Letters to the Editor

February 28, 2008

Reader sees no logic in Bishop Martino’s opposition to Catholic teachers’ union

In recent years, the Catholic Church has decried people who are “cafeteria Catholics” as those who pick and choose which church doctrines they accept. In the Diocese of Scranton, we seem to have a “Cafeteria Bishop” who overlooks elements of the church’s teaching on social justice and workers’ rights to unionize. Bishop Joseph Martino’s recent full-page letter in local newspapers is a prime example.

The bishop is upset with the “invective and disrespect” unleashed upon him in the local media by the Scranton Diocese Association of Catholic Teachers and its supporters. Interestingly, the writers of the majority of letters that have appeared in support of SDACT have been from people without financial interest in this situation. They are individuals who are disillusioned by the bishop’s actions. In today’s world, respect needs to be earned and it is not merely given because of a title in front of someone’s name.

Bishop Martino asserts that he teaches the Catholic doctrine “on the right of people to freely choose and form unions for the purpose of collective bargaining.” I have no doubt that this is true. However, teaching it and practicing it are two different behaviors.

Even children usually have built-in radar that detects people who urge “do as I say, not as I do.” The word for such behavior is hypocrisy. The bishop then goes on to maintain that the church’s position is, “A union, then, is not required, essential or mandated.” Of course it’s not. A union is an organization freely entered into by its members for the purpose of collective bargaining.

Although the church doesn’t mandate unions, it also doesn’t state in its teachings on social justice that its support of the workers’ rights to organize applies to every organization other than itself.

Martino then goes on to state how workers’ rights must be balanced against other parties’ rights and uses the example of parents. Where was his concern for parents’ rights when, during the school reorganization, numerous parent groups begged him to talk with them about alternative plans that they had formulated? He blithely refused requests.

The bishop continues to extol the merits of the “employee relations committees,” which many agree are thinly disguised company unions. And he urges “meaningful dialogue and sincere collaboration.” This is a worthwhile plan. But again he sets himself up as the exception to the rule as he has consistently refused to engage in dialogue or collaboration with the teachers’ representatives.

The former bishop of Scranton and later cardinal, John O’Connor, originally recognized SDACT more than 20 years ago. It is safe to assume that he also saw, “Catholic education as an apostolate” that he had the duty to define and protect. Then why are we seeing such dramatically different behavior from our current bishop?

The scandal of hundreds of pedophile priests, which was covered up by many bishops nationwide for many years (and I am not suggesting that Bishop Martino was involved in this), has convinced many Catholics that they cannot depend on their bishops to paternalistically protect their welfare.

They need formal structures to ensure that this occurs. Unions can be such a structure for teachers in Catholic schools. Why does the bishop continue to rationalize his opposition to them?

Jane Grogan Kingston

Tweet	Follow @TLnews