Religious Freedom and Identity

National Review has had several articles over the last day or so involving the Archbishop of San Francisco, the Catholic High Schools there and the political activity.

These are better articles than the article I commented on at Slate, where the author was antithetical to Catholic teaching.

Ian Tuttle writes in regard to Religious Liberty:

Cordileone, for his part, has posed the simple question, What is a Catholic school? and offered an answer: A Catholic school is a school that embodies and promotes the vision of the Catholic Church.

And:

By contrast, Cordileone’s opponents think that a Catholic school should not be allowed to partake in the mission of the Church of which it is part. It should simply be a privately funded public school.

This is the inevitable consequence of a principle that views religion as a private affair. Recall President Obama’s gloss of the First Amendment as “freedom of worship.” He was rightly criticized, because his reading suggested that freedom to practice one’s religion is restricted to churches and synagogues and the ceremonies that happen therein. Exit the sanctuary, and your religion should be hung up until the following weekend. Much the same is happening in the Bay Area.

Anne Hendershott writes about the publicist that has been hired to fight a war against the archbishop's plans, and the tactics employed by the publicists firm.  It addresses consequences beyond the Bay Area:

Other U.S. dioceses face similar battles in their K–12 schools. What happens in San Francisco is happening elsewhere, and the foe is formidable. Singer is not working for free. Parents of pupils in San Francisco’s Catholic schools are not able to buy the kind of “services” he sells. The war against the archdiocese is being funded by sources with much more to gain than a clause in a faculty policy manual.

Kevin Williamson isn't particularly diplomatic in his post about the political goings on related to this controversy:

Catholic sexual teaching, and Archbishop Cordileone’s insistence upon it, annoys a great many people in San Francisco. Among the annoyed is Mark Farrell of the board of supervisors, which is what San Francisco calls its city council. Farrell protests that the sexual conservatism of Archbishop Cordileone and his subordinates—one of whom recently returned to the tradition of having all-male altar servers—is at odds with the local culture, “an affront to the values most of the residents of this city, in good conscience, hold dear.” The Los Angeles Times reports that many San Franciscans find the policy “divisive.” Farrell and the Times are without any question absolutely correct: The city may be named after St. Francis, but all indicators are that most residents of the city hold the moral teachings of St. Francis’s to be an affront to their values.

 

Which is why we have a First Amendment.

I recommend reading these articles, and praying for the conversion of the opponents of the archbishop.