Lawmakers urge S.F. archbishop to withdraw teacher morality clauses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Monkey1976
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Monkey1976

Guest
Lawmakers urge S.F. archbishop to withdraw teacher morality clauses - L.A. Times

Eight state lawmakers on Tuesday urged San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone to withdraw the “morality clauses” he unveiled this month in a handbook for high school teachers, and to reverse his intention to redefine teachers as “ministers” in their employment contracts.

The letter to Cordileone from five members of the Assembly and three state senators said the new conditions for employment at four high schools run by the archdiocese “conflict with settled areas of law and foment a discriminatory environment in the communities we serve.”

Cordileone has spurred protests with his addition to the handbook – which guides the nearly 500 school employees – because it focuses almost exclusively on sexual morality in language many consider harsh.

It asks employees to “affirm and believe” that “adultery, masturbation, fornication, the viewing of pornography and homosexual relations” are “gravely evil.” Artificial-reproductive technology, contraception and abortion are described similarly

The “fundamental demands of justice,” it continues, “require that the civil law preserve the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”

Cordileone also is seeking to define teachers as ministers in the collective bargaining agreement now under negotiation with the teachers’ union – a move that would probably strip them of recourse under anti-discrimination law in the event of dismissal.

The lawmakers’ letter takes particular exception to that designation, saying it would effectively "remove civil rights protections guaranteed to all Californians. Among these rights are the freedom to choose who to love and marry, how to plan a family, and what causes or beliefs to support through freedom of speech and association.

“The narrow exception for ‘ministers’ in federal anti-discrimination law was never intended to be a tool for discrimination,” the letter continues. “This sends an alarming message of intolerance to youth educated at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory and Archbishop Riordan in San Francisco, Junipero Serra in San Mateo and Marin Catholic in Kentfield.”

Cordileone unveiled the initiatives Feb. 3 and was the focus of protests by students and parents three days later. A second candlelight prayer vigil is scheduled for Wednesday evening at St. Mary’s Cathedral.

Organizers, who scheduled the event to correspond to the start of the Christian season of Lent, have called Cordileone’s morality clauses “divisive” and say sexual morality is being overemphasized at the expense of other Catholic teachings.

A spokesman for the archdiocese on Tuesday said Cordileone was unavailable for comment on the letter. But in earlier letters and presentations to teachers, Cordileone stressed that the language in the handbook and contract proposal merely reaffirm existing church teachings.

He focused on sexual morality, he said, because it is in that arena that “confusion about the church’s stance is prevalent.”

Though the letter from lawmakers acknowledges that the archdiocese “wields discretion over working conditions” at the schools, it says his proposal strikes “a divisive tone, which stands in stark contrast to the values that define the Bay Area and its history.”

In an email, Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco), a signatory to the letter, said: “Injustice must be confronted, no matter the source. Our society is based on the principle that we are all created equally. Any novel legal maneuvers to impose injustice must be stopped.”

The other signatories are Assemblymen Richard Gordon, David Chiu, Marc Levine and Kevin Mullin; and Sens. Mark Leno and Jerry Hill.
 
Now it starts…

Freedom to engage in questionable behavior vs Freedom of Religion.
 
Tell them Catholic schools will withdraw the requirement the day the public schools stop persecuting Christian students.
 
“Congress shall make no law …”

Are Catholic schools now “Congress”? 🤷
No,

And you are right about “Congress shall make no law …”

Congress (Federal Government) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. That protects our religious freedom.

But…

Now be on the lookout for an “end run”. Those who would overturn our religious freedom will try to make this a civil rights issue and it will get ugly.
 
But…

Now be on the lookout for an “end run”. Those who would overturn our religious freedom will try to make this a civil rights issue and it will get ugly.
But…

Does someone’s civil rights come before another’s right to life?
 
Sure, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but it will be argued that doesn’t mean that Catholic schools can actually teach Catholic moral principles. The sexual revolution has always been on a collision course with religious freedom, and it will get worse.
 
Bishop Barber already won this fight across the Bay. I really don’t see how the SF teachers union has a leg to stand on, considering the equally liberal Oakland teachers just accepted essentially the same terms a couple days ago.
 
Sure, the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion, but it will be argued that doesn’t mean that Catholic schools can actually teach Catholic moral principles. …
I’d certainly like to see the semantic gymnastics behind the logic of that argument.
 
Apparently.
It has been argued that the inalienable rights [life, liberty, and property, aka, happiness] mentioned in the Declaration are in a particular order for a reason; e.g., someone’s right to liberty trumps another’s right to property, etc. Another question that has arisen is why these rights were not in the Constitution.
 
I’d certainly like to see the semantic gymnastics behind the logic of that argument.
The LA Times article puts it this way:

“The narrow exception for ‘ministers’ in federal anti-discrimination law was never intended to be a tool for discrimination,” the letter continues. “This sends an alarming message of intolerance to youth educated at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory and Archbishop Riordan in San Francisco, Junipero Serra in San Mateo and Marin Catholic in Kentfield.”
In other words, requiring teachers to teach and abide by Catholic moral principles constitutes unjust discrimination. The bottom line is that Catholic teaching is inconsistent with anti-discrimination laws.

I expect that this line of reasoning will continue to be applied in other situations. Catholic teaching now conflicts with the official state religion of secularism. The battle over gay marriage will simply emphasize that.
 
The LA Times article puts it this way:

“The narrow exception for ‘ministers’ in federal anti-discrimination law was never intended to be a tool for discrimination,” the letter continues. “This sends an alarming message of intolerance to youth educated at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory and Archbishop Riordan in San Francisco, Junipero Serra in San Mateo and Marin Catholic in Kentfield.”
In other words, requiring teachers to teach and abide by Catholic moral principles constitutes unjust discrimination. The bottom line is that Catholic teaching is inconsistent with anti-discrimination laws.

I expect that this line of reasoning will continue to be applied in other situations. Catholic teaching now conflicts with the official state religion of secularism. The battle over gay marriage will simply emphasize that.
Yeah. I kinda figured it would be something like that.

Tolerance is evil because it renders people incapable of recognizing evil. In his book, The Closing of the American Mind, Allan Blume observes that when we fail to discriminate between good and evil, right and wrong, and the behaviors that lead to success and those that lead to failure, we do not end up being objective, neutral, tolerant, or even indifferent; we end up hating what is good, right, and successful. That is how we ended up with more terrorists, those who hate what is good, right, and successful, and how liberals/Leftists ended up hating America. It is also how the thinking in this age of chaos has gotten to the sorry state that it is in.

Found this a long time ago. It still applies, IMHO.
…Once liberal tolerance rather than traditional morality becomes our guiding principle, we must ultimately tolerate the presence of evil. … Politically correct America wages hysterical crusades against ethnic slurs or sexual comments by private individuals, while shrugging its shoulders at gross criminality and possible treason by the President – if he is seen as a sufficiently “tolerant” and “inclusive” person.
Thus the modern liberal regime bans the merest breath of the Christian religion in public schools, while subsidizing student clubs devoted to witchcraft. Thus the mainstream media routinely attack the “oppressive” and “racist” police, while ignoring the criminality of the criminals whom the police are “oppressing.” These inversions of decency and sanity are not the work of anarchists. They are the logical consequence of the central credo of modern Liberalism: that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good.
The problem described here points to its own solution, which is to abandon the modern liberal ideology that identifies morality with powerlessness, and return to traditional moral standards. Unlike today’s cultural Leninism that defines men’s moral worth as the inverse of their perceived degree of power or of their attachment to established ways of life, traditional morality judges the intrinsic moral qualities of men’s actions, and so is capable of seeing and stopping real evil when it appears. By contrast, a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably end up tolerating evil, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ultimately lose the authority to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is by definition “unequal” and “exclusive” and thus [according to liberals] illegitimate.
If, therefore, we truly desire to live in a society that can effectively resist the evil of [say, terrorism], or any evil for that matter, we must do two things: (1) define the good not as tolerance but as behavior in accordance with the moral law; and (2) affirm the legitimacy – and thus the moral authority – of our particular nation and its historically dominant culture.
Such a re-traditionalized society will not be absolutely tolerant and non-discriminatory by modern liberal standards. It will, however, be able to assure a civilized order where real evil – such as the evil that now runs free – will not be tolerated.
– L. Auster
Also,
A person asking for tolerance is tacitly admitting he is doing something wrong. Mother Theresa never asked for tolerance.
 
But…

Does someone’s civil rights come before another’s right to life?
You ask a deep and ponderous question…

My answer is: The right to life is the source of all rights. Without it civil rights are meaningless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top