement. Without common agreement on what it means to be a teacher in a Catholic school, each person becomes the sole arbiter for what is acceptable. That is an untenable situation that creates tensions and confusion across the school community.
When Christ and Church teaching set the standard for Catholic education, we are challenged to look outside ourselves. As the bishop of the diocese, I am called to follow that same standard — I don’t make up my own rules.
You were criticized in the press for including language in the teacher contracts that requires faculty to model Catholic teaching in and out of the classroom. You said there were no plans to “examine teachers’ private life.” Rather, the contract language is concerned with “the public manifestation of a practice or a belief contrary to Catholic morals or beliefs,” perhaps on social media, in a way that could undermine a “teacher’s ability to fulfill [his or her] ministry as a role model in a Catholic school.” Would you explain the dispute?
Some people in the press say that when I ask teachers to model Catholic standards in their personal lives, I am violating their freedom of conscience.
I don’t think so. What you do in your private life is between you and God. But what you do in your private life that becomes public — either because you put something on Facebook or let all the kids know about it in class —becomes a source of scandal, and it directly affects your responsibilities as a teacher. That is what I am concerned about.
ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-michael-barber-a-career-classroom-teacher/
