Indianapolis archbishop revokes Jesuit prep school's Catholic identity

[commenter]

Probably one reason they haven’t done anything is that doing so would reduce Georgetown to a second rank university. No major university would be able to attract top academic talent, many of whom aren’t even Catholic, if it was perceived to be intolerant towards gay people.

But Christ never promised His Church would, or should, be applauded by “The World”. He promised persecution. Spiritual writers constantly cautioned against ",“the World”, and acceptance by it.

Sadly, the Church sometimes has courted honors, acclaim, “rank”, and applause for being “up to date”. This was especially true in Protestant USA.

In one way it hurts to see the Church constantly trashed now by most of the powerful institutions, especially media, but in another way, this shows we are (mostly) on the best path.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

We have to in our classrooms, but our students have no reason to know what we do at home

But if you were flagrantly violating one of the core values of the school, and got caught at it, what would you do?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

but don’t think that one transgression that many people don’t even believe to be a transgression at all

These are two separate issues.
Moving in with somebody and living together romantically is not “one transgression”. It’s a series of deliberate decisions and actions.

The second one (and I’ve noticed this is a running theme with you) is the popularity or unpopularity of a particular Church teaching.
Well, so what?
Is the morality of a thing up to a popular vote?
Is a religious school supposed to embrace what is easy, cool, and popular?

 

[o_mlly]

Sadly, the Church sometimes has courted honors, acclaim, “rank”, and applause for being “up to date”.

Losing federal funding, especially Pell grants, after losing a non-discrimination lawsuit sadly tops the list.

 

[pnewton]

I have heard a trite saying that perception is nine-tenths of reality. I don’t know about that, as it seems a little too akin to relativism, but there is a lot to be said for being aware of the effect of what we do on others, whether it be this AB or Father Martin, two cases opposite cases affected by the same problem of perception.

In this case, the Catholic school systems would be served by a consistent policy on addressing all public scandal, not just those seeking gay marriage. They could not guarantee fair coverage, but it would be good to have the data for those who are not already prejudiced in their beliefs. It might also put the whole sin of homosexual acts in their proper perspective without either exaggeration of their nature, or of compromise with the world.

 

[13pollitos]

Honestly that would depend on a number of things.

How was it discovered that I was in violation? If it was through snooping or by violating my privacy, even in criminal cases that may not hold up in court. Nor should it.

Was this a one time violation or something ongoing? If it was a one time violation, a warning or suspension should be enough.

Is this something that would affect the way I teach in my classroom? If not, maybe it is best to simply not renew a contract rather than terminate early. It provides stability for the students and also allows the teacher a chance to search for another job.

I taught in public school so my situation was a little different. I can see a time when Catholics and others that are religious would be barred from teaching in public institutions. It benefits everyone to respect the privacy of an individual. If the teacher is publicly posting something on Facebook or some other way making it known that they oppose and violate the terms of their contract, the school has a right to take appropriate action. But if something is discovered by nosey students, parents, faculty, staff, or community members, those people are wrong. Circumstances matter.

For most of the last 20 years I have taught in public schools. I have noticed an increasing trend of parents and other adults crossing the line between “need to know” and “want to know”. Students even seem to be encouraged to find out things about their teachers that they have no need to know about us. For instance, what church I attend if any at all, who I voted for, if I am married, how many children I have, and if I have a Facebook page (I don’t). Even on many kids shows they seem to blur the lines between teacher/student relationships and what is appropriate. There was even a recent episode on a pbs show that showed children trying to uncover a teacher’s private life and discovering it was a same sex marriage. I’m sorry, but as a teacher it truly bothers me that I have become expected to share details of my private lives when it has no bearing on how I perform at my job. It bothers me that the students and adults are encouraged to snoop and find out things they have no need to know. And things that they SHOULD know are often ignored.

I remember being punished for nosing around when things were none of my business. When we visited someone, we were not allowed to look around their house or go in rooms that we were not invited into. God forbid we even think about opening a cabinet or drawer! Why is it acceptable today? Circumstances do indeed matter.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I have heard a trite saying that perception is nine-tenths of reality. I don’t know about that, as it seems a little too akin to relativism, but there is a lot to be said for being aware of the effect of what we do on others, whether it be this AB or Father Martin, two cases opposite cases affected by the same problem of perception.

In this case, the Catholic school systems would be served by a consistent policy on addressing all public scandal, not just those seeking gay marriage. They could not guarantee fair coverage, but it would be good to have the data for those who are not already prejudiced in their beliefs. It might also put the whole sin of homosexual acts in their proper perspective without either exaggeration of their nature, or of compromise with the world.

I have been seen numerous reports over the years of teachers in Catholic schools being let go for issues unrelated to same-sex marriage or homosexuality.

Here are some news stories regarding teachers in Catholic schools being let go because of things like IVF and cohabitation:

The Real Reason Teacher Emily Herx was Fired for Using IVF

And all she had to do to keep her job

aleteia.org

Dance coach at Minn. Catholic school dismissed for living with fiancé

New Ulm Cathedral dance coach Melissa Marti led the program for 15 years until she was forced out for living with her fiancé

usatodayhss.com

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/12738144/...r-says-she-was-fired-over-vitro/#.XQ5YaRrTVvI

 

[commenter]

the Catholic school systems would be served by a consistent policy on addressing all public scandal, not just those seeking gay marriage.

Not all scandals are equally dangerous, at all times. At any given time the most damaging evil is that evil which, at the moment, is regarded by most popular opinion to be morally neutral. When I was in Catholic high school, it was drunkenness. 55 years later, drunkenness wouldn’t be condoned or minimized there. Other things are.

In 2019, there are more schools who will be prejudiced against someone actively prolife than activelypro gay marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

The archbishop did exactly what a Catholic archbishop should do in this situation.

The Jesuits are being quite defiant, so it’ll still be interesting to see how this all plays out. According to CNN:

The Rev. Brian Paulson, who heads the Midwest Province of Jesuits, said that the teacher does not teach religion and “is a longtime valued employee of the school.” The teacher is not named in any of the statements.

“To our knowledge, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented,” said the letter from the school’s president, the Rev. William Verbryke, and two members of the board of trustees.

“This is a unique action among the more than 80 Jesuit secondary/pre-secondary schools which operate in dioceses throughout North America.”

Paulson said the Jesuits will appeal this new decision, first through Archbishop Thompson, and then, if necessary, at the Vatican.

Leaders of Brebeuf, founded in 1962 as an independent Catholic school, said they have always had control over their personnel decisions.

“Whereas the Archdiocese of Indianapolis may choose to no longer attend or participate in the school’s Masses and formal functions, Brebeuf Jesuit is, and will always be, a Catholic Jesuit school,” the school’s leaders said.

In a tweet on Thursday, the school used the hashtag #BeBrave to announce its decision.

“Please be assured, the Archdiocese’s decision will not change the mission or operations of Brebeuf Jesuit.”

Considering all the allegations made by Archbishop Viganò and the uproar they have caused and the activity of organizations like Church Militant, and now this, it seems, unfortunately, like the Catholic Church is becoming very divided, like the rest of American society.

 

[13pollitos]

In all these cases the teachers were actually fired. The terms of the contract should be questioned to see if they were violated and if they were, if it was done so knowingly. I’m also curious about how it was made known that someone was living with their fiancé or having IVF. In most cases, I would side with the schools being allowed to determine who works for them.

This teacher, in the OP, was not fired. It is a completely different scenario. The school did not fire the teacher, so the Archbishop opted to remove “Catholic” from their title. This seems to me to be a case where the archbishop is within his rights to decide who in his diocese can use the Catholic Church as a reference of sorts in order to gain clientele, students, credibility, etc. I don’t think the general public or even other bishops have a say in how a bishop runs his diocese. From my understanding, only the bishop makes the call. I don’t like the idea of the state having a say in who can be called Catholic.

 

[JimG]

The problem may be that the school did not have the required clause in its contract. From the original article:

“In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, every archdiocesan Catholic school and private Catholic school has been instructed to clearly state in its contracts and ministerial job descriptions that all ministers must convey and be supportive of all teachings of the Catholic Church.”

“Teachers, the archdiocese said, are classified as ‘ministers’ because “it is their duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. To effectively bear witness to Christ, whether they teach religion or not, all ministers in their professional and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic Church teaching.”

 

[commenter]

Suppose there was a recognized Muslim hierarchy that had a directory of schools they recommended. One school does something that makes the hierarchy choose not to recommend it anymore.

Would the media response be the same? What if a Jewish school starts hiring Jews who became Christians, so the local synagogue chooses not to recommend it anymore…Would the NYTimes, and Fr. James Martin, trash the synagogue?

 

[13pollitos]

This is slightly off topic but I think is necessary to fully understand this situation. Since this school is run by a religious order and is a “private” catholic school instead of a catholic school, does the bishop have the ability to make this decision? I though that I was taught that religious orders were subject to their superiors and also to the bishop of the diocese where they are located. But I’ve also heard that Jesuits only answer to their superior general and the Pope. Is that correct?

 

[commenter]

This is slightly off topic but I think is necessary to fully understand this situation. Since this school is run by a religious order and is a “private” catholic school instead of a catholic school, does the bishop have the ability to make this decision? I though that I was taught that religious orders were subject to their superiors and also to the bishop of the diocese where they are located. But I’ve also heard that Jesuits only answer to their superior general and the Pope. Is that correct?

In their internal operations, religious orders such as the Jesuits have a lot of autonomy. Only in extreme situations would the bishop intervene where Jesuits are ministering to and involving Jesuits. But beyond the rectory, in the parish or school, where the Laity are involved, the bishop is very much involved.
BTW, this is overwhelmingly a lay school. I find very, very few Jesuits on staff, so calling it a “Jesuit” school is really stretching it.

The archbishop is only saying that this school will no longer be listed in the archdiocesan directory.

There also likely is a local SSPX school (and chapel) he chooses not to list. Should the archdiocese be compelled to list them as Catholic?

Somewhere in Indiana there’s a school started by ex Catholics who are now fundamentalists. Can they demand their school be listed? What about their church?

 

[13pollitos]

This is good information. Thank you.

Yes I agree it is his diocese and he should decide.

 

[commenter]

This is good information. Thank you.

Yes I agree it is his diocese and he should decide.

The Vatican would have to re write much of Canon Law to overturn a bishop on a matter like this. Essentially Rome would then get buried with similar matters, and require the pope to be archbishop for the planet. The local bishops would essentially be little more than Notaries Public.

So why is the school proclaiming they will take the archbishop to court?
It’s PR. They appeal to the court of public opinion, the media. They probably figure in these secularized times they want to bet on the winning horse. They are re branding themselves to recruit liberal money and media puff to attract liberal support, using the Jesuit label for “superior” education. They don’t mind “branding” the Church in the process.

They will lose a few conservative enrollments, but those were likely to be needy families anyway.

 

[Thorolfr]

Suppose there was a recognized Muslim hierarchy that had a directory of schools they recommended. One school does something that makes the hierarchy choose not to recommend it anymore.

Would the media response be the same? What if a Jewish school starts hiring Jews who became Christians, so the local synagogue chooses not to recommend it anymore…Would the NYTimes, and Fr. James Martin, trash the synagogue?

If it’s only a matter of whether this school is listed in the archdiocesan directory, none of this will probably make much difference. The media coverage will be gone in a few days. Parents who don’t think this is an important issue will send their kids there regardless and the school will no doubt continue to call itself “Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School.” And I think the media would react the same to any religious group that they thought was being intolerant, especially if it made a good news story.

 

[commenter]

Suppose an organization printed up a directory of “Gay Friendly Congregations”. I might or might not agree with their definitions, or criteria. But I would defend their right to compile it, to include some and not others, and to remove a listing for reasons of their own.

Keep in mind the Archdiocese no doubt acknowledges there are excellent schools - public and private - that aren’t in their directory.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

But the fact is we DO live in a very different world where privacy is nonexistent.

So, okay. You’ve been caught openly defying a core value of the religious school where you work.
Not a one-time succumbing to temptation (which happens, we get weak or make bad choices that escalate), but a deliberate, choice after choice, decision after decision to flout the school’s religion’s values.

Do you not feel that you’re no longer in a position to have any moral authority with those kids who ARE looking to you.

 

[Thorolfr]

Suppose an organization printed up a directory of “Gay Friendly Congregations”. I might or might not agree with their definitions, or criteria. But I would defend their right to compile it, to include some and not others, and to remove a listing for reasons of their own.

There is a directory like that and, in my opinion, they can put whoever they want in their directory, although hopefully they will only include truly friendly churches so that some gay person who relies on it isn’t surprised when they visit one of the listed churches. And there are even a couple of Catholic Churches in my town listed there.

As far as who the archdiocese puts or doesn’t put in their directory, it should be up to the bishop, I suppose, although the Jesuits might care if one of their schools isn’t included.