Investment Strategies in Catholic Education Should Seek More than Profits

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

 

Catholic nonprofits—including colleges, schools, and other entities—need a more complete moral framework for investing their funds, looking beyond the profit motive to also avoiding evil and doing good. Catholic moral investing can be complex, and so it requires the help of experts in both ethics and finance who understand the demands of Catholic teaching. 

As Catholics, we believe that everything that we have comes as gifts from a loving Creator. He asks us to use them for His greater glory. In Matthew 22:36-40, Jesus tells us how to do so: we are to follow the two Great Commandments. It is clear from Jesus’ insistence that we do this “with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength” and that everything in our lives is to be included. 

Jesus also makes it clear that we are not to bury our talents (Luke 19:11-27). Those talents should include both senses of the term: our monetary resources and our God-given abilities. Neither our resources nor our abilities are for our own enrichment or aggrandizement. They are to be used for His greater glory. They are to be used to live out the two Great Commandments. 

Accepting the reality that all that we have is really on loan, we can more readily focus on what Our Lord wants us to do with His gifts. So now we must begin the difficult work of applying our mind and will to determining the most prudent way to do so. With humble reliance on His grace, we seek to balance justice and mercy, proximate and remote needs, risk and reward, cost and benefit, deliberation and decisiveness, confidence and humility, etc. 

Material Realities, Spiritual Significance 

Angels have the luxury of an immaterial existence, but men do not. Therefore, God has charged us from the days in the Garden until the Last Judgement to sanctify ourselves in a material world. That world has grown more complex, as it has moved from the good and evil of an apple on a Tree to the good and evil of an Apple in your phone. One unfortunate example of today’s complexity is the ubiquitous presence of pornography. Since the abolishment in 1968 of the Hollywood Code on morality in motion pictures and the 1973 Supreme Court case redefining obscenity (Miller v. California), companies’ direct and indirect involvement in pornography has exploded. 

In simpler times, living out justice and mercy could be largely achieved through a code of conduct evidenced in the Torah. Jesus supplemented the Ten Commandments with the Beatitudes. As the Church’s Magisterium developed the spiritual and corporal works of mercy and the growing body of social teaching, the need for prudent judgment regarding material affairs has increased dramatically. In finance, as in human conduct generally, the concrete application of the Beatitudes requires much more study and analysis than the simpler application of the prohibitions of the Ten Commandments. As an example, it can be easier to avoid investing in companies that manufacture abortifacients than it is to identify investment opportunities that “bless the merciful.” 

Much has been studied and written regarding the criteria for making judgments about economic systems, and St. John Paul II and Pope Francis have written extensively about the need for employers to emphasize the person over profit. However, there remains much more to be considered about the application of these Great Commandments to the financial affairs of individuals and nonprofit institutions. For Catholics and Catholic institutions with monetary talents, a proper formation of mind and will is critical. 

Investing for Profit, with Integrity, for the Common Good 

As a general rule, Catholic nonprofit institutions in this country seem to have taken a rather secular approach to these issues. The maxim for investments has been: “Get good portfolio returns and use them to advance our mission.” Does that sound like it is infused with the two Great Commandments? 

For a long while, it seemed there was little attention to moral considerations on both how invested money is used and how the money is made. Somehow the principle that “the end does not justify the means” was lost. What moral/ethical concerns have emerged on Wall Street have been very much a mixed bag, with the current focus on ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing. A classic example is the popular focus on protecting the environment; that can be an important good, but without a proper moral perspective, it can lead to such evils as population control. 

Endowments, foundations, and retirement savings should be vigorously reviewed on the basis of the avoidance of evil and the promotion of good — a commitment to both the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes. Just as many Catholics prayerfully protest abortion clinics and also promote pregnancy centers, the same avoidance of evil and promotion of good should be applied to portfolios. If the managers of labor union pension funds can have strong enough conviction to do business only with those that support “the working man” and refuse to do business with those that do not, our Catholic principles demand an even more deliberate strategy. 

The common tool for the avoidance of evil in a portfolio has been the utilization of “screening services,” by which specific violators are excluded from the portfolio, such as pharmaceutical companies that manufacture or distribute abortifacients. Unfortunately, the screen is only as good as the data available. In addition, very few consultants are familiar with the criteria used by the screening service: Is a company screened based on revenues or earnings or charitable gifts? What percent of revenues, earnings, or charitable gifts warrants disqualification? Does every drugstore chain get disqualified if it dispenses certain drugs? Is there any “offset” for the good that the store provides in making legitimate medicines available to the sick? 

These deliberations can be tricky, as numerous prudential decisions need to be made on a variety of investments. For those decisions to be fully informed, a blend of investment expertise and moral theology needs to be applied. Rarely is the investment committee of a Catholic institution comprised of members with the requisite blend of expertise. Even worse, investment consultants are often hired who also lack such expertise. As the Gospel warns us: “If a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14). 

The avoidance of evil should also extend to the asset managers, investment consultants, attorneys, and other professionals hired by the Catholic institution. If employees are expected to be practicing Catholics who are faithful to the Magisterium, why would compensation in the form of fees be paid to anyone who does not meet that description? What a scandal to pay fees to someone, who then uses some of that income to advance organizations diametrically opposed to the Catholic faith! While it would be nice if everyone did the right thing because it is the right thing to do, many times we do the right thing because of the negative consequences of doing the wrong thing. Insisting that every service provider align with the principles of the institution can be a concrete opportunity for evangelization. 

A Teachable Moment 

It would be wonderful if Catholic institutions could provide serious leadership on these issues by consulting with experts in moral theology and experts in finance. Catholic nonprofits need concrete criteria based on experience with screening services and asset management across various asset classes. The criteria need to be supported by a careful application of Catholic moral theology. For example, how does the First Commandment bear on portfolio growth goals? Is there a point at which pursuing a larger and larger endowment becomes the pursuit of “a strange god?”

While there is significant research to indicate that a morally screened portfolio does not necessarily lead to reduced market performance, questions of potential return shortfalls (short term and/or long term) should be considered. Is there a consensus on Proverbs 16:8, “Better a little with justice, than a large income with injustice”? 

Just as the Ten Commandments are a wonderful guide to the avoidance of evil, so the Beatitudes are a wonderful guide to the promotion of good. As human experience demonstrates, prohibitions are easier to enact than commitments to pursue the good, the true, and the beautiful. Still the followers of Jesus should not settle for less, just because it is more difficult. Catholic nonprofit investment committees should be willing to spend the time and energy to wrestle with these challenges on a regular basis. Achieving acceptable rates of return while avoiding evil is commendable but insufficient. We are called to both hate the sin and love the sinner. 

Here are some simple initial steps that might be taken to implement these commitments: 

  • Ensure that employee retirement plans include some Catholic values-screened mutual fund options (there are various fund providers available). 
  • Ensure that the investment management consultant on the endowment portfolio has specific expertise on these issues and has a robust professional practice concentrated in Catholic institutions. 
  • Form an ad hoc committee of the board of directors to review all service providers contracted with the institution to verify commitment to the teachings of the Magisterium. (Student interns can be a convenient source of assistance for such research.) 

Ultimately, a commitment to “Catholic morally responsible investing” is a call to accepting the reality of natural moral law and the truth of Catholic moral principles. Investing in companies that ultimately kill their customers are clearly bad investments: abortion kills the child, and pornography kills the man. Investments in businesses that promote what is good in man’s nature should prosper with proper corporate management. Of course, all of this requires professional investment expertise, but it also requires an unrelenting passion for aligning talents with the two Great Commandments. 

There is no one moral theologian who has all the answers, just as there is no one asset management company that has all the answers. An enormous amount of prayer, study, discussion, and analysis needs to be done. It is worth the effort. The impact can be enormous. 

It is now estimated that over one third of all investment assets under management are managed with some kind of socially responsible screening. As these policies grow in influence on Wall Street, they will have a tremendous impact on endowment portfolios and retirement plans. Will these policies foster a culture of life or detract from it? The answer is dependent upon how vigorously Catholic institutions commit to morally responsible investing. Ten talents could turn into ten cities. 

 

 

J. Patrick Kearns joined Morgan Stanley as a Senior Investment Management Consultant in 2014 and now serves as an Investing with Impact Director. He began his career on Wall Street in 1977, after graduating magna cum laude from the University of Notre Dame with a B.A. degree in Finance and Business Economics. Prior to joining Morgan Stanley, he founded Fulcrum Advisory Services, Inc. and Fulcrum Securities, LLC. in 2003. He has spent a majority of his past 40 years in the financial services industry managing branch offices and maintaining key client accounts for firms such as Smith Barney, Merrill Lynch, and Prudential Securities. As a former branch manager, he successfully supervised and guided more than 500 professional investment advisors who were responsible for more than 250,000 client accounts. Kearns has earned the distinguished designation of Certified Investment Management Analyst® (CIMA®) from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania and continues to attend advanced training programs on critical aspects of the securities industry. He serves on the boards of several charitable organizations, including The Cardinal Newman Society. 

 

Promoting Employee Faithfulness in the Face of Increasing Employment Regulation and an Increasingly Hostile Culture – A Guide for Cardinal Newman Society Institutions 

/in , /by

(Click here for Copy of the Guide) 

 

On June 15, 2020, in Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Georgia, 140 S. Ct. 1731 (2020), the U.S. Supreme Court found that sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) discrimination were encompassed by “sex” discrimination in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).  

While Bostock was important, thirty-two states and the District of Columbia had previously adopted statutes protecting SOGI rights before the Supreme Court’s decision. These dramatic shifts, adopted at lightning speed compared to the laws’ ordinary pace of change, have created new questions and ambiguities that necessitate care and preparation by all institutions that seek to remain faithful. 

This decision presents unique challenges to educational institutions that exist to integrate their Catholic faith and beliefs in all aspects of education and student formation, from academics to activities to relationships outside the classroom. As a result, The Cardinal Newman Society asked Samuel W. Diehl and Sharon A. Rose of the Cross Castle law firm to provide the guide, “Promoting Employee Faithfulness in the Face of Increasing Employment Regulation and an Increasingly Hostile Culture” to assist with this work.  

The objective of this Guide is to provide Catholic institutions with a better understanding of the current statutory and regulatory frameworks that may impact their right to hire and fire employees based on faith, and practical tools and strategies to avoid lawsuits and government investigations and to extricate themselves quickly in the event an employment dispute arises.  

The Guide proceeds in three parts. Part I sets out the pertinent federal equal employment statutes and exemptions and discusses state and local employment law and retaliation statutes. Part II describes the exceptions from discrimination statutes mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Part III provides strategies and best practices to strengthen faithfulness within an institution in order to minimize legal risk. 

The Guide is focused on employee issues related to hiring, retention, and termination and does not address penumbral issues to religious employment, such as tax issues related to housing allowance or social security elections, employee benefits, or joint employment issues. 

It is important to note that this Guide attempts to provide helpful suggestions regarding certain, limited legal issues. However, its brief length and general nature should prevent any reader from relying on these suggestions for legal advice concerning any specific facts or circumstances. Readers should consult a qualified lawyer concerning specific legal questions and issues that arise. 

Click here for a pdf of the Guide.  

Evangelizing Families Through Catholic School Admissions

/in , /by

Don Bosco, one of the Church’s greatest educator saints, welcomed Turin’s poor and delinquent boys to his Oratorio—but only if they committed to receiving Catholic formation and refraining from behavior that would scandalize other students.

Although he was eager to bring the Catholic faith to boys on the peripheries, Bosco nevertheless turned away or dismissed those who would not repent of immoral behavior and presented an ongoing bad influence on others. He was renowned both for his kindness and for his discipline, always with primary concern for the ultimate good of the boys under his care—and even for those who were excluded, with hope for eventual repentance and reconciliation with God.

The oratory’s admissions policy, then, was at once welcoming to all and uncompromising in its expectations. This served the oratory’s primary purpose of evangelization, including care for those who were not yet able to participate constructively in the oratory’s community of faith.

Prioritizing both mission and community is central to The Cardinal Newman Society’s new Policy Standards for Catholic School Admissions, which is being circulated among Church leaders, Catholic educators and admissions experts for comment and further development before final publication early in the year.

Developing such guidance is no easy task. Today’s Catholic schools face much different challenges than those addressed by Saint John Bosco. While he had to contend with sometimes unruly and even criminal youth, today the Church is confronted by widely accepted social norms and ideologies that conflict directly with Catholic moral teachings and even the nature of the human person.

Even so, the broad strokes of Bosco’s approach are relevant as ever. Catholic education is the Church’s most important means of evangelization, forming young people deeply in truth and fidelity to Christ. While not every family is ready to embrace that mission and participate in it—especially in an age of widespread confusion and denial of basic truths about man and God—the admissions process can be a work of charity and mercy for both those who are admitted and those who are not received into the school.

Mission priority

Writing in his memoirs, Don Bosco sketched the outlines of a welcoming and compassionate policy for his oratory. Both a home and a school for needy children, the oratory preserved the core mission of Catholic education:

The purpose of this oratory is to keep boys busy and away from bad companions, especially on Sundays and holy days. Therefore, any boy may be admitted regardless of social condition.

Poor, abandoned and uneducated boys are particularly welcome, because they need more help to achieve their eternal salvation.

Boys entering this oratory must realize that it is a religious organization whose purpose is to train boys to become good Christians and upright citizens. Therefore, blasphemy, obscene conversation or language offensive to our Faith are strictly forbidden. Any boy guilty of such offenses will be admonished in a fatherly way the first time; if he does not mend his ways, he will be reported to the director for expulsion from the oratory.

Troublesome boys may also be admitted provided they do not cause scandal and are earnest in improving their conduct.

Especially to be avoided, according to the saint, was anything that might lead students away from God and the truths of the Catholic faith. “Only in matters of scandal let the superior be inexorable,” he wrote. “Better run the risk of sending away an innocent boy than to keep one who is a cause of scandal.”

This concern is echoed in the Newman Society’s admissions standards, principally authored by Dr. Denise Donohue, vice president for educator resources, and Dr. Dan Guernsey, education policy editor and senior fellow.

“Unfortunately, there are situations where unrepentant students or parents provide counter-witness to the Gospel or through their lived example present and model sinful behavior as a good to be supported and pursued,” they write. “In such cases, the school must ask them to make other arrangements for their academic education due to the negative impact on the school and encourage them to work with other Church ministries as they strive to bring their lives in accord with God’s plan.”

These hard cases are carefully considered in the Newman Society’s two issue bulletins, “Not All Families Are a Good Fit for Catholic Schools” and “Working with Nontraditional Families in Catholic Schools.” Both are summarized by Dr. Guernsey in this linked article.

Beyond moral concerns, there are financial and other practical reasons why Catholic schools cannot accommodate every student, despite sincere efforts. “The Church needs to ensure robust evangelization programs for parish children not able to attend Catholic schools,” write Donohue and Guernsey, recognizing that every child deserves formation in the faith, and many need help filling the gaps and correcting the falsehoods in public education.

Community teaching communion

Our admissions standards conform to several broad principles that should govern admissions policies in Catholic schools, beginning with a concern for the school community. While other Catholic education programs may have similar goals and principles, the formal Catholic school is distinct in the amount of time students spend together and the impact of parent and peer behavior on students.

“Because its aim is to make man more man, education can be carried out authentically only in a relational and community context,” the Vatican teaches in the 2007 document, Educating Together in Catholic Schools. “It is not by chance that the first and original educational environment is that of the natural community of the family. Schools, in their turn, take their place beside the family as an educational space that is communitarian, organic and intentional, and they sustain their educational commitment, according to a logic of assistance.”

Catholic education’s mission is, in part, to form young people for community life—for communion with each other and with God. Learning Christian communion requires the good example of others, and bad behavior can directly impact the education of all students in the community. The Vatican therefore describes Catholic education as “educating in communion and for communion.”

“The Catholic school, characterized mainly as an educating community, is a school for the person and of persons,” explains Educating Together. “In fact, it aims at forming the person in the integral unity of his being, using the tools of teaching and learning where ‘criteria of judgment, determining values, points of interest, lines of thought, sources of inspiration and models of life’ are formed.”

Thus, it is important that the Catholic school community be a genuine Christian community. This does not mean that every member must be Christian or entirely free of sin, but all members of the school community are “harmonized by truth” and the “Christian vision of reality,” according to the Newman Society standards. “When Catholic values animate the environment, vision and moral purpose flourish.”

The Vatican’s 1988 document, The Religious Dimension of Education in a Catholic School, cites conditions necessary to foster and sustain this culture of communion: “that everyone agree with the educational goals and cooperate in achieving them; that interpersonal relationships be based on love and Christian freedom; that each individual, in daily life, be a witness to Gospel values; that every student be challenged to strive for the highest possible level of formation, both human and Christian.”

Other Church documents on catechesis and education also articulate the importance of a strong faith-based community, where reference to Catholic traditions and beliefs and frequent reception of the sacraments are the norm. These practices help form young students and reinforce for older ones the perpetual need to ground their spiritual journey in the deep well of abiding wisdom, grace and mercy found in the Catholic Church.

The Directory for Catechesis teaches that “The Christian community is the primary agent of catechesis,” and “paying attention to group relationships has a pedagogical significance: it develops the sense of belonging to the Church and assists growth in the faith.” Children learn from those peers and adults who surround them.

Ultimately, a healthy admissions process benefits all concerned, by ensuring a nurturing community, preserving the Catholic school’s mission of evangelization and helping families connect with schools that best serve their needs and interests. With these goals, a Catholic school can proceed confidently with clarity and consistency.

Crafting Mission-Centered Parent-School Agreements

/in , /by

Parents are the primary educators of their children, even when entrusting them to Catholic schools. This has implications for school communications with parents, but it also means that parents should be in full agreement with the evangelizing mission of a Catholic school before enrolling a student. It is best when that agreement is in writing.

Parent and school contracts or agreements should detail the mission of the school and the behavioral expectations for those within the school community. They can be separate documents or part of the school handbook, signed and returned to the school. They should explain the duties and requirements of teachers, administrators, students and parents. Parents have the right to know what student accommodations or classroom interventions their child might expect and in what areas the school is unable to accommodate their child.

The parent-school agreement or the handbook signature page acts as a contract between the two parties—the parents and the school—of which payment is only one part. An agreement helps clarify the relationship and school policies, especially those that may be flashpoints for conflict and potential litigation. Rather than shying away from difficult topics, advance agreements prevent confusion, help avoid potential lawsuits and aids the institution in safeguarding its religious mission.

Of course, many situations calling for disciplinary measures cannot be anticipated in advance. No handbook can cover everything, so many times a general clause or statement is entered into the school handbook that states the principal reserves the right to amend the handbook at any time and has final recourse for all disciplinary issues.

The goal is clarity from the Catholic school, helping parents understand the nature of Catholic education and the school’s expectations for parents and students. Surprising families with rules and disciplinary actions after enrollment can upset parents and increase tensions.

Parent-school agreements have the added advantage of helping parents determine for their selves whether Catholic education is the right fit for their children. The admissions process is based on the acknowledgement that not every prospective student can or should be part of the school community. Explaining the school’s mission and expectations before enrollment, so that parents can decide on withdrawing an application based on their inability to sign the parent-school agreement, is a much happier circumstance than having to deny admission—especially if parents remain confused or irate over the decision.

It can also be a good practice for Catholic schools to help parents understand the mission of Catholic education and expectations of students and parents even before applying for admission. A simple form requiring acknowledgement that parents have read certain materials explaining the school’s approach to education can deter those who simply cannot abide by Catholic teachings, preventing the awkward situation of denying enrollment to a student who was initially admitted without knowing the demands of Catholic education.

It is well worth taking these steps to protect and nurture the learning environment, as strong supportive relationships and shared vision among parents and school personnel help facilitate the intellectual, moral, emotional, physical and spiritual development of children.

Handling the Tough Cases: Admissions Policies for Nontraditional Families

/in , /by

Almost half of U.S. Catholics want the Church to recognize same-sex unions, according to the Pew Research Center. A majority support administering the Eucharist to cohabiting couples and divorced/remarried Catholics without an annulment.

These views differ sharply with the Church’s clear teaching on marriage, and we see similar confusion and disagreement among Catholics and in society at large over moral behaviors concerning gender, abortion, dress, language and more. It is not only a matter of disagreement with Catholic doctrine, but actual immoral practices and disintegration of the family.

For Catholic schools, this makes the admissions process all the more difficult. Some families today who seek enrollment in Catholic schools are deeply wounded or confused about marriage, parenting and human sexuality as God intends. Are they a good fit for Catholic schools?

Seeking God’s plan

Most of today’s parents grew up in a post-“sexual revolution” world, where the media have relentlessly promoted values and behaviors at odds with Catholic teaching. Even many Catholic parents are either unaware of a Catholic understanding in these areas or have dismissed or rejected them. Students are also suffering with deep confusion, with media messages telling them there are numerous gender identities and that feelings can trump their biology.

In all cases, Catholic schools must handle each case in a sensitive and charitable manner while maintaining faithfulness to Church teaching. In working with nontraditional or wounded families, educators should listen and seek to understand their complexities and limitations. Schools should not underestimate the time, compassion and resources this worthwhile outreach will require or assume that the school is the best or only vehicle for evangelization in such cases.

Keep in mind that nontraditional families are not burdens, but beloved children of a God who loves them intimately and has a plan of growth, healing or conversion for them. During the admissions process, Catholic schools can facilitate the conversation around that divine plan. It may include delaying or denying enrollment if certain behaviors pose a threat to the school’s religious mission or cause confusion and scandal. The expectation and right of enrolled students to receive formation that leads them to God—and not away from Him—takes priority over admitting a problematic new student.

Not every school has the capacity to sufficiently address the needs of children or their family members who desire enrollment in the school. Some families must be turned toward other alternatives for education, either because their views of life’s ultimate purpose and end are at odds with those of the Church, or because their example would lead others to sin. Such families might benefit from other forms of Catholic education, including homeschooling and parish catechetical instruction, that avoid some of the demands of a formal school community.

For instance, an atheistic family who vocalizes faith that a theistic God is a sham, or a family heavily into the occult or New Age religion. Admitting others who actively and publicly engage in cohabitation, polygamy, incest, or homosexual activity might be seen as condoning this type of behavior. The school must see that its religious mission of moral formation and evangelization is not publicly compromised, hindered or undone by significantly off-mission families.

Admitting such families might create mixed messages for the admitted student and others who are unable to rectify this cognitive dissonance. At some point, the school will teach a message opposite what the students are experiencing: that true Christian marriage is between one man and one woman, that God does in fact exist, that there are only two biological sexes, and so on. This will inevitably cause older children to question the actions of their adult family members or their teacher, pitting one against the other and creating skepticism of the teachings of the faith or distrust to authority in the minds and hearts of the students.

Many cases of nontraditional families (families other than a married couple of one man and one woman validly married in the Church) can be corrected through catechesis in the faith, such as for those who have a nascent understanding of Church teaching or those who come from a non-Catholic Christian background or other faith-based tradition. Cohabitating couples or parents who are divorced and remarried outside the Church have ways of correcting and regularizing their relationships.

Those Catholic families who struggle significantly with the acceptance of elements of Catholic faith or morals need the help of their parish priest or staff to discuss areas of conflict or uncertainty and to seek reconciliation with the Church. The integrity of such pastoral intervention is absolutely dependent on pastors and counselors being faithful to Catholic teaching and working closely in harmony with the Catholic school administrators and teachers as a cohesive team.

Examples of nontraditional families

Today there is a growing variety of family situations that pose difficulties for Catholic school admissions teams. Some are described briefly below, but I provide a deeper and more nuanced reflection in my paper, “Working with Nontraditional Families in Catholic Schools.”

Family from another faith: Catholic schools will normally welcome non-Catholic families of goodwill who are expressly and affirmatively supportive of the school’s primary Catholic religious mission, with the exception of Satanic, wiccan, occult or other blasphemous behaviors or practices which are serious conflicts with a Catholic school’s mission. Open hostility, public defiance and public challenges against Catholic truths or morality are signs that a family is not a good fit for a school’s primary evangelical mission. Non-Catholic students deserve the same religious instruction as Catholics and attend the same religious services and activities, participating to the extent they are able. Formal or ritual non-Catholic prayer services or activities are inappropriate and may be blasphemous.

Single-parent household: A single-parent household is not normally a barrier to enrolling in a Catholic school. The parent—like all parents—agrees to work in harmony with the school as it teaches the Catholic faith concerning marriage, chastity and divorce and to avoid behaviors which are contrary to Catholic teaching such as sexual promiscuity or adultery.

Cohabiting couple forming a household: A school should refer such couples to the local pastor for counseling and catechesis, in the hope of starting down a path of regularization. A couple may avoid scandal by living in chastity appropriate to their state in life. But if a pastor is aware that a catechized couple refuses to strive for a life of chastity, and in his judgment the couple is unlikely to consider such a move with additional outreach and catechesis, he may need to instruct them against enrolling their student. This is especially necessary if issues of public scandal arise.

Parents divorced and remarried outside the Church: The Church considers a valid marriage to be a permanent union between a man and a woman.  Those who have divorced and remarried outside the Church and are reasonably assumed to be sexually active are involved in living an immoral lifestyle. A school may ask the couple to meet with the local parish priest to determine their status and if and how that status might be regularized in the Church, while doing all they can to avoid scandalizing students. If a couple refuses to attempt regularization or is unwilling to strive to meet Church requirements given their marital status, it may be prudent to deny admission.

Same-sex union: This circumstance is not identical to that of other parents in irregular or immoral family situations, which often can be regularized and may be publicly ambiguous. Same-sex couples who advocate and persist in their union actively and publicly model a different morality, present a lived counter-evangelization, and have a different understanding of what Christian integration of the mind, body and spirit looks like. Admitting students from families formed around same-sex unions, therefore, is a certain cause of scandal in Catholic schools and invites moral confusion. The couple is openly engaged in and openly promotes public, unrepentant, objectively disordered behavior, and the school itself can become complicit in confusion and scandal if it generates the appearance of normalcy, since the couple cannot possibly be on a path of regularization.

Student presenting with same-sex attraction: All students are called to chastity, which is the successful integration of sexuality within the person according to their state in life. A Catholic school’s mission is compromised if students are allowed to advocate or celebrate same-sex attraction as a personal positive good in the context of classes, activities or events. The school should not permit identification with such terms as “gay,” “lesbian,” “bisexual,” or “queer.” During the admissions process, a faithful Catholic school will present students who disclose same-sex attraction the beautiful and liberating teachings of the Catholic Church on God’s design for the human person and human sexuality. These students should, as a condition of enrollment, work with appropriate Church and diocesan offices, ministries and counselors in the hope of living in harmony with Christ’s teachings.

Parent identifying contrary to biological sex: The Catholic school can present such parents with the Church’s teaching about the human person and God’s plan for mankind and agree to this teaching for their children. In particular cases, parents may be directed to the local pastor and other faith-based psychologists and medical personnel, who can work with them to address their gender dysphoria. As a condition of a student’s enrollment, the parent whose sense of sexual identity is compromised agrees not to draw attention to his or her gender incongruence, so as not to confuse or scandalize the students.

Student identifying contrary to biological sex: A faithful Catholic school will inform the student and the student’s parents that the school interacts with all students according to their biological sex, not professed “gender identities.” The family should be willing to work toward integrating the student’s sexual identity with their biological sex, including counseling with their pastor and other trained Catholic medical and psychological professionals who are best able to help them in clarifying and defining issues of self (and sexual) identity in accord with Catholic teaching and God’s natural plan. If the student or parents insist on a name, clothing or behavior that publicly signal gender dysphoria, the student may not be a good fit for the school.

Student conceived by in-vitro fertilization or surrogacy: Children are always a gift from God, no matter the circumstances of their conception. But a parent’s or student’s public and persistent advocacy for these artificial methods of generating life, which undermines the teaching of the Church and the formative efforts of the school, is cause for denying admission.

Seeking true good for families

The challenges facing Catholic schools and the often-wounded families they are called to serve are significant and can almost seem overwhelming. This is a time calling not just for compassion, but also for courage. Courage to fulfill this ministry is required in a culture which may brand such teaching as judgmental or intolerant.

Instead, a faithful Catholic school demonstrates true compassion for nontraditional families. This may involve enrolling a family in a Catholic school, or it may require revoking, denying or delaying enrollment as a family undergoes faith formation and regularization through other Church ministries. In either case, the desire is to meet them where they are and eventually bring them home to full communion with Christ and His Church.

Newman Society Urges Supreme Court to Apply Ministerial Exception to Religious Colleges

/in , , , /by

On Thursday, The Cardinal Newman Society, which promotes and defends faithful Catholic education, with the International Alliance for Christian Education and the Association for Biblical Higher Education, urged the United States Supreme Court to overturn a Massachusetts high court ruling that would severely restrict the ministerial exception for religious higher education.

The amicus brief was authored and filed on Sept. 2 by Sharon Rose and Samuel Diehl of the Washington, D.C.-based Cross Castle PLLC.

In March, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled in Gordon College v. DeWeese-Boyd that Gordon College is indeed a Christian college and its professors are required to teach and uphold Christian principles, but the Court nevertheless allowed a dissenting social work professor to proceed with a lawsuit against the college for refusing to promote her. Court interference in religious hiring practices is a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the ministerial exception, according to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Beru.

“Catholic and other religious colleges deserve the same First Amendment protections that have been upheld for religious schools,” said Patrick Reilly, President of The Cardinal Newman Society. “The Supreme Court last year clearly upheld the ministerial exception with regard to a schoolteacher hired specifically to teach religion classes. We now call on the Court to make clear that the ministerial exception applies to professors, regardless of their discipline, at institutions where religious faith informs all that is taught and employees are required to be witnesses to religious beliefs.”

As argued in the brief, “Gordon is entitled to define its faith and determine how that faith is carried out in matters of internal government and employment, not individual faculty members. The standard the Massachusetts Court applied fundamentally threatens Gordon’s and other religious institutions’ ability to accomplish their missions and to maintain their pervasively religious character.”

Archdiocese of Indianapolis Fights for the Right to Have Faithful Employees

/in , , , /by

The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has been fighting several battles for the protection of Catholic education, and last month’s federal court victory was an especially exciting step forward.

A federal district court in Indiana ruled that the Archdiocese and its Roncalli Catholic High School have the First Amendment right to uphold moral standards — not only for religion teachers, as the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed last summer in its Our Lady of Guadalupe School ruling, but also for other employees who aid in the Christian formation of students.

“Catholic schools focus on the complete person, made in God’s image and likeness, not just on the mind or on a subject matter,” wrote my colleague Dr. Dan Guernsey last year. “Learning and formation happen concurrently. They are entwined.”

His position paper, “All Employees Matter in the Mission of Catholic Education,” made the important argument that every employee of a Catholic school is important to its mission of educating and forming young people in the Catholic faith. Although last year’s Supreme Court ruling focused on a Catholic school religion teacher, the ministerial exception — which prevents federal courts from interfering in employment decisions that substantially involve religious duties — ought to also protect a faithfully Catholic school or college with regard to teachers of all subjects as well as other employees and administrators.

The Roncalli case centers on a school guidance counselor who worked closely with students. Counseling is a duty that relates just as strongly to the Christian formation of students as teaching, and Catholic school counselors must model the moral teachings of the Church as an example to students. Sadly, the Roncalli counselor entered into a same-sex marriage and was dismissed.

Roncalli and the Archdiocese of Indianapolis did not shy away from the Church’s moral beliefs in their employee policies and in their legal defense. By establishing a clear moral expectation for employees, the school has a strong claim to First Amendment protections under the Free Exercise Clause. More important, it ensures that the good of its students is first and foremost protected.

Much More to Come

The struggle is not over for Archbishop Charles Thompson and his Indianapolis schools, but the outlook is brighter.

Although the guidance counselor is appealing the Roncalli decision to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, that is the same court that in July dismissed a lawsuit by a Chicago parish music director who also entered into a same-sex union. The court invoked the ministerial exception, rejecting the plaintiff’s argument that the exception covers only complaints about hiring and firing decisions and not claims of a hostile work environment.

“A Catholic school has freedom to hire and fire ministers based on alignment with the Catholic Church’s religious teachings about sex, sexual orientation, and marriage,” the Newman Society noted in an amicus brief in the case.

“But if a Catholic school minister engages in a course of conduct that violates the Catholic Church’s teachings, and the school persistently communicates that the minister has strayed from the school’s moral expectations and should repent,” then the school could have been forced to stand trial had the 7th Circuit agreed to narrow the scope of the ministerial exception.

Another guidance counselor from Roncalli, who was also fired for entering into a same-sex union, is pursuing a separate lawsuit. That case is before the same federal judge who dismissed the similar case last month.

Meanwhile, same-sex partners at two other Indianapolis-area Catholic schools have fought the Archdiocese and its moral standards for school employees. One of them, a teacher who was dismissed from Cathedral Catholic High School in Indianapolis, saw his lawsuit dismissed in Marion County Superior Court in May, but he is appealing the ruling.

His legally married partner still teaches at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School, which refuses to abide by archdiocesan policy. Archbishop Thompson took action in 2019 to declare the school no longer Catholic and forbid Mass in its chapel, but the school appealed to the Vatican, which for two years has failed to provide any resolution.

So there is much more to come, but the rulings this summer reinforce the scope of the ministerial exception and give hope to Catholic educators. Perhaps the most important lesson that can be drawn in the meantime is that Catholic schools and colleges should continue to ensure that employees are committed wholly to the mission of the school and the Church. It’s legally protected and it’s the right thing to do for Catholic families.

Every employee in a Catholic school, from the principal to the gym teacher, is important to the mission of Catholic education. Clear and consistently enforced policies that expect employees to model moral behavior is a key part of leading young people to Christ.

This article first appeared at the National Catholic Register.

Challenges to Religious Exemption in Title IX

/in , /by
Click here for PDF

The Cardinal Newman Society hosted a webinar on April 29, 2021, for selected Catholic college leaders, in which Gregory Baylor, senior counsel and director of the Center for Religious Schools at Alliance Defending Freedom, provided an update on challenges to the religious exemption in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.

The following summarizes the Newman Society’s understanding of what we learned from this webinar and other sources. Educators should consult their attorneys for professional legal advice.

Title IX and Religious Exemption

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that bans sex discrimination in “any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance,” including aid to students. The law exempts religious organizations, to the extent that the “application” of the law conflicts with their religious beliefs.

The exemption states, “this section shall not apply to an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.”

Equality Act

The Equality Act (H.R.5) was approved by the U.S. House and has been sent to the Senate. In his speech to Congress on April 28, President Biden urged passage. The bill would effectively bypass the religious exemption in Title IX by allowing students and employees to file sex discrimination lawsuits against Catholic schools and colleges under Title VI, which regulates all recipients of federal funding and has no religious exemption. The bill would also:

  • amend several civil rights laws including Titles II, III, IV, VI, VII, and IX, the Fair Housing Act, and others to include protection for “sexual orientation” and “gender identity;”
  • expand the definition of “public accommodations” to include schools and colleges; and
  • prevent any appeal to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) with regard to the Equality Act’s provisions.
Hunter v. U.S. Department of Education

Current and former students from 25 Christian and Mormon colleges (none Catholic) have sued the U.S. Education Department in federal court, claiming that the religious exemption in Title IX is unconstitutional. 1) It violates the Establishment Clause by giving preference to religious institutions. 2) It violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by allowing federal funding for institutions that discriminate based on “sexual orientation and gender identity.” The second claim rests on precedent barring funds for institutions that practice racial discrimination.

Alliance Defending Freedom is representing three Christian colleges that have moved to intervene in the case to ensure a strong defense of Title IX. The concern is that the Biden administration will provide a weak defense, readily agree to a settlement, or even decline to defend the law.

Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary

Fuller Theological Seminary is a multidenominational Christian seminary with campuses in Pasadena, Houston, and Phoenix. Two students who were expelled for violating the seminary’s rules against same-sex marriage and extramarital sexual activity sued the seminary, but in October 2020 a U.S. district court dismissed the case. It has been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Among other claims, the plaintiffs are asking the court to rule that the religious exemption in Title IX does not apply to independent and nondenominational institutions that are not legally controlled by an established church. The Cardinal Newman Society and several Catholic colleges will be joining an amicus brief that argues for the exemption.

Challenges to Religious Exemption in Title IX

Efforts to dismantle or undermine the Title IX exemption focus on three key areas:

  • Control: The exemption can be interpreted to exclude nondenominational and independent religious colleges (the latter includes most Catholic colleges) that have no legal ownership by established churches. This, however, raises constitutional concerns, since the interpretation would discriminate against religions based on their ecclesiology.
  • Beliefs: A plaintiff could argue that certain activities related to “sexual orientation and gender identity” are not, in fact, violations of the institution’s religious tenets. This too raises constitutional concerns if a court is asked to determine an institution’s beliefs.
  • Timing: The Education Department could refuse to apply the religious exemption if an institution has not previously applied to the Department for a determination of religious status—a procedure that some religious institutions completed in recent years.

Recommendations:

  • Strengthen Catholic identity: Firmly ground policies in Catholic teaching and explain in writing why they are necessary according to Catholic teaching. Clearly state expectations for employees and what will happen if violated.This allows a strong appeal to religious freedom.
  • Sexuality policies: Be explicit about the institution’s religious beliefs and policies regarding “sexual orientation and gender identity.” Avoid listing “sexual orientation,” “gender identity,” or religion in nondiscrimination statements, and declare your legal right to base decisions on religion. No employee benefits for “gender reassignment” or same-sex unions.

Catholic Identity Standards Project: The Newman Society is working on policy standards to help Catholic schools and colleges stay firmly grounded in Catholic identity while establishing the best protection against legal threats. This work depends on the assistance of a large number of expert reviewers. If you would like to assist, please contact the Newman Society.

Putting an End to Catholic Commencement Controversies

/in , , /by

Spring is here, with pomp and circumstance. It is also the season of controversies over the choice of commencement speakers and honorary degree recipients at America’s Catholic colleges. Will the annual conflicts ever end?

Perhaps there is a way. And it would be none too soon.

More than a decade after the University of Notre Dame venerated President Barack Obama at its commencement ceremony, sparking a public outcry from 83 bishops, Notre Dame could soon honor President Biden – a dissenting Catholic who is stridently opposed to the Church on abortion, gender ideology, and religious freedom. The university claims a tradition of inviting sitting U.S. presidents to deliver commencement addresses. But alumni are urging the school not to repeat the 2009 fiasco.

It’s not just a problem at Notre Dame, of course. Many Catholic colleges have persisted in violating the U.S. bishops’ policy forbidding Catholic organizations from giving “those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. . .awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

My organization, The Cardinal Newman Society, has been even more vocal than the bishops in decrying these honors. Nevertheless, there has been little progress toward resolving disagreements between the Church and academia over academic freedom and whether such public honors constitute scandal.

Perhaps there is a way of bypassing these disputes – at least temporarily. For the good of their students and of the Church, Catholic college leaders need to put a halt to the commencement controversies. We Catholics face increasingly strident attacks on our morals and religious freedom. We need unity within the Church, not division. College leaders can set the example by voluntarily honoring only the best exemplars of moral virtue, regardless of whether they claim the freedom to do otherwise.

Continue reading at The Catholic Thing…

The Biden Administration Poses New Threats to Catholic Education

/in , , /by

In just the first months of the Biden administration, Catholic educators have been confronted by serious threats to their freedom to teach and witness to the Catholic faith.

We knew the storm was coming. Over the last four years, schools and colleges enjoyed a brief respite before the anticipated return of Obama-era policies like the mandate for contraception coverage in healthcare plans and attempts to open bathrooms and locker rooms to students of the opposite sex.

The new threats loom even larger. Catholics face radical attempts to erode protections for our schools, colleges, homeschooling, and all models of Catholic education to fulfill their mission to uphold the moral law and other Catholic teaching. In particular, the Biden administration seems determined to force Catholic schools and colleges—and all religious organizations—to embrace gender ideology or close their doors.

President Biden has promised to sign the dangerous Equality Act in his first 100 days. At this time, the Equality Act has passed the House and is awaiting a vote in the Senate, where its fate may depend on whether the Senate ends the filibuster and requires only a majority vote. Meanwhile, some Republicans have floated a false compromise—misnamed “Fairness for All”—that would only partly delay the collapse of religious freedom.

Continue reading at Crisis Magazine…