Last night I was e-mailed a press release from the family of Katelyn Sills, the plucky anti-murdrer student who was expelled from Loretto High School after her involvement in exposing a teacher who was assisting others in the act of committing murder. Here’s the text of the press release:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 15th, 2005
Submitted by Katelyn, Wynette, and Ed Sills
RE: Request for Public Retraction and Apology from Loretto Administration
for their defamatory statements about our family
Loretto High School is an outstanding college preparatory school for young women that we long desired our daughters to attend and from which our family has three alumnae. We have generously and loyally supported Loretto High School both financially and through dedicated volunteer efforts, since our daughter’s enrollment in 2004. We have also encouraged many other families to enroll. Katelyn has enthusiastically dedicated her time in numerous school activities, including Student Council, Choir, and most recently the Recruitment Team, which visits area 8th graders to invite them to join the LHS community. Sister Helen Timothy, President of LHS, is a very well respected administrator within whom we entrusted our daughter’s academic future.
However, with regards to this recent situation, Loretto High School administration has misrepresented the facts of this case, defaming our family’s reputation, culminating in punitively and vindictively expelling our daughter, with absolutely no prior warning. This has been a very sad and distressing experience for EVERY member of the Loretto community. We acknowledge the negative impact this situation has had, but we are not to blame. For over eight weeks, we have simply desired that an incompatible hiring be handled in a discreet, compassionate manner, so that the integrity and reputation of LHS would be unblemished. In contrast, LHS administration has provided false and defamatory information to staff, students, parents, and media, against our family. This in itself has brought unnecessary negative attention to the school.
On Friday, November 4th, our attorney, Eric Grant, represented us by respectfully asking the Loretto High School administration to publicly retract their statements and apologize for their vindictive actions. Unfortunately, Loretto administration refused to do so. It is now time to let the truth be known. We have disclosed all information so that everyone can see exactly what we did and why we did it, along with all correspondence from President Sr. Helen Timothy. The documents are available to the public via Katelyn’s blog www.standupandspeakout.blogspot.com so that each of you can read for yourself and decide whether we have acted with utmost discretion and integrity.
Despite our polite and respectful requests for a meeting, phone calls were not returned for the last eight weeks. Throughout our daughter’s enrollment at Loretto High School, our family has NEVER been able to meet with President Sister Helen Timothy, nor talk with her on the phone. Instead, our entire communication with Sister Helen was done via email, and is now available to the public. Other than one disappointing phone conversation with Principal Sister Barbara Nelson (contents of which will also be published), Mrs. Sills has not had any contact with any LHS staff member regarding this matter. Even on the blog, our family has expressed nothing derogatory towards the staff of LHS, but in contrast, you will see several hundred comments from Loretto students, parents, and alumnae towards us, which are unkind and undeserved.
We do not seek re-admission to LHS, for clearly it is an unsuitable environment for this Catholic family who practices our faith and values the sanctity of human life. Also, at this time we do not plan to sue for damages, though it would be appropriate to do so and highly likely to succeed due to the administration’s vindictive and untruthful statements. Instead, we simply desire for the truth to be told, for Loretto administration to retract their defamatory statements and for them to offer us a public apology. We have asked Loretto administration to join us in mediation and arbitration so that litigation can be avoided, but unfortunately, they have not agreed.
We continue to ask for prayers for the entire Loretto High School community and for our family during this difficult time. Once the truth is told, followed by a retraction and apology by the Loretto administration, reconciliation can then take place, healing occur, and both parties can then move on.
Note in case it moves: THE POST ON KATELYN’S BLOG DEALING WITH THESE MATTERS IS HERE.
What has the local Bishop said about the situation? Anyone know?
We do not seek re-admission to LHS, for clearly it is an unsuitable environment for this Catholic family who practices our faith and values the sanctity of human life.
Ouch!
Also, at this time we do not plan to sue for damages, though it would be appropriate to do so and highly likely to succeed due to the administration’s vindictive and untruthful statements. Instead, we simply desire for the truth to be told, for Loretto administration to retract their defamatory statements and for them to offer us a public apology.
Classy! Maybe the vindictive Loretto administration, students and alumnae can learn Christian behaviour from this family.
What an unbelievably heroic Catholic family. I cannot believe how polite Mrs. Sills was in her correspondence with that hag. Wait, she is a nun– I mean “difficult person”. I would have blown my stack long ago. Jimmy, can you get some mojo working towards Benedict XVI pulling the Catholic label from these places?
They should have gotten a canonist in addition to a civil lawyer, to investigate the juridical repercussions for the school and administrators.
The Sacramento Saga Continues
This has been Rick Lugari’s “story” since Day One.
I’m overwhelmed by the moral courage of Katelyn. Taking a shunning from one’s peers at the age of 16 is no easy thing. Praise God for her.
Let’s pray for all of them
I read every e-mail entry. I’m at a total loss to find any threat or mallicious statement of any kind. Absolutely nothing mallicious can be taken from the use of “CATHOLIC” v. Catholic, except (in common e-mail parlance) yelling. But, taken in light of the tone of the rest of the e-mails, Mrs Sills was not yelling. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to prove, based solely on the e-mails, that she was frustrated, as I’m sure she must have been. She was respectful, rational, clam, & knew her facts. The whole family is to be commended! May God richly bless them. They’re definitley in my prayers!
I wasn’t there, of course, but on the surface it sure looks like the school administration was forced by the actions of a student to do something they did not want to do, that is, fire a pro-death teacher.
Her expulsion was payback.
Simple, but sickening.
I recently heard about this on “OPEN LINE” on EWTN radio, yesterday, 15 November.
Barbara McGuigan was the host and she mentioned that the termination letter that the Bishop wrote was brilliantly worded.
You can hear it online, in the first 10 minutes of the show at ewtn.com
Oh, Burn!
Huzzah for her courage. The school is alot like some ‘Catholic’ schools in our area. (But ours is excellent!)
When she says they are not suing for damages, does that mean they are not taking any futher legal action?
Also, it appears that a certain Ms. Roland reads all the emails and somehow manages to see threats and bullying from the Sills family. I should never underestimate the ideologically-addled and their ability to deny the truth even when between the teeth of the evidence.
” I should never underestimate the ideologically-addled and their ability to deny the truth even when between the teeth of the evidence.”
If there was such a thing as a Chesterton Award for truthful witticisms, this would definitely get my nomination.
You know there was nothing threatening or malicious in their behavior because that is not how you deal with the threatening or malicious. If they had been TRULY threatening or malicious, they would not have been treated so poorly.
If someone REALLY makes a threat, like say, blow up your place of business, then the matter is handled in the exact opposite fashion:
1) It is handled quickly. It is not worth the risk to other innocents to bide your time
2) It is handled privately. Believe me, you do not wage a public campaign against someone who has threatened you or others.
3) More powers are invoked. Police, social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, even clergy. You do not decide on what action to take behind closed doors with just a handful of the school administration.
4) Measures are taken to separate the “malicious” and “threatening” from the family members who are not either. If her parents were really so threatening, then the school had a God-given and state-mandated obligation to separate them from their child for her own protection. In a real case of threatening behavior, you do not go out of your way to aggravate the parents, chuck the poor child in with them, wipe your hands and walk away.
INSANE!
How telling that their every action belies a contradictory truth. It’s like the island of where everyone only tells lies — so a “Catholic” school would naturally be the least Catholic school of all.
Well I did my best to get slammed in the ‘marriages not made in heaven’ post by going against the grain, so might as well keep living on the edge…
I’ll start with a summary statement: I think both sides in this expulsion have a semi-legitimate reason to feel that they were right. That said, I expect a Catholic school to handle it’s students and their parents more charitably. It is my guess that a big part of the reason they didn’t is because of some pro-abortion sympathies. That is an injustice for all of us to be very upset about.
That said, did you guys notice the dates on the e-mails at the beginning of the e-mail thread? The mom’s first message was sent on Monday Sept. 19th. She then sent another message the next day, called the office the following day, sent another e-mail that same evening, and by Friday had already contacted the diocese. Am I the only one who sees that as being overly persistent? Employment investigations don’t happen overnight. To expect any response in less than a week is unrealistic.
Imagine this from Sr Helen’s perspective. She’s out of town for a few days. She gets back and has 3 e-mails in her inbox from the same parent who is very vigorous arguing a teacher needs to be fired. She also has a message (not sure whether e-mail, phone, or letter) from the Diocese asking for information on the subject. Can you see why she might want to, for purely personal stress related reasons, not want engage with the mother?
So Sr. Helen sends her a message that, from her perspective, says “Don’t worry, the wheels are in motion, the diocese is looking into it.”
But instead of a short thank you note back, she gets back that very same night another message from the mother that, although it starts out appologetic enough, goes on to blame her (since I’m sure she’s involved in all hiring decisions) for hiring her. While she comes back with the “we all make mistakes” response, I’m sure that wasn’t very comforting to Sr. Helen.
A week later (the e-mail says two, but the 23rd to the 4th is 7 business days) Sr. Helen gets another e-mail asking for an update that includes a long lecture about why this is a big deal. She finishes the e-mail with this statement:
“I sincerely pray for a resolution to this matter before that Sunday, twelve days from now. For if Loretto and the Diocese deem it acceptable to employ an aggressive, openly, pro-abortion teacher, all families, including ours, deserve to know of your decision before subjecting our daughters to such an unsafe environment.”
Now, I don’t think the Sils intended this as a threat, but can you see how a frustrated administrator who has been badgered a little bit by this parent might think that the point of this statement was ‘we’re going to tell everyone at open house if you don’t fire her by then’? Particularly look at the “all families” part of the quote for this interpretation.
OK, so now Sr. Helen thinks she’s been threatened (even though she hasn’t). She over-reacts and tells the mother that she’s banished from campus (a bad move). A week later the Diocese tells Sr. to fire the teacher. She fires the teacher promptly.
Situation resolved, right?
Uh, no.
Two days later an altercation occurs between a staff member and Mr. Sils on campus. Mr. Sils statement isn’t very convincing to me. Everyone knows at this point that it is the teacher has been fired and that the Sils were involved. So this stupid assistant principle is in the press booth goofing off and is zoomed in on the primary character in this unfolding drama. So Mr. Sils goes in there to tell him to knock it off. I’m sure that he was threatening to the staff member just by his very bursting into the room. And I’m sure Mr. Sils used some aggressive language that would be recieved as threatening. I would have been very angry if I was put in Mr. Sils situation and I’m sure he was. Was he being unreasonable? Probably not. But that’s not was Sr. Helen hears. She hears that Mr. Sils threatened a staff member.
After that the whole blog thing ramps up and a lot of national attention is focused on a little school in Sacramento and the Sils are only encouraging the escalation.
So they expell the family to get rid of the problem.
My point of going through all this is not to defend the school, because I think they made the wrong decision, but to shed some light on what was likely going through their mind. What the Sils lacked was the appropriate amount of patience and humility. Is that an offense worth of being expelled? No, absolutely not. Do I think the administration wasn’t very sympathetic to their pro-life cause? Yes I do. If they were sympathetic to the cause they would have been more forgiving of the Sils lack of tact.
But the Sils are not faultless in this matter. I’m confident that had they been more politically wise, patient and humble, Katelyn would still be a student at Loretto and the teacher would still have been dismissed by now.
Ken:
Am I the only one who sees that as being overly persistent?
No, I agree with you. I also think they were impatient but I think others will disagree. But they were accused of neither of these.
As of Octber 28, 2005, here’s the list of accusations:
Disrputive actions
Malicious language
Taunts
Threats
Abuse towards members of the school community
Gossip
Rumours
Unkind language
Unkind behaviour
Katelyn is accused of being malicious
Katelyn is accused of being deceitful
Katelyn is accused of slandering the Loretto community
Many of those are serious accusations, even singly, against adults. It is therefore absurd for Catholic religious to accuse and ostracize a 16 year old, giving her no opportunity to defend herslf while, at the same time, publicly informing the Loretto community of the accusations and themselves demonstrating no desire to settle the matter charitably (http://standupandspeakoutblog.com/password/letterview.html).
Is that too much to expect of IBVM Catholic sisters?
After that the whole blog thing ramps up and a lot of national attention is focused on a little school in Sacramento and the Sils are only encouraging the escalation.
This is not the first time we have heard the curious cry that this is just a tiny school in the middle of nowhere and why the big deal. Sills has been accused by anonymous rachet-jaws in her combox of only doing this for fame. The fact is that it is time to get ready to ruuuumble. American Catholics are finally awakening from their “Spirit of Vatican II” stupor and insist that people in charge of Catholic institutions start upholding Catholic teaching. Even many bishops are starting to get uppity by overriding the leftist lay cabals that make up their office staff. It is no surprise that those whose power is cracking up are crying “bullying!”, “threats!”, “disruption!”, and what not. What they are really crying is, “status quo!” Of course they don’t want a battle. They are starting to lose. But sometimes there is a time to clean out the moneychangers in the temple. The fact that in this case it is happening in a little school in Sacramento is irrelevant.
Scott
Overly persistent? Imagine if the mom had evidence the teacher was a child molester. Would you then see the actions as ‘overly persistent’? The mother saw an immenent threat to her child and other studendts. She complained to the correct people twice, with no response. No reply. No email that even acknowledged they had received the email. No email to say ‘I do not have the authority to act on these allegations or open an inquiry’. No, there was silence. By the silence, the mother was essentially told her concerns are not shared by the administration. In fact this was exactly the case when she spoke to the principal. The principal did not communicate that she was not able to act without the other administrator. Rather she communicated that she did not see or understand there was a problem. If the mother would have been less persistent, she would have communicated that her concerns were not urgent.
“And I’m sure Mr. Sils used some aggressive language that would be recieved as threatening”
Are you sure that’s not a little more than you can confidently say without evidence, Ken?
I sure wouldn’t want to put words in Mr. Sill’s mouth based on what I have read so far.
Other than that, I would bet your analysis is not too far off. It still paints a picture of the school administration that is not very flattering. You would think that they would be accustomed to dealing with parents and kids in a less ham-fisted manner.
If their allegiance were with pro-life Catholics, this would likely never have taken place.
I think you make a good point, Ken. We’ve all seen situations where somebody who has to make a tough decision about a matter of faith or morality is harrassed and badgered by others to move at a pace inconsistent with wisdom and prudence. Oftentimes that person responds– out of emotion, not rationality– by making a different decision than she would have had she been given a chance to make a calm decision. Now I’m not saying that’s what happened here; I don’t know. But I imagine that the principal of the school felt like there were some serious contractual issues that she would have to deal with before she even considered firing the teacher. While there’s no doubt (from reading her emails) that she responded in an inappropriately tart and snappy manner, it’s not hard for me to imagine that her intentions were entirely honorable, and that she was just concerned about her school getting stuck between its moral values and its contractual obligations– possibly with horrendous legal and publicity costs.
My main feeling about this is that the school was acting completely irrationally and with little regard for the facts of the case, but we should remember that such actions are oftentimes provoked. That does not excuse them, but it does go some ways in explaining them.
Now, having been trounced on the facts, some people are trying to make hay out of the timeline. Perhaps we need clarification of when it is appropriate to go to the bishop. Now, as I understand it, the bishop is the local ordinary and that one is not required to fiddle with princpals, etc. in order to bring something to his attention. The Sills did go to the adminstrators first who at best punted on the issue. The assistant wanted to wait until the head honcho got back. If she had said that and then kept her mouth shut they might have a microscopic point, but the moment she went into “Just because a person volunteers at Planned Parenthood blah, blah, blah…”, not only could Sills infer that they were punting, but could reasonably harbor a suspicion that were *nudge* *nudge* *wink* *wink* *say-no-more* about involvement at PP. Does anyone have a source for lay-to-bishop protocol?
Scott W.: I think Scripture is extremely clear on the matter.
Matthew 18:15-18 and on – “If your brother sins (against you), go and … etc.”
Ken,
There are only two all-girl high schools in Sacramento. Loretto is attended by almost 500 girls. When would it be a big deal to you.
As a father of 6 children so far (3 daughters and 3 sons) that doesn’t give me many options for my childrens’ education. It may seem like a small school in Sacramento to you, but to the parents that are trying to raise their children Catholic it is a big deal.
And since you admit to “going against the grain and living on the edge” you are taking the same approach as Sr. Helen. If I knew my children were going to be exposed to some zealous deathscort at their Catholic school I would have been less patient than the Sills family. I would, like the Sills family, expect someone in authority to be shocked at the situation and assure me that it would be investigated immediately.
The Sills family need to be more politically wise? Please read Katelyn’s blog and her mother’s emails again. What in them displays anything other than humility and patience. Being humble does not mean laying down instead of defending your childs innocence and purity.
J+M+J
Scott, to be clear, I wasn’t saying it wasn’t a big deal. What I was trying to show was the human emotion of being overwhelmed. Sr. Helen runs a little Catholic high school in a fairly small metropolitan area. She’s not used to national attention and that can be intimidating. That attention, when it appears (key word) that the flames of it are being fanned by a student and her family, encourages her to do some irrational things.
You’re right, it is a big deal. I’m just trying to show from a human perspective why a person might react as she did, whether or not the reaction was correct.
Tim, you’re right as well, I’m not 100% sure about the father’s actions, but I’m 90% sure. I tried to word that sentence very carefully not to overstate. I didn’t say he actually threatened, I said it would have been received as threatening. He, by his own admission, barged in (i.e. he was not invited and opened door himself (instead of knocking and waiting for an answer)). From the perspective of that staff member, to unexpectedly be confronted by a father who was clearly angry and demanding that videos be shut off, it’s going to take a master politician to word that in a way that wouldn’t seem threatening to the staff member.
But you’re right Tim, my analysis isn’t very flattering to the school. I think they made a big mistake and I expect more from them (just like you said Ashton). Put another way, any daughter of mine isn’t going to that school unless I have reason to believe the administration has changed (and that isn’t just a theoretical: Loretto is the closest Catholic high school for girls to my house).
But I also think the Sils could have handled the situation better.
But, couldn’t it be admitted that Srs Helen & Barbara could have handled the situation better, too? For Sr Barbara to say “Just because a person volunteers at Planned Parenthood does not necessarily mean they support abortion,” is irresponsible & glib, at least, & ignorant, at best. If one were to volunteer for the Democratic party in some way, one would be seen as a supporter of the overall Democratic platform by casual viewers. Same for Bain. Her volunteer work at Planned Barrenhood is tantamount to support, especially in light of the fact that she was specifically there to escort women into the clinic for abortions. Sr Barbara, in her glibness, is tacitly supporting PP herself with this statement. She, being a high school administrator & (presumeably) well-educated, should know better how to phrase her words when speaking in a capacity representational of the school &, because the school is a Catholic one, of the Church, as well!
Ultimately, this is what the sisters do not understand. Sr Helen states in one of her e-mails:
“As a vowed religious I am insulted at your questioning my stance on life. I have lived a life dedicated to gospel values and Roman Catholic Church teachings.”
After accusing the Sills of threats that are not there, I see this a lip service. It must be very easy to say “I’m a religious” & imply that she, as such, is not to be questioned. But she’s not shown that she’s willing to back that stance at any cost.
I think I agree somewhat with Ken’s asessment. I wouldn’t say that Mrs. Sills was being overly persistant…when something seems urgent to you and you set out to tell someone who you assume will agree, you might be rather persistent in trying to contact somebody or anybody.
However, I can see what Ken means about the administration being overwhelmed and frightened by the whole situation…Sr. Helen Timothy may well be pro-life, she may even be an orthodox Catholic (someone I know who went to Loretto told me that at dances students were admonished for dancing inappropriately, so that would imply a certain adherence to Catholic teaching.) However, Sr. Barbara Nelson certainly seems to be pro-choice, and I can understand Mrs. Sills frustration upon hearing these answers from a religious.
Mr. Sills’ story about the video monitor is strange…if he is telling the truth, then the behaviour of the vice principal is odd and almost witch hunt-ish. As if she will just manage to catch something in Mrs. Sills expression that will betray her committment to Satan or something. I would agree with Ken that it seems likely that Mr. Sills came off more threatening than he indicates…I don’t know him, but if the vice principal really was sitting in the control room watching his wife’s facial expressions because “the girls are scared” then it’s understandable that he’d be angry. And of course Sr. Helen would only hear the vice principal’s side of the story (which very well may omit the surveillance of Mrs. Sills, if it occured).
Certainly Katelyn Sills shouldn’t have been expelled given the evidence we’ve been given. Furthermore, it seems to me significant that not one of her classmates has defended her, and all that have posted have opposed her. It makes me wonder how Catholic a school is, if very few students take a Catholic position on basic moral matters.
I have also heard that the Bishop of Sacramento tends to focus his attention on other schools in the diocese (a Loretto alumna told me that a couple other schools are his pet projects). If I were him I would begin to pay more attention to Loretto, if only to ensure that Catholic parents who pay for a Catholic education for their children will get what they pay for.