Jessica Urbina, a senior at Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory school (SHC) in San Francisco, got a great picture for the yearbook. In the portrait, taken on the school’s Picture Day, Urbina’s beaming in a natty tuxedo, a look that also worked for her at prom.

But apparently someone somewhere thinks that a tuxedo, on a female, would somehow smirch the SHC, and this photo is banned. It can’t be displayed at graduation and it can’t be in the yearbook.

Tuxedo cat, comfortable with her sin.

We all know what Leviticus says about dinner jackets, right?

When it came out that SHC had banned the picture from the yearbook, there was outrage among students and alumni. Last week, to show support for Urbina, many students wore bowties or other tuxaloid attire to school. There’s also tweeting of dissent at #JessicasTux.

SHC put out a vague statement, never using the dread word “tuxedo,” but including the syllables “regret.” SorryWatch doesn’t think it’s actually an apology, but we think it’s meant to look apologyesque, so we’ll examine it.

From the SHC website (on Thursday):

“As we prepare to pass out yearbooks it is always regretful when a student portrait is omitted for any reason. As a community we will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that all students are included in the future.”

Jessica Urbina

Principal Gary Cannon told the local NBC station, “Every student, every senior, is in the yearbook,” and “It has to do with the ‘senior portrait issue’ and the regulations that we have. Those policies are clearly laid out.” He also said it was possible that administrators might later reassess those policies.

No responsibility is taken. Voice is passive. Everything that happened just happened. A portrait was omitted. If that was really meant for an apology, it would be a lousy one.

“Regretful” is an interesting word to use here. Not to mention grammatically incorrect. The correct word would have been “regrettable.”

I would like to think a duct tape tuxedo would be acceptable yearbook attire no matter by whom worn. Probably too hot for prom, though.

Regretful means a person feels sad. So “It is regretful” is wrong. “I feel regretful” would be correct. Regrettable, on the other hand, means something bad happened, creating an occasion for people to feel regretful.

Does this mean whoever wrote the statement needs to take English again? Perhaps not. Perhaps the word was deliberately chosen to give a flavor of regret, without saying a mistake was made or a bad thing was done.

That may be sort of accurate, too, since the decision seems to have come not from SHC, but from the recently retrograde Archdiocese of San Francisco. I suspect Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone’s influence in these events. More about him in a minute.

The statement tries to present the issue as if it were not about the tux photo. As if the problem is that Urbina might have no picture in the yearbook. I am sure that won’t be so. I am sure there will be pictures of Urbina in such contexts as, say, playing on the field hockey team, or competing with the Mathletes, or appearing in the school production of Victor Victoria.

Maybe not.

But that is not the issue, as everyone knows. It’s the particular photograph. Urbina has a nice picture of herself, nicely dressed, wearing something many of her classmates can wear – and they refuse to put it in the yearbook, because, apparently, it reeks of sin.

But Ellen did not attend Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory.

Archbishop Cordileone was appointed in 2012. He is chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. He says we need an amendment to the Constitution specifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, etc. etc. Which shouldn’t have anything to do with a yearbook portrait, but maybe it does.

Someone must have thought it was a great idea to make him Archbishop of the San Francisco archdiocese.

Cordileone’s probable connection to the portrait ban gives me a chance to bring in an actual apology, one he made in 2012 after he pled guilty to misdemeanor reckless driving, aka “wet reckless.” I ignored it earlier because it wasn’t that noteworthy. (Mother in car; DUI checkpoint; .11%; night in jail). But now I’d like to see something meant for an apology, unlike the peculiar SHC remarks.

In a statement, Cordileone said, “I apologize for my error in judgment and feel shame for the disgrace I have brought upon the Church and myself. I will repay my debt to society and I ask forgiveness from my family and friends and co-workers at the diocese of Oakland and the archdiocese of San Francisco. I pray that God, in His inscrutable wisdom, will bring some good out of this.”

You can tweet it, but it won’t be in the yearbook.

Later, at his installation as Archbishop, he joked, “I know in my life God has always had a way of putting me in my place. I would say, though, that in the latest episode of my life God has outdone himself.”

The first part contains minimizing, and doesn’t address the safety issue, but it isn’t too bad. What’s he mean by repaying his debt to society? The court-ordered fine? But I’m definitely unimpressed with blaming a DUI checkpoint on God.

Oh hey look, at this statement from the SHC website page. It’s pretty long. I’ll summarize.

In working with young people blah blah confidentiality blah blah there are pictures of everybody somewhere in the yearbook blah blah “sparked a campuswide dialogue which will result in a revision of policy.” Blah blah dignity blah blah inclusive blah blah “Our students have risen in support of each other and the principles central to our community. We are proud of their leadership and thoughtful effort to affect change.”

Run! It’s the archbishop!

Not an apology, not pretending to be an apology, could mean a lot of things. Including “We’re going to argue with the Archbishop about this. And we’re pretty sure everyone will show up in a tux for Picture Day next year if we don’t DO SOMETHING.”

It also means I could have been wrong with my delicate dissection of “regretful.” Because now they’re talking about an effort to “affect change.” Maybe it was routine language mangling. Or maybe they just get really nervous when they think of 1,250 angry teenagers in tuxedos.

UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE

The school has now issued a long letter to the community. It’s from the SHCP president and the principal. I won’t reproduce the whole thing, but it starts, “We begin by formally apologizing to Jessica and her parents… We deeply regret the pain caused in the past few days. The information below is meant to provide our entire community with an account of how we have come to this place, but that account is in no way meant to excuse our actions, or lack thereof, and the real, significant impact they had on the Urbina family.”

They describe the senior portrait policy and imperfect communication about the policy.

“…Given the nature of this specific case, however, we believe that decision, while conforming with our policy, was wrong. Moreover, the lack of communication with the family led to even greater anguish as it proved unexpected to the student and family…”

Another fine portrait

They say the current policy is “not adequate” and they will revise it together with students, families, and the Board.

“[W]e met with the entire Urbina family to express our regret and acknowledge our failure to adequately communicate about this issue several months ago when these discussions and decisions should have been made collaboratively.”

There’s a quote from St. John Baptist de La Salle, and this: “While there are those who want to make this situation an example of problems with Catholicism, we want to be clear that this letter, our apology, and our decisions moving forward come not in spite of our Catholicism, but precisely because of it.”

The school takes responsibility, acknowledges the impact, and explains how the situation came about and what will be done next. It’s an excellent apology. The reaction has been great. I recommend reading the whole thing.