Soooooooo...,Why in the name of God and all that is holy would a reiteration of Catholic moral teachings and what is expected of those who work for the Church, especially forming our young in our Catholic schools, cause any problems? Could it be that the post-Vatican II Church is just plain corrupt? Can we go that far? Or is it that we have failed to form in the Catholic faith and morals, those who we call to be lay ministers and workers of the Lord's vineyard and if so why? These are not difficult questions to be asked of those in the highest places of the Church to include the Vatican Curia.
So here is what Archbishop Cordileone is facing in San Francisco amongst his corrupt flock many of whom work for the Church!
SF archbishop is re-wording his strict morality code
By Kevin Fagan
SAN FRANCISCO — Under pressure from his Catholic schools community, the archbishop of the San Francisco archdiocese is re-wording strict guidelines he proposed for teachers that would require them to reject homosexuality, use of contraception, and other “evil” behavior.
Most significantly, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone said he is dropping an effort to designate high school teachers as “ministers,” which, under a 2012 US Supreme Court ruling, would have eliminated them from government-mandated employee protections by placing them solely under Church control.
In an hour-long meeting with The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board, Cordileone said he is forming a committee of theology teachers from the San Francisco Archdiocese’s four high schools to go over his proposed teacher guidelines. The committee, he said, will “recommend to me an expanded draft” and “adjust the language to make the statements more readily understandable to a wider leadership.”
“I was surprised at the degree of consternation over this,” Cordileone said. What he is drafting, he said, is merely a reiteration of existing Catholic morality doctrines concerning behavior.
The modifications Cordileone drew up this month for the Faculty Handbook for his archdiocese’s 350 or so teachers ignited a firestorm of opposition when teachers, parents and students interpreted them to mean staff could be fired for being in same-sex marriages, using contraception, approving of abortion, or engaging in other actions the handbook labeled as “evil.”
Of particular concern to some faculty was the prospect of punishment for behavior done behind closed doors. One statement from the archdiocese said high school administrators, faculty, and staff who are Catholics “are called to conform their hearts, minds and consciences, as well as their public and private behavior, ever more closely to the truths taught by the Catholic Church.”
The new language is meant only to “clarify,” he said, and not to trigger teacher firings or ignite “a witch hunt.”
“My primary concern is for the good of our students,” he told the board. “We want our students to flourish.”
“The proof is in the pudding, so we’ll have to take a look at what the archbishop comes back with,” Singer said. “But this is certainly a step in the right direction, and is welcomed by many of the parents, teachers and alumni. But there is still much work to be done.”
Story via New York Times News Service.
32 comments:
I wonder if the Bishop knew his original morality contracts would be met with resistance and overplayed it so as to make his real proposals seem reasonable.
So, the sheep tell the shepherd how to care for them. The sheep are all wolves in sheep's clothing. Hey, it is SanFrancisco…where they have a highly attended (kids, too) gay fest parade every year with public nudity, public gay sex, and every perversion and abnormality you can imagine…."I left my *whatever* in San Francisco, his name was Bill, he crawls to me…" sung by Tony Bendit.
Overplayed what?
The employees and/or the laity and/or the students don't really "believe" Christ's Church. Not at the core, basic, doctrinal, fundamental levels. They might believe in some sort of God or Jesus and "love" and "social justice" but they don't believe and accept Jesus' Church, the Magisterium or what it teaches. They have reduced The Church to suggestions, a general outline, or as one of my science teachers (public school) expressed: "the Bible is an outstanding book of morals."
The students are making it up as they go along with the feelings of the "teachers", the media, their friends and whatever their parents DO. Not say, DO.
Faculty, parents and students are worried about a "witch hunt" while they're blissfully drowning in sewage.
While there is life there is hope but eventually God decides: "time's up".
You would be hard-pressed to find a more extreme example of a good, solid bishop thrown into a flock that didn't care for the truth and rejected God than Archishop Cordileone and the Archdiocese of San Francisco.
It didn't have to be this way. Anyone who looks at the last three archbishops of San Francisco can see how it happened: They didn't stand up for the truth and they let it get this way. Now bishops like Cordileone have to clean up the mess.
"Could it be that the post-Vatican II Church is just plain corrupt?"
It may depend on exactly what this statement means. No doubt, very many individual Catholics, priests, bishops, and cardinals are morally and doctrinally corrupt. Perhaps this has historically often been the case, but the post-Vatican II Church may be unique in the extent to which this corruption is willingly and openly tolerated or even tacitly approved at all levels of the hierarchy.
Speaking of snow, much ado about nothing 85 miles to the northwest of Macon---I-75/85 looks clear outside my window near the State Capitol. Good news for the Macon Chamber of Commerce and others up here tonight for "Taste of Macon", showcasing the city to Georgia legislators. When weathermen mention chance of snow up here, you'd think it was the end times, mad rush on the local Publix and Home Depot among other places.
"Everyone who has their head stuck in the snow . . . think that the Church after Vatican II is just great, no problems,..."
This kind of hyperbole is unhelpful at best and corrosive at worst.
First, I don't know anyone who thinks that everything is great and that there are no problems in the Church. This is an unfortunate caricature of those who, for legitimate and serious reasons, do not share your views about the necessity or efficaciousness of your peculiar version of the "Reform of the Reform."
Second, the Church is not as neatly bipolar as you suggest, not by a long shot. Seeing everything as "black or white," "with me or against me" is one of the most common fallacies of the modern age. This "Zero Sum" thinking ('one person's gain is another's loss' or 'for me to benefit you must lose') is destructive and unhelpful to any kind of common work for the common good.
Oh pooh! Was St. Teresa of Avila wrong? St. Francis of Assisi? St. Catherine of Siena? The countless agents of the counter-reformation? some of the concerns of Martin Luther? None of them had their head stuck in the snow while many of their contemporaries and those in high places did.
Allan - Try reading my comment again. I am NOT saying there are no problems.
"He who rejects you, rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects Him who sent me."
Like I said, it didn't have to be this way, but Archbishops Quinn and Neiderauer had other ideas about governing their Church. If you look back at what bishops were like 60 or 70 years ago and compare them with the crop of smiling glad handlers we have now, the difference is striking. No one dares risk offending ANYONE anymore, especially the Church's most avowed enemies.
Maybe one can accuse ME of hyperbole too, but I think this is pretty accurate: There are a few bishops in the United States who are downright bad. There are a few bishops in the US who are very good. The vast majority, however, are just duds. We don't need duds. That's why our Church is stuck in the funk that it's in. We need men willing to fight for the faith and shed their blood if necessary. I don't see that kind of change happening very soon with the current regime in Rome.
Cletus, tell us who the "bad" bishops are and the "duds."? Not just vague accusations.
Father, it's hard to know, from one day to the next, which side of this VII/PreVII fence you're gonna be on. Seems like you're trying real hard to balance on the top, but you fall from one side to the other.
As for me....I stand squarely with Pope Francis....(wherever that is...he seems to do the same as you.)
"This is an unfortunate caricature of those who, for legitimate and serious reasons, do not share your views about the necessity or efficaciousness of your peculiar version of the "Reform of the Reform."
After a second reading of this particular post by Fr. McDonald, I still find no mention of the liturgical problems in the Church.
At any rate, though the many problems in the "post-Vatican II Church" may be interrelated, surely the liturgical crisis is only one of at least a dozen manifest crisis areas in the Church at the present time, all of which are desperately in need of "reform of the reform". Ultimately, as Francis implicitly suggests, all of them likely have a single source--the Devil.
Henry - There are no mentions of liturgical reforms in this item, but that is the consistent drum-beat of Good Fr. McDonald.
My comment is that his black and white view of the Church - one side sees problems, the other side, with its head stuck in the snow, does not - is unrealistic and a caricature.
This seems to me to be a consistent element of Fr. McDonald's posts.
As Father McDonald says above the comment box:
"Any comment that is vitriolic and disrespectful of the laity in general, and Pope Francis, bishops and priests in particular will not be posted! Discuss ideas and leave the personalities out of it."
So I won't name names. But I'll give you some examples of what bad bishops do and YOU can figure it out: We have bishops who permit DIGNITY Masses in their area. One former bishop of San Francisco gave Holy Communion to several hideously garbed transvestites who called themselves the "Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence". Some bishops applaud people just for their public acknowledgement of being gay--as if it was some kind of "virtuous" thing. Some bishops permit "Catholic" legislators who are shacking up with second "wives" or concubines to receive Holy Communion. Some bishops actually offer inaugural Masses for pro-abort legislators and executives in their state and local governments. Some bishops put race above ethics by expressing how wonderful it is that a black man was elected president, completely ignoring the fact that this "wonderful" man is the most militantly pro-abort president in history. We have bishops who get letters and pleas from Catholics who are being abused in their parishes and sit in silence and let it go on because they are clerics first and shepherds second (or third, or somewhere down on that list). We have bishops willing to stand as grand marshall in a parade that has been compromised by making it a homosexual event.
Need I go on?
I won't name these terrible bishops, but you're smart enough to figure them out.
As for the duds--they just go along with the tide, taking account of the political climate, listening to their PR consultants and attorneys, making sure the funds come in and smile for the cameras.
And the good bishops? Well this story is about one of them. You can tell who they good bishops are because they are willing to take the heat of negative public opinion. The red in their vestments means something.
As for the duds and the bad bishops--they should have yellow piping put right down the backs of their vestments. That too means something. You figure it out.
Former PI still has a romantic, shangrila view of Vatican II and what has happened. He is content that only 12% of Catholics attend Mass and of that 12% many experience an uninspiring, banal liturgy with a twang sounding music ministry. That Catholics feel they have a right to their immorality and see it as no impediment to working on a Catholic institution speaks volumes.
In terms of head stuck in snow, obviously I hit a nerve! Ouch !
In all fairness, Fr. Kavanaugh, I kind of admire Fr. McDonald for his ability to be moderate while simultaneously taking a stand on issues that ARE black and white. Sure, not every issue IS black and white, but too many issues have been relegated to the nebulous "gray area" and left alone. Sadly, the Church in recent years has nearly "nuanced" itself into irrelevance. The only way the Church will gain its moral relevancy again is to take a stand. Thank God for priests who do.
Of course, I kind of admire you too for being willing to post on this blog and keep taking such a beating from everyone!
Re bishops:
Pope Francis says he doesn't want men of outstanding intellect, and he doesn't want men with ambition. In which case we're going to be left with middle-of-the road, all-things-to-all-people committee men with just about adequate administrative ability.
However, recent episcopal appointments in England have been encouraging, and next month we are being visited by Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke who will speak on the subject of the family and celebrate Mass in the traditional Rite. It is fortuitous that the good Cardinal is now 'without portfolio' and can speak freely. He is an excellent exemplar for our own bishops.
Cletus @ 4:11 is spot on. His observations may always have been true in the historic Church (to a lesser degree perhaps?), but are glaringly and indisputably true now. As Jusad pointed out in another thread, the cataclysm probably erupted around 1964-65 with the whole artificial contraception vs Humanae Vitae encyclical at the exact same time as VII morphed into misguided liturgical (and ecclesial) changes. A perfect storm for questioning the Church and outright rebellion. I know because I was there in college at the time; Neither PI, nor even Fr. McD saw it all first-hand in quite that way.
Good Father - The spelling is Shangri-La, not shangrila.
No, you haven't hit a nerve. You're just being our old, blustery self. Nothing to see here.
Django - There is nothing moderate in Good Father McDonald's assertion that those who disagree with his diagnosis and prescription for correcting problems in the Church have their heads buried in the snow.
Nor is there anything moderate in asserting that those who do not agree with him do not recognize and lament the problems the Church is facing.
Fr. McDonald is a silly hyperbolist.
In the current kerfuffle in San Francisco there is, I think, legitimate concern being expressed regarding the manner in which the Church's teaching has been presented. Note that I do not say there is anything wrong in the Church's teaching, but in the way it is being presented.
Archbishop Cordileone has wisely asked for a reformulation and a representation of the expectations he has of teachers in diocesan schools.
One concern, as you know, involves the proposed designation of teachers as "ministers" of the Church. CBS Bay Area reported on 24 February that that designation would be dropped. The CBS story reads, "The paper reported Cordileone is dropping an effort to designate the teachers as ministers, which would have eliminated them from government-mandated employee protections by placing them solely under church control."
That was, I believe, a legitimate concern. One is left to wonder how a Jewish woman who has taught math in one of the Diocesan schools for 24 years might have properly been designated a "minister" in any case.
Thanks for your admiration. taking heat, as Cletus Ordo notes, is a sign I am doing something right!
"We have a train of lovers heading west from Denver at 45mph, while we have a car of brave, "NOW" rights-supporters traveling north from Los Angeles at 70mph and a mob of evil, "Right-to-Life bigots" from Sacramento heading west at 5mph."
"Which group will arrive at San Francisco's beautiful "pride day" first?"
Certainly that example is over-the-top (I hope) but what what effect would decades of subtle (perhaps unintentional) messages have on students?
We are now seeing the fruits of people who kept asserting "straw man fallacy".
The Straw Man Cometh and he is plowing through the snow.
Maybe Cletus can start his own blog and name the "bad" prelates, in keeping with the civil tone of this blog. Most Catholics like myself don't follow the going-ons of Bishop ABC or DEF in the near 200 dioceses in America. We can go years without seeing a bishop at our parish (confirmation visits often during the week, not on Sundays when most of us are there). Most of our attention focuses on the local parish level...as for San Francisco, talk about being in the Lion's Den---if he hasn't already, their bishop ought to be laying down the law to Nancy Pelosi, one of the worst examples of modern day Catholic politicians.
Yes, Anon @ 6:32 pm, we do mostly focus on our local bishop as well we should. Is he "soft spoken" on the huge issues of our day, or outspoken and "willing to take the heat" for the truth of our faith beliefs. That becomes more and more and more important... Are we going to continue to wrestle with God and His gift of the Church, or are we just gonna float in the inconsequential, lukewarm sea of "I'm OK, you're OK"?
Remind me, please: What does scripture tell the lukewarm?
"The paper reported (Archbishop)Cordileone is dropping an effort to designate the teachers as ministers, which would have eliminated them from government-mandated employee protections by placing them solely under church control."
Wow. The Church would like to have some control over who is teaching and what is being taught in Catholic schools. You've got to be kidding. Seriously, I do think that the teachers should be required to sign a contract where it is agreed that they will not teach anything in the classroom or engage in any public activity or action outside the classroom which contradicts Catholic teaching. Outside of that, they would be afforded every other employee protection available under state and federal law. Parochial schools are not the same as public schools and other than meeting state mandated academic requirements, should not be treated the same.There is a religious freedom aspect to this.
The progressivist Bishops and Cardinals are going to keep on until they get what they want…a Church that welcomes and condones, through pastoral practice, any perversion, any life-style, any humanistically oriented ideology. It is happening right before our eyes with a Pope who tacitly allows it to go on. Meanwhile, devout Catholics stick their heads in the sand…or wherever…and counsel prayer. You know, it is a perversion of prayer to encourage it as a way to avoid confronting the enemies of the Church and taking the risks necessary to rid the Church of the enemies within. I do not believe God blesses such cowardly prayer. I rather like Patton's prayer…maybe it could be adapted to those who are willing to fight for the Church…"…and, if it be thy will that I should die in the service of my country, may I do so bravely and in such a way as to cause the most harm to the enemy as possible." Amen.
George - Declaring teachers to be "ministers" of the Church, which Archbishop Cordileone appears to have backed away from, was an attempt to remove legitimate legal protections from the teachers as a group.
I also see where the USCCB has gone whole hog for the government take over of the internet. No surprise there…as the Church continues to give fuel to the protestant accusation of her being the Great Harlot of Scripture. When will this end…not under Francis, that's for sure.
Generalissimo Gene, what bold risks do you think are necessary to rid the church of its "enemies" (i.e., people who disagree with you) within? Some good old George Patton slap-downs? I say, go to it.
Daniel, your question is too stupid to rate a response.
The problem is unbelief. You don't even know what that is you are so mired in it.
Off your high horse, Geno. An avowed racist like yourself has no business lecturing anybody on belief or church teachings. In fact, while we're wringing our hands about the state of the church, the Hysterical Naysaying Intolerant Cranks (HNIC) like yourself have done more damage and driven away more people than the child molesters. If Christ walked the Earth today, he'd smote you upside the head and tell you you missed the whole point.
Daniel, you have no idea what you are even talking about. Avowed racist? Give me a break.
Post a Comment