\n\tTension over high school faculty handbook language and teacher labor contracts has escalated into a complex hardball confrontation between elements of the
\n\tSan Francisco Bay Area and the wider Catholic community.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe sharp polarity was largely launched on February 3 of this year when San Francisco archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone released a statement intended for
\n\tfaculty handbooks of the four high schools directly administered by the archdiocese. The text, he explained then, focused on hot-button issues for young
\n\tpeople and the Bay Area.<\/p>\n
\n\tHe emphasized that he wished the Catholic identity of the schools to remain crystal clear. Titled \u201cStatement of the High Schools of the Archdiocese of San
\n\tFrancisco Regarding the Teachings and Practice of the Catholic Church,\u201d the nearly 2,000-word narrative contained 15 \u201caffirm and believe\u201d declarations on
\n\tchurch teaching on male-only priesthood, Sunday Mass obligation, homosexuality, marriage, and human reproduction.<\/p>\n
\n\tCordileone and others underscored that the document had been developed to counter societal pressures on students and faculty \u201cto conform to a certain
\n\tagenda at variance with, and often aggressively so, our Christian understanding of the human person and God\u2019s purpose in creation,\u201d in the archbishop\u2019s
\n\twords.<\/p>\n
\n\tIntended as a freestanding section within the faculty handbooks, the statement also alerted all faculty to \u201carrange and conduct their lives so as not to
\n\tvisibly contradict, undermine, or deny\u201d church teaching.<\/p>\n
\n\tAt the same time, the archbishop released the texts of three clauses he would advocate for inclusion in teacher contracts at those four campuses. One of
\n\tthose clauses would classify teachers and staff as \u201cministers.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tLeaked in advance to the press, the contract language and handbook statement generated immediate pushback—a vigil staged on the steps of San Francisco\u2019s
\n\tSt. Mary of the Assumption Cathedral, a critical editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle, a statement by the California Teachers\u2019 Association, and an
\n\tonline protest petition.<\/p>\n
\n\tCriticism was also aired in an open letter from eight Bay Area state legislators, testimony at San Francisco Board of Supervisor meetings, commentaries in
\n\tthe National Catholic Reporter, a letter signed by 21 retired priests of the archdiocese, blogs and narratives by local priests, and an unprecedented
\n\tfull-page display ad in the San Francisco Chronicle on April 16, signed by more than100 high-profile Bay Area Catholics, asking Pope Francis to remove the
\n\tarchbishop.<\/p>\n
\n\tCritics charged that the handbook statement ran roughshod over individual conscience, focused too much on sexual issues, invaded teachers\u2019 private lives,
\n\temployed inflammatory language, denigrated the gay community, and contradicted Pope Francis\u2019 calls for inclusivity and mercy.<\/p>\n
\n\tA petition asking the archbishop to withdraw his statement and stick with the existing faculty handbook was signed by 80 percent of the faculty and staff
\n\tof the four affected schools in March.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe pushback against Cordileone\u2019s initiative generated its own pushback. Editorials and commentaries in several Catholic publications and Web sites have
\n\tasked in various ways, \u201cHow can a Catholic archbishop be faulted for requiring that faculty of Catholic schools teach Catholic doctrine and insist that
\n\tfaculty members and others do not take public stances against the church?\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tOnline support petitions for the churchman have received thousands of signatures. A May 16 downtown San Francisco park picnic honoring the archbishop drew
\n\tabout 500 participants.<\/p>\n
\n\tWell-known Catholic columnist George Weigel summarized what many Cordileone supporters argue. Catholics should be \u201cgrateful for the courageous leadership
\n\tshown by Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone,\u201d he wrote, \u201cwhose San Francisco archdiocese is arguably ground zero of the culture war that cannot be avoided—and
\n\tthat must be fought if Catholic institutions are to remain free to be themselves.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThis is going to be a nasty fight, given that \u2018tolerance\u2019 has become the all-purpose bludgeon with which the sexual revolution, in all its manifestations,
\n\tbeats its adversaries into submission or drives them into catacombs,\u201d warned Weigel.<\/p>\n
\n\tCordileone\u2019s uncompromising stances place him \u201csquarely in the crosshairs of the increasingly intolerant Tolerance Police. More power to him for
\n\tunderstanding that, like it or not, the culture war is interested in you—and responding is an evangelical imperative,\u201d Weigel concluded.<\/p>\n
\n\tWeigel rightly alluded to a bedrock issue at play in the Bay Area controversy: church doctrine on homosexuality, notably its strong prohibition of same-sex
\n\tmarriage. In short, one camp embraces church teaching on marriage as indissoluble, as possible between only one man and one woman, and as the sole sphere
\n\tof sexual intercourse. The church teaches settled truth.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe other camp argues that Catholic doctrine on marriage and sexuality needs updating. Whether acknowledged by the Catholic Church or not, they say,
\n\tmarriage equality should be viewed as a civil right. Doctrine can develop over time.<\/p>\n
\n\tBoth sides accuse the other of caricaturing their positions. Any middle ground remains elusive.<\/p>\n
\n\tSome observers feel that much of the opposition to Cordileone is fueled by lingering resentment over his role in the crafting, campaigning, and passage of
\n\tProposition 8 in 2008 while he was auxiliary bishop of San Diego. The law defined marriage in California as between one man and one woman; but was
\n\toverturned by the courts in 2010.<\/p>\n
\n\tCordileone is also the U.S. Catholic bishops\u2019 point man on marriage, serving as the chair of their Subcommittee for the Defense of Marriage. In that role
\n\the was a featured speaker at the June 2014 March for Marriage in Washington, D.C., despite requests from several Bay Area religious leaders and
\n\tpoliticians—including former speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic—not to do so. They claimed the event was defamatory of
\n\tthe LGBT community. Cordileone strongly denied that.<\/p>\n
\n\tThus, it was widely asked at the time of his appointment as archbishop in 2012 if Cordileone would be able to effectively lead an archdiocese whose
\n\tnamesake city-county voted 75 percent against Proposition 8 and whose culture is famously gay-friendly.<\/p>\n
\n\tSupporters point out that the archbishop has been willing to meet with and listen to those who disagree with him. They note that he invited all clergy of
\n\tthe archdiocese to his residence to discuss the faculty handbook uproar; that he addressed more than 350 high school teachers at a February 6 convocation
\n\tand answered questions from the assembly; that he requested a sit-down with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial staff; that he invited Brian Cahill to
\n\tbreakfast (the retired Catholic Charities director has been an outspoken critic and was one of the signers of the full-page ad asking Cordileone\u2019s
\n\tremoval); that he met with officials of Dignity, an organization that advocates \u201cfor respect and justice for people of all sexual orientations, genders,
\n\tand gender identities . . . in the Catholic Church,\u201d according to its Web site. And, backers underscore, Cordileone publicly conceded that his handbook
\n\tstatement had not been nuanced enough and that he had formed a committee of five high school theology teachers to rewrite and expand it—using a more
\n\tpastoral approach and adding a social justice element.<\/p>\n
\n\tThe recast document was sent to the administrators of the four high schools over the weekend of May 29-31 for distribution to faculty and staff. In a May
\n\t29 accompanying cover letter, Cordileone praised teachers\u2019 work and apologized for \u201clack of foresight\u201d about the \u201cseveral unintended consequences\u201d of his
\n\tinitial statement that \u201ccreated the tensions we have been experiencing.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tDespite the new narrative\u2019s softer tone, it too has been harshly criticized. Much concern centers on what is known as the \u201cministerial exemption,\u201d which
\n\tcan relieve some religious employers from antidiscrimination laws if an employee is considered part of the church ministerial work.<\/p>\n
\n\tIn a June 1 memo sent to members of the union representing teachers at the four archdiocesan high schools, the union executive council warned that the
\n\trecast faculty handbook statement too closely \u201cties all faculty and staff\u201d to the \u201creligious mission of the schools (regardless of what they teach or their
\n\tparticular job).\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIn practical terms,\u201d the union leadership continued, \u201cthis means that it could be possible for the archdiocese to terminate the employment of a faculty or
\n\tstaff member who, for example, divorces, utilizes in vitro fertilization or contraception—all connected to one\u2019s personal life, not their duties at school.
\n\t. . . In short, it could allow the archbishop to act in violation of state and federal employment and discrimination laws and chances are that the faculty
\n\tor staff member would have no legal recourse—a recourse enjoyed by other teachers and school employees across California and the rest of the country.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tCordileone and archdiocesan officials, however, have emphasized that they are interested neither in a \u201cwitch hunt\u201d nor in prying into employees\u2019 personal
\n\tlives.<\/p>\n
\n\tAsked in February, for example, if a teacher could or would be terminated if school officials became aware of his or her same-sex marriage, both the
\n\tsuperintendent of schools and director of the archdiocese\u2019s Office of Catholic Identity Assessment gave \u201cmaybe, maybe not\u201d responses.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cA teacher in a same-sex marriage is problematic only if the teacher goes out of his\/her way to publicize it and thereby at least implicitly criticize
\n\tchurch doctrine,\u201d wrote OCIA director Melanie Morey in an e-mail. \u201cFamily and friends may know about this marriage, but that does not make it public in the
\n\tsense the word is used in the collective bargaining agreement. In order for it to be a cause for some intervention by the school, the teacher has to go out
\n\tof his\/her way to emphasize that the position of the Catholic Church is wrong,\u201d Morey wrote.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cAnother way of saying this,\u201d she added, \u201cis that just because it is \u2018no secret\u2019 or \u2018publicly known\u2019 that someone is living in a situation that is not in
\n\taccord with Catholic teaching, that does not mean that it would be a subject of professional discipline. The question is whether the teacher did some
\n\tintentional action to make it public, such that it represents a public challenge to the church\u2019s teaching itself.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tAn explanatory narrative issued at the time of the original faculty handbook statement\u2019s rollout on February 3 stated: \u201cThe archdiocese has no intention of
\n\t\u2018rooting out\u2019 those who are not Catholic or those who do not assent completely to Catholic teaching. The archdiocese and the schools stand for the
\n\tteachings of the Catholic Church in their entirety, and the handbook for each of our high schools will contain a statement affirming certain key facets of
\n\tthese teachings. But these statements are of the school as an institution, not of the individual teachers. On the contrary, the statement specifically
\n\tacknowledges that not all of our teachers will agree with everything the Catholic Church teaches.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tOnly four of the 14 Catholic high schools in the archdiocese come under its direct administration: Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory and Archbishop
\n\tRiordan in San Francisco, Marin Catholic in Kentfield, and Junipero Serra in San Mateo.<\/p>\n
\n\tAbout 470 full- and part-time teachers and staff are employed at those four schools, which enroll about 3,600 students. The union represents \u201cabout 400
\n\tmembers,\u201d nearly all of them full-time teachers, union officials said.<\/p>\n
\n\tNone of the other 10 high schools are unionized, and union officials say San Francisco Archdiocesan Federation of Teachers Local 2240 is the only Catholic
\n\thigh school union west of the Mississippi.<\/p>\n
\n\tInterestingly, Cordileone friend and supporter Jesuit Father Joseph Fessio says Pope Francis \u201cmight have been wittingly or unwittingly responsible\u201d for the
\n\tBay Area brouhaha through the media highlighting papal comments on homosexuality, marriage, and other topics that could have \u201cheightened expectations\u201d of
\n\tthose who question areas of church teaching. Papal comments undergirding orthodox Catholic doctrine are underreported, he said.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Tension over high school faculty handbook language and teacher labor contracts has escalated into a complex hardball confrontation between elements of the San Francisco Bay Area and the wider Catholic community. The sharp polarity was largely launched on February 3 of this year when San Francisco archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone released a statement intended for<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[308],"tags":[140],"class_list":["post-6321","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-september-october-2015","tag-september-october-2015"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6321","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6321"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6321\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6321"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6321"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.charming-bohr.160-238-31-172.plesk.page\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6321"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}