Millstones and Vous

I was wandering around the net the other day and found this site.  I’m a big fan of seeing what “the other side” (Who’s crying to have to say this about fellow Catholics?) of a debate thinks, since it makes it much easier to talk to someone instead of talking at them.  I find that most that come to this little blog really don’t have a clue what I think.  Rather than read up and then actually have a discussion on what’s written, I get a lot of ranting against things that have never been said. It’s weird. I kind of want to point to myself and say “Uh, are you talking to me?” So, anyway, here’s a little bit about them from their site.  I’m going to interject in between with what I think is a little reality in the surreal, elitist world they’ve created.  I’ll put them in bold (I’d imagine they’d like that) and me in regular font.

(http://www.teachacceptance.org/who-we-are/)

We oppose Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s proposed changes to the teachers’ contract and faculty handbook.  His proposal would reclassify all teachers as “ministers,” which would diminish their legal workplace protections.

Here we go again.  First of all, I’m reasonably sure the diocese said the “ministers” thing was too misunderstood so they were going to forgo that one.  In fact, at least one of the major news outlets around these parts have reported (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/02/24/san-franciscos-archbishop-expresses-about-face-for-catholic-high-schools-morality-clause/) So why is this still being still being reported as happening?  For goodness’ sake, they are also Catholics (well at least you’d assume some are), so why are we still playing the “If we say it enough it will be true” game?

The proposal would also contain language in the faculty handbook that includes morality clauses and governs private behavior.

Nope!  Nope!  Nope!  The language in the handbook does include a morality clause (and always has, as they even admit) and it does explain what SHOULD govern private behavior (I think it’s called a well-formed conscience), BUT it doesn’t govern private behavior.  What it does say is that if you are engaging in behavior that’s contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church you work for, and it becomes known (no longer in the private realm), it becomes a bad example for the students involved in the school and we cannot give it the thumbs up and let you continue on scandalizing (yes, it is a scandal) the students.

Let’s look at scandal in the eyes of that little thing called the Catechsim of the Catholic Church (kind of a novel thought when it comes to a CATHOLIC school in a CATHOLIC diocese).  I’m even going to put the link here in case anyone from one of these said schools might actually want to look at what the CATHOLIC Church teaches (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P80.HTM):
(emphasis all mine)

Respect for the Dignity of Persons

1. Respect for the souls of others: scandal

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil.  The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter.  He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death.  Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

2285 Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized.  It prompted our Lord to utter this curse:  “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”⁸⁵  Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others.  Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep’s clothing.⁸⁶

Holy cow!  That crazy Archbishop Cordileone is following the teachings of the Catholic Church again!  What is he thinking???  Did you notice the millstone and drowning thing?  Where’s that “tolerant” Christ here? (Sounds like another blog post!)

We cannot in good conscience support language that sows fear, and creates division and discrimination.  We cannot in good conscience accept language which is harmful to our children and their teachers, and threatens our school community.

Good conscience?  What is this good conscience?  How did it get good?  Who decides what is good and what is not?  Don’t you ever wonder how simple all of this would be if the opponents of the Archbishop actually knew the teachings of the Church they’re fighting against (and, in many cases, to which they belong)?  That would require a little bit of intellectual honesty.  Believe it or not, the Church actually explains the whole shebang.  The Catechism – another good read!  I won’t super-quote it here but I’ll put the re-cap.  Please, please, I beg you to read it if you haven’t heard it before! (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm)

IN BRIEF

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary.  There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.  It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.  Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments.  Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path.  We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice.  This is how moral conscience is formed.

Here’s the final few blurbs from their “About” page:

We cannot in good conscience accept language that:

• Labels members of our community as “gravely evil.”

Where did that happen?  Please post one quote that says that.  Anyone?  Didn’t think so.  Judging an act and judging a soul are very different and I haven’t seen  ANYONE labeled “gravely evil.”  That term is not used in the Church for a person but it is used for an act.

• Implies that members of our community are ill-conceived.

I’m not even sure what that means?  Physically conceived?  Have ill-conceived notions?  It’s a wee bit vague.  Sounds really evil, though, which I think is likely the idea.  If we are talking IVF,  does the Church ever hold a child conceived, say, in an extra marital affair or rape any less than precious? Same thing here.   That’s what the pro-abortion crowd does, not the Catholic Church. What the Catholic Church does is to try and stop the wave of victims which result from abandoning natural law.  It’s also totally and utterly against willfully separating children from their biological parents.   Again, please see (http://www.eggsploitation.com/) and (http://www.anonymousfathersday.com/).  A little to real for you?  Sometimes it’s not about you and the Church, in all her wisdom, knows that whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

• Undermines the free exchange of ideas.

Uh, it definitely undermines saying that gravely evil acts are not gravely evil act. That’s rather the point of the Catholic Church and a Catholic school (see Canon Law in earlier posts).  A “free exchange of ideas” should always be done in the light of Truth not the dark of situation ethics (a.k.a – the land where truth changes on a whim and ceases to be truth).  Exchanging ideas doesn’t mean inventing truth (and, yes, I did use a small “T” for a reason).

• Intrudes into the private lives of teachers and strips them of their legal rights.

And, wham-o! – we’re back to the “If we say it enough people will believe it!” game. I’d love to know if people really believe what they are saying. It seems a bit disingenuous to me. People need to stop interchanging “personal” with “private”. They are not the same. If you keep your life private life private, there’s nothing to talk about unless it’s in a confessional.  Once you make your private life public, it’s no longer private.  Even my 10-year-old understands this, but maybe he wouldn’t if he had attended the diocesan schools of the past 40ish years.

And finally, in a shocking turn of events (OK, it’s not, but I’ll just throw a little snark in here), the diocese addresses all of these points here http://catholic-sf.org/ns.php?newsid=25&id=63174 but TeachAcceptance.org doesn’t link to it anywhere on their site.  Can you believe it?!  I’m sure it’s just a well planned oversight to keep Truth from seeing the light of day.  Sorry guys.