Catholic School Morality Clause Causes Unrest

[Cajungal]

http://1079ishot.com/the-diocese-of-lafayette-adds-morality-clause-to-teachers-contracts/

http://kpel965.com/jaci-russo-fatim...ent-resigns-amid-morality-clause-controversy/

The morality clause for Catholic school teachers was updated in my Diocese, and it's prompted some teachers not to renew their contracts. This all started when a lesbian at Fatima refused to sign the contract. Then the school's Council President resigned. Now a high school teacher is also standing up against the clause. (They didn't say who, but I think I know who it is already.) Apparently there has always been a clause, but the new one is more specific and demands that you refrain from:

1. living with a significant other before married
2. having a same-sex relationship
3. using birth control
4. separating from a spouse without an annulment

...and more. So some teachers are deciding that, instead of lying, they will just find work elsewhere. Good luck in most of our public school system. Many people are being supportive of the teacher who resigned. The Fatima School Council President resigned when she heard about it.

Of course the first question a lot of people have is- why are people who don't agree with Catholicism applying for these jobs in the first place? For some people, it's what they can get. Or maybe they've had their fill of the public school system. More and more people in my town are supporting the idea that the Catholic church should be more understanding and leave people's private lives alone.

I've been on vacation and was just catching up with all this. Thought it was interesting enough to share.

 

[AshburnerX]

Of course the first question a lot of people have is- why are people who don't agree with Catholicism applying for these jobs in the first place? For some people, it's what they can get. Or maybe they've had their fill of the public school system. More and more people in my town are supporting the idea that the Catholic church should be more understanding and leave people's private lives alone.

Because Catholicism (and faith in general) doesn't mean what the church says, no matter what they believe. It is deeply personal experience for everyone involved and it is up to the individual to reconcile their beliefs with their actions, not for the church to enforce dogma.

 

[Cajungal]

Just to be clear, it wasn't my question. That's just the popular argument by those siding with the diocese.

 

[Ravenpoe]

More and more people in my town are supporting the idea that the Catholic church should be more understanding and leave people's private lives alone.

When has the Catholic Church ever done this?

 

[Cajungal]

True. It makes me feel good that the majority of people I talk to think this is a ridiculous policy. A lot of parents dont like it, and i wonder if this will affect admissions. There are many families who don't care at all about the Catholic education part of those private schools--it's more about the academic reputation.

It's just a rough time to be a teacher all around. Just a few weeks ago, a young man wasn't allowed to finish student teaching because he expressed his concerns about violent/disrespectful students at a board meeting. My job is demanding, but it's times like this that I feel the most grateful. Some days I run home crying, but I know that my administration trusts me and has my back as long as I do my job well.

 

[Terrik]

True. It makes me feel good that the majority of people I talk to think this is a ridiculous policy. A lot of parents dont like it, and i wonder if this will affect admissions. There are many families who don't care at all about the Catholic education part of those private schools--it's more about the academic reputation.

It's just a rough time to be a teacher all around. Just a few weeks ago, a young man wasn't allowed to finish student teaching because he expressed his concerns about violent/disrespectful students at a board meeting. My job is demanding, but it's times like this that I feel the most grateful. Some days I run home crying, but I know that my administration trusts me and has my back as long as I do my job well.

Was the young man not allowed to voice his concerns? What's the problem?

 

[TommiR]

Under most circumstances I might side with the Church on this. I do not perceive much fault with the idea that a private institution should be allowed to recruit those they deem the best fitted for the job, both in terms of professional qualifications as well as general suitability to the organisation. But there is one part in the letter that does resonate with me:

If that is how it wishes to hire, then do so at the beginning, and not after a career spent at the institution.

To my mind, that is as valid a counterpoint as any. If this was over some business-related reason, such as offering to renew the contracts at slightly worse terms due to financial reasons, I would probably not see many problems in principle. It would be a business decision, with the outcome determining whether it was a good one or a bad one. But adding some rather restricting moral clauses to a contract after years of good service from the employee seems to be a bit off-center. Exactly how much would depend, I guess, on how much these new clauses differ from the old ones that they signed up for previously.

Had they instituted this policy on new recruitments while naturally phasing out the old ones, fine with me (again in principle). But this is more suspect.

 

[Cajungal]

Was the young man not allowed to voice his concerns? What's the problem?

Well, the principal gave a reason, but I think he's lying about it. This guy--without naming names (people or the school)--read threats made by a students that no one was addressing. He was worried about the safety of his school and the time his students were being denied because of distractions. It was a word-for-word quote that contained some profanity. When the principal heard what he had done, he told the man not to bother finishing out the semester. He blamed it on the profanity in his quoted statement. I think he was just embarrassed that his school got called out (but not really) for refusing to take care of serious discipline problems.

The man had tried to follow the regular chain of command first. He started by reporting the student to the administration, and he tried many times. Kids get dozens of warnings and referrals with no consequences, there's no home support in many cases, and teachers are desperate for help. He was right to open up a conversation about it.

 

[Espy]

Personally I think it's ridiculous and against everything the gospel stands for, however, this is America and in the long run I guess I'd rather see them be able to do this than have the government stepping in.

 

[Krisken]

Personally I think it's ridiculous and against everything the gospel stands for, however, this is America and in the long run I guess I'd rather see them be able to do this than have the government stepping in.

Since when has the Catholicism had anything to do with the gospel?

 

[Espy]

 

[Krisken]

Thought you'd like that

 

[HCGLNS]

I am baffled by this. All of those conditions would be considered illegal for an employer to even ask about in Canada.

 

[Dei]

Because Catholicism (and faith in general) doesn't mean what the church says, no matter what they believe. It is deeply personal experience for everyone involved and it is up to the individual to reconcile their beliefs with their actions, not for the church to enforce dogma.

And this is why the Vatican hates American Catholics

 

[Espy]

I am baffled by this. All of those conditions would be considered illegal for an employer to even ask about in Canada.

As a religious organization they have the right to ask people to follow what they consider to be important tenants of their religion. In this case it's what they view as a moral person. As much as I would prefer they have a different stance I think religious freedom like this is not only a huge part of why America exists but an essential part of people being free. Doesn't mean I have to like how some religions use that freedom though, but really, if you apply to work at any religious place it's rather silly to be upset if they want you to commit to (what they consider) religious ideas.

 

[Bubble181]

There's a big difference between what you consider "freedom of religion" though. In Belgium as well, most of those would be flat-out illegal. A person is free to worship/believe in whatever or whoever they want, it's not connected to ho good or bad a teacher they are.

I went to a catholic school, I had a gay religious teacher one year who was let go after 2 years of being at the school. His contract wasn't not renewed because he was openly gay, but because he was actively promoting sexual experimentation and trying things out. Which I still thought was bullshit, but anyway - as long as what he taught was in line with the moral guidelines of the school, his personal life was his.

The viszion of "freedom" as seen/used in the US seems to me to be less free in some ways than the more European view (note: "in some ways" - the reverse is also true).
Anyway, these sort of rules are completely against the one and only rule the New Testament sets forth, so, eh.
I'll just go back to waiting for the first goverment official to ever say "Allah bless the USA" instead of "God bless the USA" in public and get re-elected.

 

[Espy]

There's a big difference between what you consider "freedom of religion" though. In Belgium as well, most of those would be flat-out illegal.

I think what you might find is that there is a bit of a difference between a lot of Europe and America when it comes to what just the word "freedom" means. Forcing private religious institutions to follow rules made by the government is... uh... well, generally the opposite of what most folks think of as "religious freedom". I understand why they feel the need to but I'm very glad it's not how we function over here as it goes against a lot of the basic concepts upon why the country was founded.

A person is free to worship/believe in whatever or whoever they want, it's not connected to ho good or bad a teacher they are.

It's not connected in this case either. It's very clear this is about the example they believe the teachers are to be to the students (one who upholds the religions morals), not how good of a teacher they are.

I went to a catholic school, I had a gay religious teacher one year who was let go after 2 years of being at the school. His contract wasn't not renewed because he was openly gay, but because he was actively promoting sexual experimentation and trying things out. Which I still thought was bullshit, but anyway - as long as what he taught was in line with the moral guidelines of the school, his personal life was his.

You won't find much disagreement from me here.

The viszion of "freedom" as seen/used in the US seems to me to be less free in some ways than the more European view (note: "in some ways" - the reverse is also true).

You seem to counter yourself here so I guess I'll just let you carry on?

Anyway, these sort of rules are completely against the one and only rule the New Testament sets forth, so, eh.

...Kind of? You are bringing up a loaded theological concept here thats very often simplified down to something like this, but I don't think it truly a good representation of what Jesus was saying for a variety of reasons. I'll try to be brief but I will spoiler it so people don't have to get caught up in my graduate school work...:

Spoiler

Okay, the concept you speak of is brought up about twice around Jesus. Once he's asked what someone must do to get into heaven and Jesus goes, "Well, what does the LAW (*this is important*) say?" and the dude quotes Deuteronomy back to him: And he answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.” And Jesus says, hell yes bro, "Do this and you will live." But THEN the dude say, "Okay smart guy, who's my neighbor? Huh? HUH?" See, this wasn't about which rules to follow, it was about something very different.

It was about racism.

See, everyone hated everyone who wasn't like them back then (crazy right?), but EVERYONE hated this group of smelly horrible people called the Samaritans. It didn't matter if you were Jewish, Roman, whatever, EVERYONE hated them. Like ultra-racism. So what this guy wanted to hear was, "Your neighbors are the good upstanding folks who look just like you" but what Jesus said was not what he wanted to hear:

30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[e] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’ 36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” 37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

This is where Jesus disciples go, "AW SNAP, you just got served son!" So Jesus said, basically, you want to know who your neighbor is? It's everyone, but it's especially those people you treat like shit.

Now, thats awesome you say, but it's still these only 2 rules that are brought up by Jesus right? Well not really. See if you were a 1st century Jew listening to Jesus you would realize, hey, he's quoting Deuteronomy 6:5, which is basically the starting point for the Law. So you would understand he's still referring to the Law by saying this, the difference is Jesus isn't saying, "Hey here's a huge list of rules to follow" instead he's saying "Hey, you that huge list of rules to follow? It's way more about what is in your heart." So he says, the law says adultery is bad right? Well I'm telling you that if you lust after a woman in your heart it's the same thing. It's bad to steal right? Well if you covet things then it's not different because God looks at your heart.

See the Jewish people were very used to the law being all about external stuff. Jesus said, look, the law is great but it doesn't change your heart. I'm interested in changing your heart. So sure, love your neighbor is great but hey STOP BEING RACIST IN YOUR HEART because God sees it dummy!

So while I get what you mean by using this reference there's a lot more going on in that passage than just the concept most people take from it.
Now, if we apply this entire concept to this issue, well, I think there's a place for it to be used here, but it's still more complicated than just the words we read in the verse. Thats really how the Bible works. To understand it you have to get genre, authorial intent and cultural context as well as the history of the text. Also it helps to be a first century Jew.

I'll just go back to waiting for the first goverment official to ever say "Allah bless the USA" instead of "God bless the USA" in public and get re-elected.

Technically "God" is just a title, it's more universal really, so I guess it all works in the end no matter what religion you are part of, the only issue you run into is people who don't get that "God" isn't "God's" name. It's his Title. Like, Kitchen Manager or Police Officer or Community Organizer.

In the end people have to decide what they want religious freedom to mean. Do you want religions to be able to ask those who work for them (whether in churches, synagogs, mosques, religious schools and universities, etc, etc) to live up to a religious code of conduct? Or do you want the government to force religions to be equal opportunity employers? I think it's fine for different countries to disagree on this but I'm very happy to live somewhere were there is a decent line between church and state (although I would personally argue there needs to be less religion in the government but thats a whole different post).[DOUBLEPOST=1365366628][/DOUBLEPOST]For the record I taught at a Christian University (not Catholic) that has a lifestyle statement somewhat similar. I was only an adjunct so they didn't make me sign it but I can tell you this: I think their rules are ridiculous that they have set up, that they are not biblical and I wouldn't have signed it if they had asked me to. They would have to pay me way better to tempt me to sign it.

 

[Bubble181]

Errr...Yes?

I think we are, mostly, in agreement. And I don't think I contradicted myself, necessarily, by saying that different views of "freedom" or "religious freedom", as they are seen in Europe (and I'll add that I'm only talking about parts of Europe....Catholicism as seen through an Italian lense is quite different from what a Dutchman will say about it, let alone a German) have different benefits and downsides.

The "freedom of religion" as Americans seem to regard it, allows not only individuals to believe what they want in their home, but also tries to allow people to found organisations or enterprises based in that religion - and thus, allows for private enterprises to control their employee's actions. There are some limits, but even so. As such, in the US, a school can put in their rules that their staff should all be straight, catholic, and whathaveyou, and you're fine with it. One of those limits would be that, as far as I'm aware, in at least most of the US, you can't open a school and teach nothing but the Bible. Otherwise, those madrasas might as well be built in the US instead of in Pakistan
A more "European" way of looking at "freedom of religion" is more focussed on personal experience of freedom. I'd feel violated and offended if my employer even asked what religion I was, let alone tried to enforce this sort of thing on me. If I was working in a school, and they fired me for not being Catholic, or for being gay which is against their religious doctrine, they'd be guilty of religious prosecution. They'd be guilty of discrimination. In your free time, you're allowed to do what you want, as far as religion goes, but in public, in the workplace, etc, we try to enforce rules to make sure everyone is able to live together.

Of course, this is a topic that is very much still a hot issue here. France, Belgium, the Netherlands, we're all still discussing what is or isn't right, what should or shouldn't be acceptable. There are good arguments on all sides. It's mostly considered relating to muslims these days, but it's still just as true in regards to christians and Catholics.

As for the spoilered bit: I know I was simplifying...But that's an unfortunate downside of arguing on line on some message board. People already complain on Facebook all the time that I should just start writing a blog 6 years of Catholic school and 4 years getting a Masters in philosophy and moral sciences at what pretty much amounts to the Freemason University of Belgium have made me quite aware of what's in the Bible - and in contrast to most people in my classes, I actullay did read through the whole Bible and the Quran...I'll admit to having forgotten much, and obviously I studied it from a different point of view, with most teachers spending more time as to why it's archaic etc than why it can still be useful. I'm agnostic, but I tended to get in quite a few arguments with the atheists over their view of christianity.

Anyway, I'm wandering around and going nowhere, so I'll just try and find some point to end on. You said that having religious organisations follow rules made by the government is the opposite of religious freedom. I'd posit that not having any checks against religious zealotry and letting employers discriminate on the basis of/against religion, is the opposite of religious freedom.
I feel more free, knowing I can have any faith I want and I cannot in any way be disadvantaged because of it, than I would knowing that I could have any religion I want, but anyone else would be free to "refuse service", fire me, or otherwise take action against me because of my faith.

 

[strawman]

It seems to me that if the school wants teachers who not only teach the principles the school wants taught, but they also live according to those principles, the school should be allowed to do so. Students aren't dumb, and can tell when adults say one thing but don't believe it or live it. Further, the teachers are meant to stand as role models and set and live according to the standards the school expects.

It may be hard, as a teacher, to get a good job, but that doesn't mean the school should adapt to its teachers just so they have an easier time getting a job.

It may be that some parents send their students to the school in order to get a superior education, and the religious aspect isn't important. But there are parents who send their kids to this school in part because of the focus on morality, and in order to expose students to adults who live according the the gospel in stark contrast to what they would encounter in nearly any other public school.

Again, even if the teacher restricts themselves to their subject, say science, by living according to the principles the school expects they teach students indirectly that even those with a strong science, math, etc background can live and believe in the principles of their religion.

 

[Cajungal]

Sure, they are within their rights. It's just stupid to me. There is not one truly devout Catholic in this city... by the bishop's standards. Parents send their kids to these schools primarily because they're afraid of Lafayette public schools. So If I had any hope for the church at all, or if I didn't know my region so well, I might be more understanding. But probably not.

And another thing- They want to dig into the private lives of teachers, but of course, not the families. They provide the money. Divorced parents, non-Christians, parents who get their daughters birth control and abortions. They're going to be exposed to all that. Why not teach kids to be compassionate of all people instead f trying to shut out realities that will shock them in college? Why do you think so many people go bat-shit crazy after high school? You can't move from an insanely sheltered environment to one like a university without experiencing a little shock. It's impractical, and it's hypocritical.

 

[Krisken]

You know, Cajungal, if you gave them money they wouldn't care so much. God always needs money.

 

[Cajungal]

You know, Cajungal, if you gave them money they wouldn't care so much. God always needs money.

Maybe the teachers who give enough to the school's Annual Fund will be spared.

This is why I like working with Episcopalians. They don't give two shits as long as you take part in the bake sale or picnic or whatever friendly-ass thing they're doing that weekend.

 

[Zappit]

You know, Cajungal, if you gave them money they wouldn't care so much. God always needs money.

You know, I think the new Pope would turn it down. I've got my fingers crossed Francis is going to break from what the church has been doing the last few years, and bringing back a little compassion.

 

[Krisken]

Hey, I'm impressed by the guy so far. Lets hope his humble attitude trickles down to the rest of the clergy.