Catholics supporting Archbishop Cordileone on school identity feel silenced, pressured

[Megan7]

However the reference to Catholic schools as ministries remains. Because Catholic schools ** are** ministries. As ministries, Catholic schools are unlike other employers.

Btw, I’m a lawyer. I’ve read the Hosanna-Tabor opinion. And probably more importantly, Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Bolstering a morality clause is not a nefarious act. It’s a prudent one, because if dioceses don’t do it, they will have no way to protect themselves in these matters.

Dear Havard,

I agree with every single post of yours regarding this important topic. Thank you

Why is this so how hard to understand. Catholic schools are unlike other employers. Of course Catholic schools are ministries. If not, then what is the point? Be a private school, for what purpose?

If one day I have children, and I send my children to a Muslim school, I expect them to be taught Islamic values, doctrines.
And people who send their children to that Muslim school should expect a Muslim education, right? ( Btw I am Catholic)

I am glad that you pointed out that you are a lawyer. And if I may say so, you graduated from the most prestigious Catholic University in America:thumbsup: :irish1:

You also live in the area & know Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone, so you of all people have first hand knowledge of what is going on. You also have had interactions with him. You are more than qualified to speak on these issues.

And most likely, you also know how SAM SINGER operates, his local reputation, etc.

I had the blessing of meeting His Excellency. I have been to several of his Masses. He deserves our respect, prayers. You & the people of San Francisco are blessed to have him as your Archbishop.

Thank you:thumbsup: God Bless you, Havard.

---

And to all reading/posting in this thread, please remember that:

The ** Priesthood** is a masterpiece of Christ’s Divine Love, Wisdom and Power!

NEVER ATTACK A PRIEST.

We should all be UNITED in defense of this Faithful Servant of God. We should be supporting him, PRAYING for him, NOT attacking him or slandering him!

We need more Archbishops like him, fighting for the TRUTH! Fighting for Catholic education!
Have a fruitful LENT!

+Pax

 

[GraceSofia]

The choice of that language was no accident and shows a clear indication of the Archdiocese desire to clean house when necessary without any legal entanglements.

Which they should be able to do, especially because unfortunately sometimes people who actively OPPOSE Catholic teaching think it’s righteous to work at a Catholic school, and then SUE the schools when they are let go. There have been a lot of law suits which IMO should not have been entertained, but we live in strange times.

Bolstering a morality clause is not a nefarious act. It’s a prudent one, because if dioceses don’t do it, they will have no way to protect themselves in these matters.

Yes. As we’ve seen from lawsuits by people who were fired for breaching morality clauses.

 

[Teelynn]

Yes, it takes courage to stand for truth. Catholics were born for combat. This is not a battle of flesh and blood, but of principalities and powers. We must stand for truth no matter how painful or no matter the consequences. This is our DUTY to Christ and His Church! Just look at some of our greatest saints. Catherine of Sienna took on clergy, even the Holy Father. Charitably yes, but boldly. What would become of the Church of Christ if everyone were to sit back and allow truth to take a back seat?

 

[SavannahGal]

In your last post you said “And if that’s what he wants, fine, but he should be honest about it. If you’re going to work in a diocesan school, you need not apply if you are not Catholic, or if you have any disagreement with Catholic doctrine. Period.”

You’ve said nothing here to justify this earlier comment. You are talking about the ministerial exception, as if it somehow validates your accusation. But it doesn’t. Adding weight to the morals clause is, IMHO, needed. References to teachers, specifically, as being ministers was removed almost a month ago. Fine. However the reference to Catholic schools as ministries remains. Because Catholic schools ** are** ministries. As ministries, Catholic schools are unlike other employers.

Btw, I’m a lawyer. I’ve read the Hosanna-Tabor opinion. And probably more importantly, Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati. Bolstering a morality clause is not a nefarious act. It’s a prudent one, because if dioceses don’t do it, they will have no way to protect themselves in these matters.

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. My grandchildren were in town visiting the week past and I haven’t paid much attention to the internet.

In response to your comments: I’m sure, as an attorney, you’re quite aware that this change of terminology is hardly a concession on the part of the Archdiocese. If you were representing the Archdiocese in a wrongful termination suit, would you not be emphasizing the significance of the word “ministry” in the contract language? If you are someone hired to carry out the work of a “ministry,” are you not agreeing to act as a “minister?” Unless you’re willing to make the plaintiff’s case, I think we can agree the point is not significantly relevant.

The overwhelming consensus expressed in this thread is that this provision that would allow the Archdiocese to “clean house” as I’ve put it, is very appropriate and very much needed. And you’ll notice that I haven’t cried foul, because the truth is I don’t disagree with a Church exercising that freedom under the 1st Amendment. To me, it seems legally sound and I wasn’t surprised by the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in the case I mentioned.

My point is that such statements by the Archdiocese, such as “the point of the CBA is not to require assent to any of the teaching of the Catholic Church,” which seem boastful of acceptance and diversity, become completely meaningless under a policy in which the mere display of dissent endangers a teacher’s job. If there is dissent among the ranks, how would you ever know?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim this type of diversity and acceptance while supporting a policy that quashes all dissent. That is my point.

 

[ProdigalSun]

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. My grandchildren were in town visiting the week past and I haven’t paid much attention to the internet.

In response to your comments: I’m sure, as an attorney, you’re quite aware that this change of terminology is hardly a concession on the part of the Archdiocese. If you were representing the Archdiocese in a wrongful termination suit, would you not be emphasizing the significance of the word “ministry” in the contract language? If you are someone hired to carry out the work of a “ministry,” are you not agreeing to act as a “minister?” Unless you’re willing to make the plaintiff’s case, I think we can agree the point is not significantly relevant.

The overwhelming consensus expressed in this thread is that this provision that would allow the Archdiocese to “clean house” as I’ve put it, is very appropriate and very much needed. And you’ll notice that I haven’t cried foul, because the truth is I don’t disagree with a Church exercising that freedom under the 1st Amendment. To me, it seems legally sound and I wasn’t surprised by the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in the case I mentioned.

My point is that such statements by the Archdiocese, such as “the point of the CBA is not to require assent to any of the teaching of the Catholic Church,” which seem boastful of acceptance and diversity, become completely meaningless under a policy in which the mere display of dissent endangers a teacher’s job. If there is dissent among the ranks, how would you ever know?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim this type of diversity and acceptance while supporting a policy that quashes all dissent. That is my point.

I’m not sure why you have a problem with the Catholic school board and Church protecting themselves legally against lawsuits like the ones that have been plaguing it lately. It is a benefit to all involved to have a complete understanding of where the church stands on these issues. A women broke her contract with the a school board recently and had IVF treatments to get pregnant. She was fired, she sued and won her judgement because she argued successfully that she was under the impression that it was OK.

The Church has ever right to hire people that will uphold its teachings… Don’t you think so?

Peace!

 

[sps49]

My point is that such statements by the Archdiocese, such as “the point of the CBA is not to require assent to any of the teaching of the Catholic Church,” which seem boastful of acceptance and diversity, become completely meaningless under a policy in which the mere display of dissent endangers a teacher’s job. If there is dissent among the ranks, how would you ever know?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim this type of diversity and acceptance while supporting a policy that quashes all dissent. That is my point.

I am familiar with the Archdiocese making various comments about “diversity of cultures” within the diocese over the years. How did you get to “boastful of acceptance and diversity” and “quashes all dissent” from that one quote? Maybe you could point me in the direction of other quotes attributed to the Archdiocese that could help shed some light on this claim of “having it both ways.”

 

[Havard]

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. My grandchildren were in town visiting the week past and I haven’t paid much attention to the internet.

In response to your comments: I’m sure, as an attorney, you’re quite aware that this change of terminology is hardly a concession on the part of the Archdiocese. If you were representing the Archdiocese in a wrongful termination suit, would you not be emphasizing the significance of the word “ministry” in the contract language? If you are someone hired to carry out the work of a “ministry,” are you not agreeing to act as a “minister?” Unless you’re willing to make the plaintiff’s case, I think we can agree the point is not significantly relevant.

The overwhelming consensus expressed in this thread is that this provision that would allow the Archdiocese to “clean house” as I’ve put it, is very appropriate and very much needed. And you’ll notice that I haven’t cried foul, because the truth is I don’t disagree with a Church exercising that freedom under the 1st Amendment. To me, it seems legally sound and I wasn’t surprised by the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court in the case I mentioned.

My point is that such statements by the Archdiocese, such as “the point of the CBA is not to require assent to any of the teaching of the Catholic Church,” which seem boastful of acceptance and diversity, become completely meaningless under a policy in which the mere display of dissent endangers a teacher’s job. If there is dissent among the ranks, how would you ever know?

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t claim this type of diversity and acceptance while supporting a policy that quashes all dissent. That is my point.

Thanks for responding, I’m glad we can keep discussing this.

There’s no question this change could be used inappropriately. I just don’t see any evidence that the Archdiocese has the desire to do so.

Here are a few practical points:

1. Despite the bad press, the Archbishop is an apostle of Christ first, not a conservative first. He cares about reconciliation. The culture in the Archdiocese is such that I can’t see anyone resorting to terminating an employee based on such a matter unless it was the last resort.
2. Even forgetting the Christian/moral perspective, terminations are a pain in the butt from an H.R./legal perspective, especially in this area. Hosanna-Tabor is no guarantee of anything, especially not in the 9th Circuit.
3. Assuming 1) and 2) aren’t enough deterrence from abuse, the Archdiocese has to worry about upsetting the teachers’ union. They are not toothless.
4. Even forgetting 1), 2), and 3)… there’s also the matter of the media attention focused on this Archdiocese.

Keeping all of this in mind, I don’t see your fears coming true. Under all the pressure and scrutiny, there is no question in my mind that these matters will continue to be handled very judiciously.

PS: hope you had a great time with the grandchildren!