…. serious violations of Christian code of conduct. 🤔

Is SBS one of those milk toast, Catholic in name only, indoctrination centers? It would make sense bc a serious infraction against such institutions is speaking truth.

In this case I’m guessing that the Trump colors, lingo and brand are just a little too much for the milk toast school. A serious violation if your board is predominantly cafeteria Catholics who see nothing wrong with Joe the good Catholic and plan on supporting him come November.

That violation has nothing to do with Christ and everything to do with Lucifer.

Here’s hoping the parents sue that CINO* school into oblivion for anything their lawyer can think of alleging. Also hoping that Bishop Vann, who was regarded as orthodox when in Fort Worth, will step in on the side of the true Faith here. But I’m not holding my breath.

Poor St. Bonaventure. He has probably had more phony Catholicism taught in his name than most other Franciscan saints, apart from St. Francis himself.

(*CINO=Catholic In Name Only)

The old school teacher (who also moderated student government for many years) observes:

1. The only fault with the speech was its length. We usually kept speeches for all offices but class president to two minutes or less. Yet given the title of the office (which is interesting), I would not have flagged anything in the content.
2. I would have flagged some things in the poster. We had a strict spending limit on posters and flyers and that looked like it cost a bit to produce. I would also have flagged the allusion to a well-known national campaign slogan. Like or not like a certain candidate, his mention does not belong in a grade school campaign.
3. Assuming this is the whole story, the principal’s actions are ‘way over the top, especially since she had to have cleared speech and poster before he actually spoke. If he put back in something that had been flagged, that would still be no grounds for expulsion for the kid and even less for his little sister. Departments of Catholic schools have rules on those things (reviewed by their lawyers) and principals do not have infinite leeway (but as we see, they are “at will” employees).

Note “with the support of the Diocese” to back up this nonsense. Dare say the Bishop’s Annual Collection will be a bit light this year.

Huntington Beach is a pretty solidly Republican and pro-Trump city. I have a very good friend who is one of the city officers. Most Catholic schools in southern California are pretty compromised when it comes to the Faith. (I lived there for many years.) St. Bonaventure, the parish at least, was reasonably faithful.

What the family calls “Patriotism” in the speech, the administrators called “negative statements.” This sounds suspiciously like “party line” censorship.

The police were called at some point, mainly because of the boy’s father (not married to the boy’s mother, incidentally). They found no crime had occurred in the altercation between the father and the administrators when wee Jimmy was excluded from the speech making. They were, reportedly, grateful to little Jimmy for the kind and encouraging things he said about the police. (Huntington PD has a good reputation.)

If I were the bishop, first of all I would groan, “Not another ‘Catholic school’ controversy,” and then call in the father, mother, boy, and vice-principal and catechize them all on what the virtue of patriotism is and is not. Then I would order them not to drag “MAGA,” Holocaust “survivors,” World War II interment camps, etc., into student council races. Proh pudor!

Jimmy and his little sister are gorgeous. God Bless them.

I’m not at all sure what TO think about this. There is, I think, I great deal more to this than has been presented. Among other things, …what is a “Commissioner of School Spirit and Patriotism”?? Sounds like a role created to enable “participation”, yet the speech is roughly what I expect for a Student Council President.
I think Mr. Byrne’s second point quite worthwhile too. Campaign materials look like something from a Presidential nomination convention. Such might be almost appropriate–sort of–for a campaign to lead in college. Not appropriate for high school or younger.
As for the obvious reference to a political candidate or campaign, …not so sure I’d forbid that. Many objected to a schoolteacher leading students in a chant about Barack Obama. ..He still won the election. Twice. I get it that we want to avoid having adult acrimony in schools, yet that will only work so far. For one thing, adult acrimony almost always makes its way to kids eventually. We must either allow for discussion and debate–and the acrimony that comes with it–…or begin censorship. We very quickly imperil the First Amendment.
Besides which, Sooner or later, youth will have need to make their own decisions… and suffer consequences accordingly.
All in all, I think there is much more to this than we see here.

I don’t care for student government, but that’s not the issue.

I think if there was ‘much more than what we see’ and the behavior of the administration was defensible, you would see something other than mush in the e-mail.