The Toronto-based Catholic Register (February 29, 1992) pointed out that “the clock is ticking” for Ontario’s Catholic Schools.

“Unless a few lines, inserted into the Ontario Education Act of 1986, are repealed,” stated the editorial, “the separate school system will begin to lose most of its Catholic identity in September 1995.”

“From then on our school boards will no longer be allowed to give preference to Roman Catholics in hiring new teachers.”

Without Catholic teachers, the editor added, there can be no Catholic schools.

Requirements

The traditional view held by Catholics and non-Catholics alike has been that Catholic schools should be able to set their own requirements for teachers. Otherwise, it is understood, there is little point in having a Catholic School system.

The courts, too, have upheld this understanding. In the past they have always rejected the claims of individuals who, after a conflict with a Catholic board, demanded to be exempt from “being Catholic.”

But this coming loss of religious identity didn’t stir a ripple at the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association (OECTA) convention attended by 600 delegates in Toronto from March 13 to 16.

OECTA delegates voted in favor of a resolution stating:

“That OECTA supports equal opportunity for all members, including non-Catholics, in matters of promotion.”

The argument was that non-Catholic already working in the Catholic system should have equal opportunity in promotions.

Clause 136a

Clause 136a of the Act (Bill 30) that brought full funding for Catholic high schools in 1986 is the culprit behind the looming problem. The clause was put into Bill 30 as a compromise effort to pacify opponents of full funding. All that is required of a teacher in ten years’ time (1995), as a condition of employment, the clause states, is that he or she agree “to respect the philosophy and traditions of Roman Catholic separate schools in the performance of their duties.”

In other words clause 136a eliminates the right of separate school boards to prefer Roman Catholic teachers when hiring.

The problem of Catholic identity, therefore, is threefold:

–    Non-Catholic teachers, hired since 1985 in the rush to set up Catholic high schools, may not have nay restrictions put on them with respect to promotion.

–    Catholic teachers may have difficulty teaching the Catholic faith if they are not living as Catholics.

–    In 1995, Catholic Boards may be forbidden to give priority to Catholics for teaching positions.

OECTA

Over time, this association has come to see itself first and foremost as a union of professionals. In order to be taken seriously by their public-school counterparts, OECTA works overtime to show how aggressively secular they can be.

Though Catholic schools still do not have equal revenues from local tax sources, OECTA demands equality with public school teachers in all respects: salary, professional-education days, benefits, holidays.

The union has a staff of 70 people. It doesn’t have much inhibition about going on strike and seeks to establish complete control over all aspects of the Catholic system, including the teaching of religion.

Religion

With respect to a religion, OECTA runs a summer course mandatory for all new teachers of religion. It has been criticized for the control which so-called progressive Catholics of the Joanna Manning school exercise over it.

Also, when the Archdiocese of Toronto some years ago worked out a religion program for high schools, the heads of religion departments protested vehemently. The reason: they had not been consulted; that was enough to condemn the program outright.

As noted in an earlier article, OECTA also fought but lost a legal battle recently over its demand that all chaplains in Catholic schools be fully qualified teachers. It wanted to unionize them and prohibit priests without a teacher’s certificate from teaching religion. (See my June 1992, Interim column.)

“Progressive” Catholics

The March ’92 Annual General Meeting reflected again the control which bullying, “progressive” Catholics exercise over the union.

Action Directive 126 called for inclusive language in all school liturgies.

Action Directive 140 urged the Minister of Education to make employment equity mandatory and to include pro-vision of monetary penalties for school boards which do not comply.

Action Directive 146 reads:

“That the Provincial Executive ask the Ontario Conference of Catholic Bishops to convene a meeting of representatives of the Catholic community to begin a discussion on how to serve the future spiritual needs of the faithful. “This discussion is to include the possibilities of developing expanded roles for lay people in parish life, the use of married priests and the ordination of women.”

Meanwhile, on the other sidelines activists went around gathering signatures on a petition opposing the beatification of José-Maria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, an utterly useless activity. But apparently nothing scares these people so much as this organization of lay men and women who want to live according to the rules of the Church.

At the March 1992 Annual General Meeting the following resolutions were passed:

Re: Promotion.

“That OECTA supports equal opportunity for all members, including non-Catholics, in matters of promotion.”

Re: Philosophy of Christian Education (Toronto Secondary)

“That Professional Development No. 4 be amended by deletion of ‘obliged to adhere to’ and substitution of ‘to show respect for.’”

It would then read:

“That teachers in Catholic separate schools are to show respect for the philosophy of Catholic education.”

The danger with these motions is that Catholic teachers would be protected from dismissal if they refused to adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Faith either publicly or privately. They could claim that even though they had become agnostics, they still “respected” the philosophy and traditions of Roman Catholic separate schools in the performance of their duties.

“Bill 30 in fact guaranteed this to non-Catholic teachers. It should be an OECTA stated position to promote this idea.” OECTA reasoned.

Mike Neil, an OECTA spokesman, defended the action taken, saying this was “part of the deal on obtaining equity with the other publicly-supported school board. We accepted their teachers who were displaced by the move made by the province. The idea was that we accept and then fight it.”

However, he admitted Catholics might lose the whole Catholic school system if nothing were changed.

“We might muddy the waters,” he said. “And changes could be made in the constitution that could adversely affect us.”

Counter productive?

Mr. Neil said that OECTA is reluctant to move on Section 136a, fearing – on the advice of their legal people – that it might be counter-productive. He also said that non-Catholic teachers who had to take jobs with Catholic boards felt that they should not be discriminated against. At present, non-Catholic teachers hired by Separate School boards must sign a form (the legality of which is questioned, said Mr. Neil) that they acknowledged they are working for a Catholic institution.