Alberta’s Catholic Schools Receive Poor Grades on LGBT Policies

Results from “Making the Grade” report

By Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry, September 18, 2016

Catholic school districts in Alberta received poor grades for their LGBT policies, according to a new report from the organization “Public Interest Alberta.”

Professor Kristopher Wells authored the report, “Making the Grade,” after conducting an analysis of the LGBT policies for four school districts. Wells, who directs the Institute for Sexual Minority Studies and Services at the University of Alberta, studied the Grand Prairie Catholic Schools and the Greater St. Albert Catholic Schools as part of the report. The Edmonton Journal reported further:

“Wells evaluated four policies based on six criteria, including whether it complied with provincial legislation, protected students and staff members’ privacy, and spelled out how schools will support transgender and non-binary people.

“He said shortcomings include apparent restrictions on requesting gay-straight alliances in some Catholic school districts. Grande Prairie and St. Albert Catholic districts both have policies saying the groups will ‘normally’ be established at the Grade 7-to-12 levels, that the principal has to agree to the club’s name, and must approve any material going before the group.

“The report also said some districts did not include protections for students’ families or staff who are gender diverse, and failed to spell out how transgender people will be directed to bathrooms or change rooms, and join sports teams.”

Both Catholic districts received a D, but have pushed back against Wells’ report. Karl Germann, superintendent of Grand Prairie Catholic Schools, said the provincial Ministry of Education had approved its policies on inclusion. Germann said students are “loved and cared for,” in addition to legal compliance. David Keohane, superintendent of Greater St. Alberta Catholic School District, claimed the report was incomplete.

Professor Kristopher Wells

Wells criticized the lack of a unified policy in the province, which makes finding and understanding a given district’s policies on gender and sexuality confusing. He told the Edmonton Journal:

” ‘Unequivocally, any student who walks through any school in this province should be entitled to the same supports, the same resources, the same protections regardless of where they go to school.’ “

Joel French, executive director of Public Interest Alberta, suggested the Ministry of Education post every district’s policies in a central and accessible place.Every school system in Alberta had to submit their LGBT policies for review last March. Thus far, the Ministry and Minister David Eggen have not released which districts have LGBT policies which are legally compliant and which are insufficient.

In related news, the leader of Alberta’s Liberal Party, David Swann, has said school districts which do not meet new LGBTQ standards should potentially have their funding and charters withdrawn. He told CBC:

” ‘The legislation, supported by every provincial party, and the policies set forth by the government, were created to provide kids with the right to be who they are. . .No organization, especially a school, should have the ability to take those rights away.’ “

Swann also said reparative therapy should be banned. His comments come after a Baptist leader said LGBTQ policies should and would be refused as they violate religious freedom.

Disputes about implementing policies supportive of LGBTQ students in Alberta have been ongoing for two years now. All 61 districts in the province submitted draft policies last March, but preceding these submissions there were debates in several Catholic systems. Particularly intense were disputes among the Edmonton Catholic School Board, whose meetings erupted in shouting and eventually necessitated outside mediation.

Alberta’s bishops weighed in, too, with one describing the LGBT guidelines as “totalitarian,” though the bishops eventually met with Minister Eggen. It should also be noted that the Greater St. Albert Catholic School District has spent nearly $400,000 defending its discriminatory firing of transgender teacher Jan Buterman.

The disputes in Alberta have been detrimental to students, faculty, parents, the church, and the wider community. Wells’ failing grades for these two districts may be deserved, but they should not be the case. Catholic education should receive straight A’s when it comes to welcoming and supporting its students–especially LGBTQ students. The good news is that it is never too late to reverse bad policies and renew a commitment to ensuring every student can flourish in Catholic schools.

 

 

Officials Placed on Leave After Catholic School Fired Lesbian Educator

President James Vail

By Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry, September 16, 2016

Top officials at a Catholic high school which fired a lesbian educator have been placed on leave, according to the Archdiocese of Newark, though why this has happened is unclear.

Paramus Catholic High School President James Vail and Principal Stephanie Macaluso were placed on leave Monday amid uncertain circumstances. Archdiocesan spokesperson Jim Goodness only referenced a “personnel matter,” reported NJ.com, and said top archdiocesan education officials would be supervising the school for now.

There is speculation, however, that the removal of Vail and Macaluso may be tied to the firing of lesbian educator Kate Drumgoole. The Record reported that some students suggested Vail and Macaluso had supported the educator against the Archdiocese. Drumgoole was fired last January after an estranged family member leaked to school officials photos of the educator’s wedding to her wife, Jaclyn Vanore.

The Archdiocese may have influenced the decision to fire Drumgoole. Archbishop John Myers is on record supporting the dismissal, saying the educator’s marriage could “create confusion and uncertainty in the moral formation” of students. His Vicar General said the couple’s marriage was “odious.”  But Goodness pushed back against this most recent personnel decision and Drumgoole’s firing, saying, “If you try to link everything together it might not be accurate.”

Christine Robert, a parent at Paramus Catholic, said the handling of this incident “shocked and unnerved” her:

” ‘Once again the archdiocese manages to mismanage a situation and create friction with the very people who spiritually and financially support it. . .All we want is a little respect. We know because of privacy laws that they can’t give details, but give us an idea of what’s going on.’ “

The firing became public in August when Drumgoole filed a lawsuit against the school and archdiocese, and an alumni letter supporting her received more than 3,000 signatures in just a day. Later, Fr. Warren Hall was suspended from priestly ministry in part because of his public support for Drumgoole and LGBT Catholics. They are among the more than 60 church workers who have lost their jobs in LGBT-related employment disputes since 2008.

Like other church worker incidents, the firing at Paramus Catholic has caused divisions in the community and harm to those involved. Commentaries have sharply criticized the school and the archdiocese, pointing out that while the school may be legally exempt from state non-discrimination laws, it is not exempt from the New Testament.

Transparency is a prerequisite for justice and reconciliation to be possible, and placing top administrators on leave without any explanation only hinders that cause. It would be especially tragic if more church workers lose their jobs for defending a peer against unjust discrimination. The Archdiocese of Newark should clearly and publicly explain why President Vail and Principal Macaluso have been placed on leave tor the good of all involved, the Paramus Catholic community, and the credibility of the church.

 

New Catholic School Policies Threaten LGBT Students with Expulsion

There’s not much of the Catholic Catechism’s call for “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” toward LGBT people in Arkansas’ Catholic schools’ new policies which enforce the idea that LGBT youth should remain closeted and quiet.

Directives about LGBT topics are part of changes made this year to the Catholic Schools Policy Manual for the Diocese of Little Rock, which covers the entire state of Arkansas. Regarding sexual orientation, the Manual says:

“Students may not advocate, celebrate, or express same-sex attraction in such a way as to cause confusion or distraction in the context of Catholic school classes, activities, or events. When discussing homosexuality or homosexual inclinations, the use of the term ‘same-sex attraction’ is preferred, as it is a more appropriate description in accordance with the truths of Catholic faith and morals.”

In a section titled “Gender Dysphoria (Transgenderism),” the Manual said students should conduct themselves “in a manner consistent with their biological sex.” Schools will treat students similarly when it comes to restroom use, uniforms, school dances, and more. The Manual continued:

“If a student’s expression of gender, sexual identity, or sexuality should cause confusion or disruption at the school, or if it should mislead others, cause scandal, or have the potential for causing scandal, then the matter will first be discussed with the student and his/her parents. If the issue is not resolved to the satisfaction of the school, whose primary goal must always be to uphold Catholic truths and principles, then the student may be dismissed from the school, after the parents are first given the opportunity to withdraw the student from the school.”

The Manual states that, even if alumni procure legal name changes, any documents will be issued in the following way, “Original Name, n.k.a. New Legal Name” (“n.k.a.” stands for “now known as”) These policies will affect over 6,700 students in the diocese’s 27 Catholic schools, reported THV 11.

The diocese is defending these policies by saying they adhere to church teaching and preserve Catholic identity, but students, alumni, and parents disagree. Katy Simmons, a parent of a student at Catholic High School for Boys, Little Rock, said the Manual “does not convey the message I want my son to learn.” A current student, who remained anonymous, described the Manual as “non-Christ-like and discriminatory” and said the diocese should be “much more merciful about this.”

Recent graduate Tyler Gibbons, a gay student who was part of the first same-gender couple welcomed to Catholic High School for Boys’ prom, said the school was “where [LGBT peers] felt safe” to find who they are and what they seek in life. But that is no longer the case because there is now “fear of being reprimanded by the diocese.”

Sarah Vestal, another alumna of Catholic High School for Boys, told THV 11 she believes that the diocese’s directives are partly responding to her, as she is the school’s first transgender graduate:

” ‘I came out and came back for my 40th high school reunion last year.  So, they had to face me for the first time.’ . . . Vestal said she and Bishop Taylor had ideas about which bathroom she should be allowed to use.  She said Taylor also will not allow her to have a copy of her diploma with her new name. . .Vestal and others said they have spoken to Taylor directly, and he has refused to remove the addendum.”

Tippi McCullough, who was fired in 2013 from Mount St. Mary Academy in Little Rock because she married her wife, said that if the diocese does not “want to bring scandal against your school, then don’t do things that discriminate against children.”

Some Catholic schools have instituted policies which restrict LGBT youth, such as banning same-gender prom dates or using biological sex in official documents. A Catholic high school in Rhode Island even attempted to ban transgender students, though that decision was withdrawn after alumni protested.

But the Arkansas policies seem wholly different in scope and intensity. The Manual explicitly eliminates almost every support that might be offered to LGBT students, and then goes further to stifle students’ expression. Threatening expulsion for students who even “have the potential for causing scandal” is pastorally-insensitive and damaging to student’s development.

These policies were clearly not written by people with expertise in education, adolescent development, LGBT issues, or even church teaching. Admonitions to only use “same-sex attraction” contradicts the pope, who has used the word “gay” when speaking about homosexuality. These policies may be enforcing a set of values, but those values are not Catholic.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Ahead of Labor Day, Archbishop Supports Firing of Lesbian Church Worker

Kate Drumgoole, right, with wife Jaclyn Vanore

Newark’s archbishop has endorsed a Catholic high school’s firing of lesbian educator Kate Drumgoole, even as support for her grows.

Today, Bondings 2.0 focuses on the archbishop’s comments and legal case surrounding Drumgoole’s firing. Tomorrow, we will take up reactions to the firing from Catholics and others in the local community.

Archbishop John Myers said in a statement that Drumgoole’s same-gender marriage to Jaclyn Vanore could “create confusion and uncertainty in the moral formation” of students, reported The Record. He affirmed Paramus Catholic High School’s firing of Drumgoole, which he described as “corrective steps” taken to protect the church’s mission and identity.

Drumgoole, a beloved Dean of Guidance and women’s basketball coach at Paramus Catholic, was fired in January after her wife’s estranged sister sent pictures of the couple to school officials. These photos were not public, according to The Record.

Last month, Drumgoole filed a discrimination lawsuit against the high school and the Archdiocese of Newark. A judge denied Paramus Catholic’s motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds, and the case has now entered a year-long discovery period.

At this point, the case seems to hinge on whether Drumgoole’s work was ministerial in nature , which would exempt the school from state non-discrimination protections. Drumgoole’s lawyers, Eric and Lawrence Kleiner, argue that the educator was not a minister and that Paramus Catholic cannot practice selective portions of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination while dispensing other portions.

To this end, the lawyers will be interviewing school employees whose personal lives contradict church teaching, and yet who have not been fired. This evidence may reveal a “big dichotomy,” they say, showing selective enforcement of church teaching in such a way that discriminates against LGBT people. The Record explained:

” ‘This is a rare case where, in our estimation, based on the paperwork that’s been provided, the defense is not claiming it was a budgetary concern, they replaced somebody because of poor performance. They are openly admitting that same sex led to the determination to terminate her. So this is a direct of discrimination,’ Eric Kleiner said. ‘Which will be attacked directly in discovery.’

“In paperwork filed in the defense motion, a monsignor said he found Drumgoole’s conduct to be ‘odious,’ Eric Kleiner said. ‘Odious is an extremely revolting and repulsive statement. That bespeaks where we’ll be going on discovery.’ “

Eric Kleiner told The Record that Drumgoole’s heroism in seeking justice “will not be muted or diffused or lessened by the extremely harsh and divisive language given by the Archbishop.” Lawrence Kleiner spoke of the division in the Catholic Church on LGBT equality, saying the archbishop was “taking an issue that has already divided its members and turning it into a chasm.” And Drumgoole said the couple was humbled by the support they have received, and that this case was about more than their marriage:

” ‘This is an issue for individuals and families. And not necessarily simply families who have individuals who are gay or who are involved in same-sex marriage. But just individuals who believe in equality and believe that people should be able to love freely — and still be employed where they’re employed.’ “

Many people in the Newark area, and particularly Catholics, have taken interest in this case because of the archbishop’s checkered history.

Mark Crawford, New Jersey state director for the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, told The Record that Myers was “hypocritical” and “backward” because “[h]e’ll protect those clergy he knows abused children yet hold these hard-line positions against people who love each other.”

Alfred P. Doblin,  The Record’s editorial page editor, recalled the case of former priest Michael Fugee to sharpen this contrast. Fugee’s conviction of sexually assaulting a child was overturned only because of a judicial error. Under Myer’s leadership, the priest returned to ministry and even had unsupervised contact with children despite signing a memorandum with the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office to avoid minors.

At the time, Myers said that Fugee’s case had “more grays than black and white,” but Doblin questioned where the grays were and said there was “no consistency in the way Myers has dealt with church employees.” Doblin concluded:

“[Myers] writes, ‘The invitation to join in the life of the Church does not include an invitation to alter or redefine what the Church believes and teaches, nor is it an invitation to allow others to define the identity, mission and message of the Church.’

“How, then, does Myers justify his own past actions? He writes that the church acts only on facts. Only when ‘credible evidence’ comes to the attention of the archdiocese that an employee is violating the tenets of the Catholic faith will there be an investigation and appropriate action. . .

“Myers contorted himself to defend the indefensible: the continued ministry of Michael Fugee when there were more-than-credible allegations that the man was a sexual predator. . .The archbishop’s actions speak louder than his letter.”

The Star-Ledger editorialized further that church leaders who shelter abusive priests are “what really endangers the moral formation of students,” adding:

“Since 75-year-old Myers will not go quietly into the already large, $700,000 weekend house he used $500,000 in church funds to expand into a 7,500 square foot retirement mansion, let’s review the moral foundation it was built on. Not only did Myers refuse to release the names of priests credibly accused of child abuse during his 15-year tenure, like other churches do, he protected some of them personally. . .

“Would Jesus really tell this woman her lifestyle is ‘odious’ because she’s gay, while protecting pedophile priests? If students learn anything from that, it’s bigotry and hypocrisy.”

Myers has a notably negative record on LGBT issues. Last week, he suspended Fr. Warren Hall from priestly ministry, having fired him last year from directing Campus Ministry at Seton Hall University because Hall expressed support for the NOH8 Campaign. Myers released a 2015 memorandum to church ministers saying people in same-gender civil marriages, and even Catholics who support marriage equality, should be denied Communion. He made this same point when New Jersey was debating marriage equality. Thankfully, in both cases, his words were largely ignored.

Tomorrow’s post for Labor Day examine the ways Catholics have responded supportively to the cases of Kate Drumgoole, Fr. Warren Hall, and many other unjustly fired church workers.

For Bondings 2.0‘s full coverage of this story, and other LGBT-related church worker disputes, click the ‘Employment Issues‘ category to the right or here. You can click here to find a full listing of the more than 60 incidents since 2008 where church workers have lost their jobs over LGBT identity, same-sex marriages, or public support for equality.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

Revealing the Potential Harm of the Vatican’s Sex Education Curriculum

Today’s blog post is from New Ways Ministry’s newest staff member, Glen Bradley.  A 2016 graduate of the Jesuit-run Santa Clara University, California, Glen is a member of the Loretto Volunteer Program.  We were delighted to welcome him to the staff last week, and now we are delighted to welcome him as a contributor to this blog.

As Bondings 2.0 reported last week, the Vatican’s new sexual education program (The Meeting Point) inadequately educates youth on sexuality and gender because it does not include LGBTQ inclusive material and instead relies on strong heterosexist and cis-sexist biases–which privilege the lives and experiences of heterosexual people and people whose gender identity/expression conforms to societal norms and with their sex assigned at birth.

The Vatican’s negligent program excludes the reality of LGBTQ people in our world today and poses serious threats to all students–LGBTQ and straight-cisgender alike–by potentially negatively impacting their academic performance, personal development and health.

Some Catholics oppose educating children on LGBTQ people and relationships, believing that doing so would confuse them and harm their development. However, recent educational research shows that an inclusive curriculum does just the opposite. Josh A. Goodman—counseling psychology doctoral candidate at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Huffington Post contributor—pointed out the benefits of inclusion in his article “5 Reasons Schools Should Adopt LGBTQ-inclusive Sex Ed”:

“[LGBTQ inclusive sexual education] teaches about sexual orientation and gender identity as they actually exist. Regardless of a person’s moral views, it is a fact that humans have a diverse array of sexual orientations and gender identities. To only teach about one sexual orientation, to ignore gender minorities, and to suggest that a heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable relationship for sexual activity makes invisible the experiences of LGBTQ people and presents an inaccurate view of human sexuality. If we are to prepare youth of all sexual orientations and gender identities to feel good about their sexuality, make safe and responsible choices involving relationships and sexual activity, and appreciate—or at least tolerate—the gender and sexual diversity of their peers and community members, incorporating LGBTQ topics and perspectives into the curriculum is essential.”

In short, excluding LGBTQ topics from a curriculum teaches a dangerous lie: that either LGBTQ people do not exist or they do not have healthy relationships.

Not only would students at Catholic schools be miseducated on the realities of sexuality and gender, research has found that sexual education excluding LGBTQ identities and relationships create health and development risks. GLSEN’s National School Climate Survey found that LGBTQ children who did not receive LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education programs were

• less likely to feel safe at school, more likely to miss school because they felt unsafe or uncomfortable
• less likely to feel comfortable talking about LGBTQ issues with school personnel
• less likely to be able to identify educators who were supportive of LGBTQ students (GLSEN).

Regardless of the curriculum, LGBTQ children are already negatively affected by LGBTQ-phobia from their peers and the adults at school. According to The Southern Poverty Law Center’s resource guide Best Practices: Creating an LGBT-inclusive School Climate:

“LGBT students report being harassed at school–both verbally and physically–at twice the rate of non-LGBT youth. With heightened stressors like bullying, harassment and a lack of role models, LGBT students are also more likely to experience negative educational outcomes.”

A non-inclusive curriculum sends a brutal message: that the school does not fully support and value their LGBTQ students.

Other research has found that LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education is an effective way of reducing LGBTQ-phobia in schools. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States released guidelines saying,

“Most importantly for LGBTQ youth, comprehensive sex education provides factual, non-stigmatizing information on sexual orientation and gender identity as a part of human development and teaches youth to respect LGBTQ people with messages like ‘Making fun of people for not acting the way society expects them to based on their biological sex [sic.] is disrespectful and hurtful’ and ‘People deserve respect regardless of who they are attracted to.’

Furthermore, lowered LGBTQ-phobia from inclusive sexual education has been effective in reducing mental health problems and improving academic performance. A new report found that students with LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education had increased academic performance because they were less likely to report harassment and more likely to feel safe at school. The same research found that while inclusive curriculums in other subjects also contributed to higher academic performance because of decreased abuse and mental health problems, but that inclusive sexual education classes had the greatest impact with regard to school climate.

Very importantly, research has shown that inclusive sexual education does not only benefit LGBTQ students. GLSEN revealed positive outcomes for both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ students in a report saying that an inclusive curriculum

“. . .would benefit not only LGBT youth, but also provide non-LGBT youth with an opportunity to dispel myths about issues of sexual orientation and gender and broaden their understanding about LGBT peoples and communities.”

Similarly, decreased LGBTQ-phobia in schools improves the health and development of all students. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s resource guide states:

“Creating a supportive environment for LGBT students improves educational outcomes for all students, not just those who may identify as LGBT. And remember, it’s not about politics—it’s about supporting students. Any educator, regardless of his personal beliefs, can be a resource for LGBT students.”

Research has also quantified the positive effects of Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) and anti-homophobic policies on heterosexual boys, finding that “heterosexual boys were half as likely to attempt suicide as those in schools without GSAs” and “heterosexual boys [at schools with anti-homophobic policies that have been in place for more than three years] had 27% lower odds of suicidal thoughts than heterosexual boys in schools without.”

While Catholic schools certainly need GSAs and LGBTQ-supportive policies to combat LGBTQ-phobia in schools, inclusive sexual education is a place to start. GLSEN’s A Call To Action report says LGBTQ-inclusive sexual education is, “a logical venue to help young people learn about identity and encourage acceptance for LGBTQ people and families.”

An inclusive sexual education program for our church would properly educate our children on the realities of LGBTQ people in our world today, while improving students’ mental health, reducing suicide and improving academic performance. Sadly, our Church leaders have not done this in The Meeting Point. The result is a sexual education program that can be very dangerous. But instead of responding with despair, we can use this opportunity as a rallying cry to work to save our children from the dangers of an inadequate curriculum, which has potential for so much damage.

Perhaps the authors of The Meeting Point gave us the analytical test we need when evaluating their curriculum. They quote Rev. Servais-Théodore Pinckaers, O.P., on truth:

“Without the truth, there is neither happiness nor lasting love” (Contents6.0_Educator, page 6).

The first step toward justice is in our ability to seek, see, and reveal the truth to others. The Meeting Point is anything but truthful with regard to sexual and gender realities, realities that include LGBTQ identities and relationships. In this disillusionment, we find neither truth nor love, yet it is our duty as faithful followers of Christ to now bring both to our children and our church.

–Glen Bradley New Ways Ministry

Vatican’s Sex Ed Curriculum Gets Low Grade for LGBT Topics

A curriculum for youth sex education has been released by the Vatican, and while it provides a more holistic approach to sexuality, some glaring omissions make it dangerous material for LGBT young people.

For heterosexual cisgender* young people, the Vatican’s new sex education curriculum, entitled “The Meeting Point: Course of Affective Sexual Education for Young People,” offers healthy approaches and guidelines for personal integration and development.  Absent from this document, however, is any mention of similar guidelines that will help  lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth understand their own unique and holy experiences of sexuality and gender. [*Editor’s note:  “cisgender” refers to people whose self-identity conforms with the gender that corresponds to their biological sex.]

If this program is used in schools and parishes, it will send a damaging message of silence and invisibility to LGBT youth at very vulnerable points in their lives.  The material sends the message that they are not considered by the church, not welcome, and, worst of all, that they do not even exist.

Because the curriculum assumes heterosexuality as the only valid form of love, and because it assumes that gender is definitively binary and assigned to individuals based on sex (male/female), this material will instill shame, fear, and self-hatred in LGBT young people who are taught from it.   Such negative feelings lead to depression, anxiety, addiction, self-harm, and, tragically, even suicide.

Some examples of the deficiencies in the document include:

In suggestions to the religious education teacher, the document includes the following statements:

• “The step before falling in love is feeling attracted to a person of the opposite sex.”
• “Choosing our boyfriend/girlfriend. This is another step in which they have to mature, opening themselves up to what is most difficult – to that which is different -, discovering reciprocity and heterosexuality.”
• ‘Two ways of existing as a person: The body and soul constitute the unified corporeal-spiritual totality that is the human person. But this totality necessarily exists in the form of a man or of a woman. There is no other possibility than this for the existence of the human person. . . .Our very anatomical traits, as an objective expression of this masculinity or femininity, are endowed with an objectively transcendent significance: they are called to be a visible manifestation of the person.”
• “The duality of the sexes affirms the axiological meaning of sexuality: man is for woman, woman is for man, and parents are for their children . The sexual difference indicates this reciprocal complementarity, and is oriented toward communication: toward feeling, expressing and living out human love, opening oneself to a greater fulfillment.”

Additionally, the document incorrectly refers to “pansexualism” as occurring when “happiness becomes confused with the greatest amount and duration of pleasures.” In the scientific community, the word refers to “the belief that a sexual instinct drives all human behavior.” With regard to an identity, “pansexual” describes “the sexual attraction, romantic love, or emotional attraction toward people regardless of their sex or gender identity.”

What makes this curriculum even more disappointing is that there are actually some good, broad approaches to other aspects of sexuality which would be good for LGBT young people to apply to their lives.  The document discusses areas including the idea that sexuality is far more than sexual activity, the various dimensions of human relationships, the importance of respecting the human dignity of others and of self,  the ways to integrate emotions into one’s life, the proper exercise of freedom, the importance of developing healthy relationships, the place of morality in making decisions about relationships, and many others.  These are lessons important to all young people.  However, since the material has a bias for heterosexuality and the gender binary, it is likely that these valuable messages will not get through to LGBT youth, who will likely feel themselves excluded from this conversation.

Likewise heterosexual and cisgender youth also lose if LGBT issues are not included, as they are deprived of a wealth of information about human development.  Such information could most readily be of use to this group if students if they have an LGBT friend or relative.

The fact that several secular sex education experts have praised it, and that a number of ultra-conservative Catholics have condemned it, may be the best evidence that there are some good ideas in this new approach.  For instance, Cleveland.com reported:

Seattle’s Tina Schermer Sellers, author of an upcoming book titled “Sex, God & the Conservative Church – Erasing Shame from Sexual Intimacy,” praised the new curriculum’s departure from teachings that were “ineffective and often hurtful,” including scare tactics, and presentation of God as unforgiving, unloving and damning.

Sellers said programs that couple sex education with a framework of values – as the new Vatican program does – help young people “make better sexual choices, get involved sexually later and have more satisfying sexual lives later in life.”

Indeed, it is commendable that there are no explicit condemnations of LGBT people in this curriculum.  Such would not have been the case even five years ago. This development shows that the Church is changing.  But, LGBT Catholics and their allies cannot be satisfied simply with the absence of condemnations. And our church’s leaders need to recognize the damage done by avoiding LGBT people in discussions of gender and sexuality.  In many places around the globe, these issues are discussed daily in mass media and ordinary conversation.  Young people, in particular, are acutely aware of these realities.  The silence about LGBT issues in this curriculum will speak loudly–and negatively–to young people.

If the Vatican wants to truly be comprehensive in their approach to sexuality, which this curriculum is one step towards being, Church leaders need to be pro-active in humanely addressing the experiences, lives, and relationships of LGBT people, and to affirm their holiness.

–Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry

Related posts:

Global Pulse:  “Vatican launches sex ed website”

Cruxnow.com: “Vatican issues its own sex ed guidelines”

 

 

 

 

3,000+ Sign Letter Protesting Catholic School’s Firing of Lesbian Educator

Kate Drumgoole, left, with wife, Jaclyn Vanore

Thousands of alumni and others have organized against a Catholic school’s decision to fire lesbian educator Kate Drumgoole.

In just 24 hours, more than 3,000 Paramus Catholic High School alumni and school supporters signed an open letter calling upon school officials to apologize to Drumgoole, who was the head of the guidance department and basketball coach, and implement LGBT non-discrimination protections. The letter opened:

“We, the alumni of Paramus Catholic, are devastated that you have terminated Dean Kate Drumgoole’s employment because of her same-sex marriage. We are disappointed that, by abandoning Kate Drumgoole, you have abandoned the pride that we share in our diversity. . .

“At Paramus Catholic, our community was diverse in race, ethnicity, nationality, religious and spiritual affiliation, biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, sexual attraction, romantic attraction, language, socioeconomic background, age, and ability—whether or not we were thoughtful and patient enough as adolescents to appreciate diversity as we do now.”

The signers, organized under “Concerned Alumni of Paramus Catholic High School,” said the firing will “perpetuate misinformed hate against individuals on the basis of their gender and sexuality” and deny LGBT students “a psychologically safe learning environment.” These Concerned Alumni include signatories from every graduating class dating back to the school’s founding in 1969.

The letter ends with a series of requests from Paramus administrators to rectify the injustice done to Drumgoole in some way. These requests include formal apologies to the fired educator and to the school’s students, along with the adoption of comprehensive non-discrimination policies for staff and students alike, and diversity trainings for the school’s community. If you are connected to the school and interested in adding your name to the letter, click here.

In related news, New Jersey Superior Court Judge Lisa Perez Friscia denied a motion by the school to dismiss Drumgoole’s discrimination lawsuit which Bondings 2.0 reported on Monday. The judge’s decision said a more extended discovery process was necessary, reported The Record, to determine “whether Drumgoole worked in a ministerial capacity and whether the dispute is secular or ecclesiastical.” If Drumgoole is considered a minister, it may allow the school to claim a religious exemption from state non-discrimination protections under the First Amendment.

Paramus Catholic officials fired Drumgoole in January because she had married her wife, Jaclyn Vanore, two years earlier. Their marriage came to light after Venore’s sister submitted pictures of the couple to Paramus Catholic social media pages and school president James P. Veil, following a family dispute.

By all accounts, Dean Kate Drumgoole was a respected and beloved member of the school community. With more than 3,000 signatures and growing on the alumni letter, Paramus Catholic officials will hopefully recognize the error of their decision and seek reconciliation.

For Bondings 2.0‘s full coverage of this story, and other LGBT-related church worker disputes, click the ‘Employment Issues‘ category to the right or here. You can click here to find a full listing of the more than 60 incidents since 2007 where church workers have lost their jobs over LGBT identity, same-sex marriages, or public support for equality.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

 

In Wake of Student’s Suicide, Catholic Parents Call for Safe Schools

Daniel Fitzpatrick

Catholic parents of LGBT children are expressing their sorrow over a teenager’s suicide in New York, as well as their commitment to ensuring Catholic education is safe for all students.

Daniel Fitzpatrick died by suicide on August 11, having faced intense bullying from classmates at Holy Angels Catholic Academy in Brooklyn. He left a note in which Fitzpatrick said, “I gave up. The teachers didn’t do anything. . .I wanted to get out.”

The Board of Fortunate Families, an organization by and for Catholic parents of LGBT children, released a statement on Monday saying it was “saddened to hear” about Fitzpatrick’s death:

“We on the board of Fortunate Families are painfully aware that any child who is badgered and bullied is at greater risk for isolation, marginalization, depression, and sadly, suicide. Catholic Social Teaching holds that all of our children are persons who deserve life, dignity, respect and the freedom to live their potential to the fullest. All our children deserve to be educated in environments that embody that social teaching.”

A board member who lost a child to suicide acknowledged that suicide is the second leading cause of death in young adults and that suicides are deeply painful for the families and communities left behind. As they bury their son and brother, the Fitzpatrick family is considering, too, how to end bullying. A crowdfunding page which sought to raise money for unexpected funeral expenses has now raised more than $120,000. The family said they wish to use these funds to “give Daniel a proper memorial, as well as shine a bright light on the bullying that killed him. . .and allow for his legacy to live on.”

The student’s father, Daniel Fitzpatrick, posted a heart-wrenching video to Facebook. He spoke lovingly about his son, and affirmed his own commitment to intervene against bullying if he encounters it, including against LGBT youth:

“No parent should have to bury their child. No child should have to go through what my son went through. . .Bullying unfortunately is an epidemic. It ain’t right. . .If I ever see any child in my life from now on and I witness them and I see doesn’t matter if its boy, girl, straight, bi, transgender now. If they’re bullied, I will knock them out.”

Though Fitzpatrick did not identify as an LGBT person as far as anyone knew (he was bullied about his weight and his grades), his death is a moment for Catholic educators to reflect on the myriad ways in which schools are made unsafe. This includes problems for students of diverse sexual and gender identities, and students who may be questioning their identities. The Fortunate Families Board continued:

“We call on all involved in Catholic education to re-double efforts to prevent bullying and assist each child to reach their full potential, regardless of physical attributes, academic achievements or other characteristics which may make a student seem ‘different.’

“Although too late for Daniel, we are glad to see that the Brooklyn Diocese is re-examining its bullying prevention policies and training, and we pray that these also apply to students bullied because of their gender identity or sexual orientation.”

Catholic education intends to form young people through faith to live flourishing lives, and to live authentically as themselves in service to others. As such, the church’s educational ministries should be sanctuaries for young people to come to know themselves, discern deep questions, and feel God’s love. Mercy and inclusion should be the hallmarks of every Catholic school. Earlier this week, educator Kevin Welbes Godin of Egale Canada wrote about the work Ontario’s teachers have done to create safer Catholic schools for LGBT students.

That good work is happening elsewhere, but is not widespread enough yet, and it is not happening quickly enough. As another school year begins, and we pray for Daniel Fitzpatrick and his family, let us each consider how we – as parents, as students, as teachers, as alumni, and as the faithful – might contribute so that Catholic education is safer and more inclusive of all God’s children.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

 

California’s SB 1146 Raises Tough Questions for Catholic Education

Senator Ricardo Lara

Because of opposition from church leaders and others, a Catholic legislator in California withdrew portions of an education bill that would have eliminated religious exemptions from state non-discrimination laws.

Democratic State Senator Ricardo Lara will introduce SB 1146 this week without a clause eliminating non-discrimination exemptions for religious schools, reported Crux. Exemptions are currently in place, but if the bill had passed in its original form, all institutional recipients of Cal Grant funding, state education aid which helps low-income students, would have been required to have non-discrimination policies inclusive of LGBT people.

In its current form, the bill will still mandate reporting on whether institutions have received exemptions from federal Title IX protections and whether students had been expelled for violating morality codes.

Several religious leaders, including Catholic Archbishop José Gomez of Los Angeles, had opposed the earlier version of SB 1146. Gomez authored a Crux op-ed with Pentecostal leader, Bishop Charles Blake,  suggesting the bill would violate religious liberty. A handful of Christian schools organized under the newly-formed Association of Faith-Based Institutions. These schools were primarily concerned with the Cal Grant funding provision. Conservative groups nationally have weighed in against the bill, too, fearful this type of legislation would spread nationally.

But opponents do not speak for all religious people in the state. Senator Lara, the bill’s sponsor, is himself an openly gay Catholic. He posted an explanation of his actions on Facebook:

“As a gay Catholic man, nobody has the right to dictate how I worship or observe my religion. And no university should have a license to discriminate, especially those receiving state funds. That’s why I will update my bill to ensure that Title [IX] universities disclose their exempt status publicly and require that universities notify the California Student Aid Commission if a student has been expelled due to their moral conduct clauses. These provisions represent critical first steps in the ongoing efforts to protect students from discrimination for living their truths or loving openly.

SB 1146 raises challenging questions about how to adjudicate the non-discrimination of LGBT people and the protection of religious liberty.  In The Atlantic, Alan Noble warned against absolutizing either of these values.  He called for a solution which allows a “thick diversity” in the United States so that all can flourish:

“No response to these scenarios [of LGBT students at religious schools] can erase all the conflicts and heartbreak between students, families, and academic communities, but through a model of communication, mutual respect, and dignity, schools can create a healthier environment for everyone.

“Both conservatives and liberals tend to approach the issue in absolute and uncompromising terms, but there ways to resolve this conflict that will allow for both religious freedom and protections for LGTB students while minimizing further litigation. By increasing transparency about Title IX exemptions and codes of conduct, easing the transfer process for students who cannot abide by the codes of conduct, and taking a strict stance on bullying and abuse, religious schools can retain their distinctive mission while protecting students.”

Noble made a point that cannot be forgotten in these debates. He noted that “[m]ost students voluntarily select . . . colleges because they want to be educated in a community that shares their values. . .they tend to be motivated by the centrality of their faith to their identity.”

Instead of legal battles, which may ensue anyway, religious institutions could reform themselves so they might better protect LGBT students. Noble said schools should clearly advertise what kind of community they uphold. He also wants the government to provide equal funding to students who choose religious schools which may have religious and exceptions.  His final hope was::

“. . . [R]eligious schools should help students who enroll and later decide they can no longer attend in good conscience. These students should be able to transfer to another school with the administrative, emotional, and practical support of the religious school. In addition, religious schools must be vigilant about dealing with bullying and abuse and create an environment in which students who have suffered feel safe to report these incidents without fear of expulsion or retribution. Many religious schools are working toward these kinds of practices; the challenge for all of them is to go beyond policies and rhetoric to ensure the safety of all students.”

This type of work has already been undertaken by many Catholic schools, particularly in higher education and particularly in California. Reading through the “Campus Chronicles” series on this blog, one sees the many efforts that students, staff, and administrators are making to not only welcome LGBT community members, but to support hem too. Though religious exemptions are available to them, many Catholic institutions have chosen freely to implement non-discrimination policies protective of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and/or marital status. More religious institutions should follow this model, appealing to faith values of inclusion and justice, rather than waiting for the State to impose inclusion.

SB 1146 may be voted on by the end of August. Whatever the outcome, the questions surrounding it are sure to continue in California and elsewhere.

–Bob Shine, New Ways Ministry

 

 

In Ontario, Catholic Teachers Pave the Way for LGBTQ Inclusion

Kevin Welbes Godin

Today’s post is by guest blogger Kevin Welbes Godin.

For the past four years, I have served as Equity and Diversity Coordinator at Egale Canada, a national LGBTIQ2S equality organization.  My work has primarily been with the Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association (OECTA), the world’s largest Catholic teachers’ union, helping them to better serve their LGBT students.

While the slogging is still tough in Catholic schools, definite gains are being made for LGBTQ youth.  Egale Canada has faithfully supported the training of Catholic teachers and has touted this service as “one of a kind” in the world.  Contrary to what some conservative Catholics may think, many members of the LGBTQ community have been supportive of the work Catholic teachers are doing to create safer and accepting schools for LGBTQ students.

Many Catholics, including myself, still expect our Catholic hierarchy to lead. After all, it is a bishop’s role to teach. Many educated, concerned Catholics have questioned local Catholic authorities as to why there is such a roaring silence that plays into structural homo/bi/transphobia in schools.  Perhaps Church overseers are choosing to be silent toward our LGBTQ brothers and sisters because they see the rest of us so willing to take the lead?  Even if unconsciously, I wonder if the spirit of Vatican II is swirling in the minds of episcopal gents as many Catholics refuse to let stubborn, rigid language and rules ruin and even take people’s lives?   It would be good to hear from our Bishop-teachers, though, right?   They still exercise the power when they choose to.

Ontario Catholic teachers have resoundingly told me that LGBTQ inclusion–creating safer schools and curriculum–is a priority.  OECTA members participated in Egale Canada’s “Every Teacher Project.”  Have a look at the report by clicking here.  This research tells a good story of where Catholic educators want the Catholic school system to move.  Here are some of the key findings:

What the classroom teacher sees as a need, doesn’t always get reflected as a priority for a  school board.

Religious schools are often assumed to be sites that are hostile to LGBTQ-inclusive education, but educators from Catholic schools were only slightly less likely to approve of LGBTQ-inclusive education (83% vs. 85% of respondents from secular schools), and slightly more likely to be opposed to it (6% vs. 4%). This suggests that the relationship between educators’ perspectives on the issue and the official perspectives of their schools is not a straightforward one.

Catholic teachers want to do the job of LGBTQ inclusion, but…

 Educators from Catholic schools were much less likely to feel comfortable discussing LGBTQ issues with their students (57%) than those from secular schools (76%), even though, as noted earlier, they were almost as likely to approve of LGBTQ-inclusive education (83% vs. 85%). This suggests that their discomfort has more to do with their school context than with their personal values.

Teachers know what they need and the kind of leadership necessary to support their work with LGBTQ inclusion.

 When asked why they did not practice LGBTQ-inclusive education, very few Catholic school educators cited their own religious beliefs. Their biggest reason for not practicing LGBTQ-inclusive education was insufficient training (29% vs. 17% from secular schools), followed by fear-based reasons concerning lack of leadership.

Even without leadership, Catholic teachers are boldly standing in solidarity with their LGBTQ students. Among their accomplishments:

Many Catholic schools have established Ontario’s legislated Gay-Straight Alliances (GSA).

Recently, I was invited to a Catholic high school assembly that openly proclaimed the need to be more inclusive of its LGBTQ students and staff.  While the chaplain prophetically spoke gospel truth to institutional power, students rallied and advocated for a school GSA, and the school administrators led the line in signing the rainbow flag.

Catholic student leaders keep the system accountable.

Across the province of Ontario, I’ve seen courageous student leaders, fueled by a deep passion, and tired of being invisible, raise their voices to challenge lackadaisical Catholic school boards. They urge these boards to support  LGBTQ students and keep them safe.  Catholic student trustees continue to make LGBTQ inclusion a priority on their school boards.

Many OECTA local units, especially the Toronto Secondary Unit, stand in solidarity with LGBTQ members.

Marching in Pride parades, advocating for LGBTQ member human rights, and speaking strongly to other Catholic partners all need to continue.  The time has arrived, and sitting on our hands and exercising a complicit silence can no longer be the norm if Catholic schools in Ontario are to viably speak to its students and teachers and remain authentic to the gospel mandate to love.

All sorts of resources and new social and cultural initiatives have been added to schools.

School libraries showcase books on diverse families (same-sex families). School hallways advertise pink shirt days and safe space initiatives.  A Catholic high school outside Toronto crowned Prom-Queens!  Rainbow flags are expressly being waved inside and outside schools.  These and more continue to be signs that LGBTQ inclusion is countering the nervous, nibbled-knee responses that have darkened the Spirit in the past.

Catholic teachers have recognized the “signs of the times” and are acting accordingly, and quickly, to support the dignity and well-being of LGBTQ students.  The problem is with those who wait, doing nothing,  while the suicide rate of LGBTQ youth is four times the average.  Gratitude is to those who take the prophetic, bold steps to seize the moment and stand with the most vulnerable.

Courage will still be needed to stand in the face of hate, and dignity will be needed to sway those who prefer a splintered community.   As we forge ahead, let us raise each other up, stand arm in arm, and wholehearted welcome the part of the Body of Christ that is LGBTQ.

Yes, the slogging still remains tough, but as Canadian singer Bruce Cockburn said, “nothing worth happening comes without some kind of fight.”  Continue on… there’s no turning back now.

–Kevin Welbes Godin