I first wrote about Carie Charlesworth’s story here. Carie’s teaching contract at Holy Trinity Catholic School was not renewed for the 2013-2014 academic year because Carie is the victim of domestic abuse. I find this to be a terrible injustice. But Carie is not alone. Here are the stories of other people fired from their jobs at Catholic institutions:
Emily Herx’s teaching contract was not renewed because diocesan officials learned she had undergone in vitro fertilization.
Christa Dias was dismissed from her job after she requested maternity leave. Because Dias was not married, the archdiocese said that her dismissal was justified because she violated her contract by having a child out of wedlock and by becoming pregnant through artificial insemination. Interestingly, Dias is not Catholic.
Carla Hale was fired from her job as a teacher after someone notified the diocese that she had included the name of her female domestic partner among survivors in her mother’s local newspaper obituary. The bishop said that she was let go because of her “quasi-spousal relationship,” which violates church teachings. Carla Hale is Methodist.
Al Fischer was fired from his job as a music teacher and music director after a representative of the Archdiocese of St. Louis learned that he married his partner in a civil ceremony in New York City.
There may very well be many more people impacted who have not been able to share their story with a wider audience. There are a few reasons why I find these stories so troubling.
Privileging of Sexual Morality
Four of the five people named above were fired from their positions because their actions violated Church teachings on sexual morality (use of artificial reproductive technology, childbearing out of wedlock, and same-sex relationships). I have not found a documented case of a woman fired for use of artificial birth control or a man fired for having a vasectomy, but these would be plausible reasons for termination of employment if we were to use the logic of the diocesan statements in the above cases. The “Pre-Application Statement” for the Diocese of San Diego Office for Schools explains the policy in this way:
The Church needs the service of dedicated lay persons who have a clear knowledge and proper understanding of the teachings of the Church with a firm adherence to those teachings, and whose words and deeds are in conformity with the Gospel. Those employed by the Church in our parishes, Catholic schools and other institutions, as co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord, are rightly expected to be practicing Catholics whose faith is an essential part of their daily lives, and who participate fully in the communal worship and life of the Church.
To be employed by the Church, persons of good faith who are not Catholic must have an understanding of the Catholic Church and her teachings and respect the Catholic vision on important social, moral, and ethical issues.
So, if you are employed by a Catholic institution, not only must you do your job to the best of your ability, you must also follow the Church’s teachings and participate in Church life. Does this mean I could be fired if I skip Mass on Sunday? If I do not tithe? If I vote according to my conscience, even if I vote for a pro-choice political candidate? I could be fired if I have an abortion, if I am unfaithful to my spouse, or if I use pornography (Once? Repeatedly? No distinction is made).
Double Standard
The policy above, which is one example of a diocesan statement, is so broad that any violation of Church teaching could be named as justification for termination of employment. In practice, it seems to have been applied more narrowly to cases involving artificial reproduction and same-sex relationships. So there seems to be a double standard here. If all Catholic institutions were to abide by this policy, how many more people would be fired? In the case of Nicholas Coppola, who was prohibited from working as a catechist and minister to the homebound for his Catholic parish after the bishop found out he was in a same-sex relationship, Bishop Bob Brennan said that it was not a “witch hunt” but nevertheless Coppola could no longer participate in any ministries for the parish. But was this standard fairly applied to all ministers in the diocese? Has this standard been applied to priests accused of sexual misconduct and bishops accused of covering up this misconduct?
Standard: Perfection?
If you work for a Catholic institution, your “words and deeds” must be “in conformity with the Gospel.” This is a high standard indeed. But how is it interpreted? One could ask the same about the Code of Ethical Standards for Church Ministers for the Diocese of San Diego, which claims:
Church ministers are expected to be persons of integrity who conduct themselves in a manner that is open, honest, and above board. This requires that they be conscientious in their ministry and morally upright in their personal lives.
At stake here are two issues. One is the assumption that a standard of moral perfection is possible and desireable, when in fact even our theological tradition assumes that human beings are wounded by sin and agents of sin in need of God’s grace. We cannot simply add to all future job postings the statement: “Sinners need not apply.” All of us, by virtue of our common humanity, are sinners in need of God’s grace. Our hiring strategy as a Church cannot simply be to hire all the non-sinners. The second issue is the contested claim that a person whose life is not in conformity to the Church’s teachings is thereby not “morally upright.” Imagine a hospital chaplain who is a good listener, sensitive to the needs of grieving family members, with a compassionate bedside manner and honesty in his conversations with his supervisor, whose job is at risk after he confides that he and his wife use condoms to prevent the possibility of having another child at this point in their marriage. Some might argue that the chaplain’s decision, while not in conformity to the church’s teachings, is nevertheless not grounds for his termination of employment on the basis of moral failing, especially if he and his wife have made this decision after prayerful discernment. One could imagine many different kinds of scenarios here, but my point is simply that there may be many people striving to live moral lives in their complex circumstances who find that they cannot live in conformity to the church’s official teachings. The church policies that have been cited in press reports do not cite examples of grave harm caused by those who have lost their jobs; for Emily, Christa, Carla, and Al, no evidence was given that any of them had a record of misconduct in a job performance review. We aren’t talking about someone being fired because s/he verbally abused a student, stole money from the institution, or harassed a fellow employee.
A Climate of Silence, Fear, and Shame
An implication of these policies is that one cannot assume that a Catholic workplace will be a safe place to speak honestly about any contested moral issues. If you could lose your job for honestly admitting that you struggle with an official church teaching, why would you speak up? But without this honest discourse, the church itself suffers. For many people, these stories serve as a warning to keep their mouths closed if they want to keep their jobs. Don’t discuss your personal life, don’t discuss politics, don’t tell your co-worker what you did on vacation, don’t talk about reading this blog post! If you depend on your job for financial security and family stability (who doesn’t?), be prudent. Be silent. Don’t make waves.
Brain Drain in Catholic Institutions?
A further implication is that some good people will leave. Not because they aren’t the best math teachers or music directors or day care workers or chaplains or guidance counselors, but because the best math teacher is gay, and the best music director is on the pill, and the best day care worker has a daughter who is lesbian and she is sick and tired of feeling ashamed when she talks about her grandchildren at work and her employer tells her that her grandchildren will be damaged by growing up with two mommies. Meanwhile, nothing happens to the bishop who gets a DUI.
By saying that jobs at Catholic parishes, schools, and other institutions are only open to people who live in conformity to the Church’s official teachings, we limit the pool of candidates. There may be some jobs where this trade-off makes sense. But to make the case that every teacher in a Catholic school must agree with and abide by all official Church teachings, even when that teacher is not Catholic and not responsible for teaching that material, is problematic. It takes the focus away from the worker’s skills and the overall mission of the institution to which that worker contributes by being the best worker one can be.
The Dignity of the Worker in Catholic Social Thought
The Catholic Church has a long tradition of upholding the value of work and especially the dignity of the worker. In his summary of Catholic social teaching on the human significance of work, theologian William E. May writes that the chief concerns of the popes have been:
To stress the dignity of the worker and of work as a free activity of human persons; to secure the rights of workers, particularly to a living and, indeed, to a family wage; to instill in all a love for the common good not only of individual nations but of the whole human race; and to help everyone recognize that the material goods of the universe are intended to serve the needs of all human persons, in particular the weak and the poor. In addition, there was a clear recognition of the dignity of all human work, including the “labor of our bodies,” precisely because of the priceless dignity of the human persons who are the subject of work. –“Theology of Work,” 998.
May continues:
With previous popes John Paul II recognizes that human persons can be exploited and degraded because of the conditions under which they are at times made to work. But he teaches that the principal factor contributing to the degradation of human workers is caused when all personal satisfaction and incentives to creativity and responsibility are denied to workers and, above all, when they are made unable to recognize that they are, in a true sense, working for themselves as free and responsible persons (citing Laborem Exercens, no. 5), May, “Theology of Work,” 999.
If the Catholic Church is to fulfill its mission in the world, it should take its own advice and be sure that the Church is itself a good employer. If the Church’s own employment practices are unjust and degrading to workers, and if these policies create a climate of fear and shame, the Church suffers and the people to whom the Church ministers will suffer. If you want to attract and keep the best co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord, treat them with justice and dignity.
Emily, Thank you for this excellent post. What i find striking in this privileging of sexual morality – is how many of these decisions are simply not pro-life. To fire a pregnant woman because she is unmarried, how can you square that with Catholic teaching on abortion? A domestic violence victim? It is very disturbing…and what damage is being done to the Body of Christ by the dichotomy of firing a pregnant unmarried woman and doing nothing re: bishop who gets DUI? I think perhaps we need to have a conversation on the true nature of scandal….
When I was a religion teacher at a Catholic school in the archdiocese of LA, a (female) teacher got pregnant out of wedlock and there was noise made about firing her; however, the year before a (male) teacher had gotten a woman pregnant and had been very vocal talking about his kids to faculty and students alike. It was a gender discrimination suit and she got to keep her job.
While her job prospects were still up in the air, there was much whispered conversation among the more progressive members of the faculty about both the gender double standard and the disconnect in our contracts. We were all required to sign a separate statement in our morals clause that said if we had an abortion or helped someone procure an abortion while in the employ of the archdiocese we would be immediately fired. Would the administration have preferred that she have a secret abortion when she found herself pregnant? It seemed so, because as long as they never found out, her job would never have been in jeopardy.
I left the school a few years later when the superintendent of Catholic schools sent an email to every faculty member in the archdiocese telling us that if we did anything to advocate for gay marriage, even in our off time, we would be immediately fired, and if a child came to us questioning her/his sexuality we should refer her/him for reparative therapy. My sexual orientation was one of the worst kept secrets in the school so I decided to leave at the end of that year, before I was forced out by a scandal and became unemployable.
These stories of the firing of catholic teachers for crazy reasons is just sickening. Also there are the odd loyalty oath some schools/dioceses impose. My son is a dynamic bright young man and now is in Notre Dame’s Alliance for Catholic Education program–learning to be a great teacher in catholic schools. But I have not been encouraging to him. There is no justice as an employee in catholic schools.
Emily, thank you for writing about these injustices happening within Catholic schools. It is defeating to hear about all of these different accounts and knowing that this cycle of double standards and gender discrimination continues. Do these same instances happen as much at Catholic Universities as K-12 schools?
Nothing happens to the bishop who gets a DUI? How about nothing happens to the bishop convicted of failing to report the sexual abuse of a minor? Sheesh.
Thank you so much Meghan, Kat, and H08590, for chiming in.
H, I know the ACE program well, and I believe they do very good work. My brother and many of my own college classmates are ACE grads. But I find this climate very troubling, as you do. We need dedicated teachers in Catholic schools so my sincere hope is that we as a church will realize the vulnerability of the workers in the vineyard and work to create a safe and just work environment for them all.
Kat, I hope you have found a position that is fulfilling without the risks you’ve described in your previous job. That takes a lot of courage, and I’m sure it was very difficult for you. I’m disturbed to hear that students were referred to reparative therapy! I actually interned for one summer with the Los Angeles Ministry with Lesbian and Gay Catholics, and the diocese policy at the time was NOT reparative therapy. Something changed then. I’m very sorry to hear that.
Meghan, let’s do something more about scandal… you’re on to something.
One of the things that struck me today as I was reading story after story is that academics (yes, even untenured ones) have a great deal of privilege. If this post had been written by a high school teacher, could she be fired? Certainly I can say more than many lay ecclesial ministers. I don’t say this to flaunt any power, but rather to pose an ecclesiological problem: how do we discuss thorny and contested moral issues as a church community in a way that approaches truth without bullying, harassment, fear, silencing, shame, etc? We can’t have genuine “listening sessions” with lay people who are too vulnerable to speak (for fear of losing their jobs, for example). So certainly there is more to say about scandal and Catholic teaching on justice for workers… but there is also an underlying ecclesial problem here that we really need to probe. Are Catholic institutions the chess pieces of the bishops, the play things they control, or are they institutions reflecting the mission and vision of the whole people of God?
If I understand correctly, the Pope himself recently reported that there is financial corruption and a “gay cabal” in the Vatican. According to a NPR story, a number of the Vatican officials are black mailing each other with gay sex stories, and money laundering for the mob may be involved. I’m not in a position to either verify or deny these reports.
The news stories I’ve heard did not mention anything about the Pope firing any of the people he was referring to, though I hope to be misinformed here. It’s hard to imagine the Pope would make such a public statement, and then not act on it, so I’m holding out hope.
I’m very sympathetic to the article above, but would have to grant that there must be instances when any employer would have to let people go for failing to meet the standards of the organization in question. If the organization claims to be be speaking for God himself, and positions itself as the leading moral spokesman on Earth, then surely this complicates the question considerably.
That said, it’s completely inexcusable that there be one standard for lower ranking workers, and another standard for higher ranking workers. If anything, the higher ranking workers should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one.
To me, the core question is how one defines the Church.
If one defines the Catholic Church to be the self appointed leadership and it’s perspectives, then the credibility of the Church will forever be seriously vulnerable to the human weaknesses of that small group of people.
If on the other hand, one defines the Catholic Church to be the sum total of the beliefs and lives of over a billion Catholics, a tapestry of rich and complex diversity, then the failings of any small group of Catholics such as the leadership can be put in to the context of the fact that we are all flawed creatures struggling with imperfection. In this case, the failing of individuals would fall upon the individuals involved, and not the Church as a whole.
Of the five people you mention at the top of your post, four were K-8 teachers, and one was a high school teacher. But your post — astonishingly — makes no mention at all of the ramifications for the children. Yet that was by far and away the primary underlying reason why actions were taken against those five. There’s no quicker or easier way of land-mining the faith of children than by leaving a scandal in place.
For example, take the case of the teacher undergoing IVF. If the story came out, what exactly should the children be taught about IVF?
>>> There’s no quicker or easier way of land-mining the faith of children than by leaving a scandal in place.
Does this include scandals at the Church leadership level? Does the principle you’ve articulated apply to all those who make their livings in the Church, or only those without power?
It seems to me that any principle or procedure that is not applied equally to all quickly becomes yet another land mine.
It seems reasonable to debate what the standards should be, but not reasonable to have different standards for different Church employees.
Thanks, all, for your comments. Paccer, I certainly believe that our approach should think about what is best for the children in the schools. But that bolsters my argument: we need the best teachers in our schools, even if the best math teacher is in a same sex partnership and the best chemistry teacher uses birth control. What do we tell our children? We tell them that this is what it means to be a pilgrim church. We explain official church teaching and we explain that all persons are created by God with inherent dignity. I think the situation would be very different if the teacher in question had been accused of a wrongdoing that was more directly pertinent to his/her job. But in these cases, I think that we should be able to tell our children that to really live up to our mission these teachers should not have been fired, nor should teachers in similar situations.
Emily – Thank you so much for this post – I hope it becomes one of our “greatest hits” on the blog, because it raises such important issues at a very broad level. The comments already suggest that it has generated really good discussion.
In particular, I think the post and the comments indicate the damage of maintaining apparently arbitrary multi-standards, whether based on different issues, genders, the scandalous bishops, etc. The Church as a whole needs to think through more systematically what it means to have ecclesial and moral obligations as a condition of employment. At a broad level, there seems to be consensus that (a) these are appropriate, as we have a shared mission, but (b) we do not want to go the common Evagelical route of basically having a spelled-out statement of belief. But then how to negotiate the alternatives?
I think Emily’s distinction here between “we are all sinners” and the question of disagreement with Church teaching is a fruitful place to consider this problem. So “we are all sinners” clearly could be used to justify continuing employment for anyone in any situation. There must be a judgment about gravity here, and we need to have a discussion about what the appropriate standards of gravity are. The question of disagreement with Church teaching seems different to me. This is not a matter of someone making a mistake and seeking forgiveness and reconciliation. It is a matter of someone believing sincerely that the Church’s teaching is wrong – and it could apply not only to a whole array of sexual issues (living together, IVP, same-sex partnerships, remarriage, etc.) but also to a host of other issues. I frankly think this case is considerably trickier than either side tends to make it.
Let’s define the sides as “stringent” and “flexible” (or I could use other language, but it is alll loaded) – the point is that I think neither side is really viable. It makes little sense, especially to children, to be taught one thing “officially” but to know that the teachers themselves regard the teaching as wrong and live differently. The obvious response here – as we do with children all the time – is try to conceal the complexity of the world until a time when we think they are ready to deal with it. That is, in these issues, the proper understanding of “scandal” can have some force, if it is worked out carefully. On the other hand, the “stringent” side faces many problems of trying to determine which teachings and what degree of violation will affect employment. Arbitrary, unclear, and inconsistent enforcement – a vague threat hanging over everything – is exactly what fosters that awful climate of fear and even deception that Emily describes.
I have to say here that my tendency in these cases is to fall back on local communities negotiating these matters with clarity and integrity, and with a sense that not all Catholic communities (whether schools, dioceses, whatever) will come up with the same solution. The fact is, most young students know little to nothing about a teacher’s private life, and thus it is (as Emily puts it) not “directly pertinent to his/her job”. How this would apply to theology teachers or campus ministers or others with more catechical responsibility is a different question.
Emily Reimer-Barry: We explain official church teaching and we explain that all persons are created by God with inherent dignity.
I asked specifically about IVF, since it was given by you as an example of how the archdioceses are mishandling these things.
So, we tell children what IVF involves, and we explain that in the more common procedures, children are often created in larger than usual numbers, that some of them fail to survive the environment they are in, some are culled as being genetically inferior or disabled, some are frozen indefinitely because they might be convenient for later on (if they survive any later unfreezing) and that, after all that, any genetically superior and thriving children are planted back in the mother to see if they might make it. And we tell the children that the Catholic Church thinks that this is all very gravely immoral, and ought never ever be done to children.
And then we tell them that Miss Smith is currently doing exactly the things we think are gravely immoral, but that she will stay in the school because she is a pretty nifty French teacher.
Really?
Thanks for this post Emily.
The way the Church sometimes mistreats her employees is a disgrace and a scandal (leading others into sin by distancing them from the Church) and a violation of the rights of the workers concerned.
In the Al Fischer case, I fail to see anything in the civil marriage ceremony for same sex couples that violates Catholic teaching in any way. How can promising to love each other till death do us part possibly be against Church teaching ?
The climate of fear this all creates is a serious problem and a huge obstacle to the New Evangelisation.
God Bless
Paccer, I appreciate your question very much. It is possible that we see this question differently, or perhaps that you see it as more black-and-white than I do. But to answer your question in a little more detail, I would need to know how old the students are before I could develop a sufficient lesson plan. And I do not think that “outing” Mrs. Smith the French teacher would be appropriate in an ethics lesson, but treating her with respect as a co-worker would be absolutely necessary.
If we’re talking about a high school class, I would approach IVF through larger issues of sexuality, marriage, and parenting. We could talk about how longing to be a parent is a good desire in itself, and how the pain and grief of infertility is not only very difficult but very common. In the face of that grief, there are a variety of choices couples face. The Church allows for methods of fertility that help a married heterosexual couple to achieve pregnancy by sexual intercourse, here are the details… The Church recommends adoption, and adoption is a very loving choice. Here are the barriers to adoption for many couples… Some couples choose IVF for these reasons, and here is why the Church does not permit IVF. Depending on the level of the course it might be appropriate to raise questions of personhood and to talk about using precise language, connecting this issue to abortion as you do above (but I would avoid using the term “children”).
In short, I do think that students have a right to know the church’s official teaching and the rationale and history behind that teaching, as well as critical perspectives of that teaching when age-appropriate and sensitively addressed.
A larger issue I see, if we as a Church focus too much on weeding out the people who do not believe/obey church teaching is that we will come to a point where some people will say that students who were created through IVF should not be enrolled in Catholic schools. To me it seems ridiculous, but yet plausible. What do you think?
I want to second Emily’s point that the circumstances surrounding a particular teachers pregnancy (or any health related matter, which is not a contagious infectious disease) is not the business of the students. Furthermore, in teaching Church teaching – one must also be very careful in how one presents church teaching on IVF….as it is very likely that you have children in the room who either themselves or other members of their family may have been conceived via IVF. As Emily emphasizes, we cannot lose sight of the dignity of the persons involved.
Thanks for that post, Emily! It brought to mind my brother, who has a Master’s in Liturgical Music but has not sought employment in a Catholic church because he saw this unfair firing happen over and over again to his friends and was afraid it would happen to him on account of his sexual orientation. He’s now very happy directing a non-profit (though not making much use of that Master’s degree!). Though personally I feel his musical ability a great loss to the church, I have to say that I do admire him for standing for what he believes. He doesn’t think being actively gay is a sin, and he won’t participate in a church whose official teaching is that homosexual acts are sinful. He knows what he thinks, and he knows what the official church stance is. And because of that he’s sought employment outside the church.
Carie Charlesworth’s case is obviously extremely problematic. But I echo David’s comment in regard to the difference between being a sinner and being opposed to church teaching. In some of the other cases above, it doesn’t seem that people are being fired for being “sinful” according to church teaching. It’s more that they don’t view their acts (IVF, homosexual acts) as sinful. And while I don’t think church institutions should just up and fire people with no notice (which, as mentioned above, is very common in parish settings, at least for my brother’s friends in liturgical music), I do think that when people seek employment at a Catholic institution – especially a school – they should understand that the administration wants teachers who can be positive witnesses to the faith and the official church positions on moral matters (at this point in time the most countercultural among these may happen to be sexual morality). If they can’t abide by that, and they don’t intend to and they know it, they might seek employment elsewhere.
Many parents send their children to Catholic schools specifically to avoid the public school secularism that teaches the opposite of the Church on all these sexual matters. They don’t want their kids getting free condoms at school or being taught that homosexuality is normative. There should be some way to be tolerant of these parents’ views and sympathetic of their desire to have the premier role models (the teachers) in the school witness the faith, including the ever-unpopular sexual morality. I personally don’t buy the “brain-drain” argument (which dates back to at least the 60s in US Catholicism), but I do think that if Catholic schools want to sacrifice teaching ability for witnessing ability, they should be able to make that decision (again, as David said, at the local discernment level – not as some kind of official position). Parents can then make the decision as to whether the school is suitable in terms of academic excellence or whether the parents are willing to sacrifice academic excellence for the assurance that their children won’t be confronted with role models opposed to church teaching in both theory and practice.
Thank you for this post. I have enjoyed many of your other posts, but I think the problems presented by these cases are, as David Cloutier points out, more complicated that you present them on many levels. I would first observe, as you do, how sad it is that the emphasis on sexual morality inevitably becomes a disproportionate practical burden to women. And so it goes…
That said, to point to the problems in the Church hierarchy right now is a cheap move, as a matter of fair reasoning: it is a problem, but of course, two wrongs don’t make a right, as you will know better than I, since you are a moral theologian. (In fact, it arguably makes it harder for laypeople to call the hierarchy to justice and transparency, if we use their sins as a justification for our own.) Here, however, is one problem I suspect: canon law places a binding obligation upon the Church to support until death any who are ordained. The question of firing a powerful, problem priest is a more complex one of ‘where does one put him?’ and ‘what measures are permissible for correction’ given the protections offered to the clergy by canon law. I wonder if the way that laypeople have come to fill so many roles formerly staffed by clergy and religious (in turn, subject to their community superior), creates new problems and tensions as regards the possibilities of ensuring a certain ‘conformity.’ It may also be the case that canon law will have to expand to include protection for the many laypeople who staff their institutions.
This list of cases you include are different in important ways as well, I would note. In at least two cases, the decision was made to publicly affirm and announce same-sex relationships. It seems to me that the actions of local ordinaries are more to be expected. But leaving aside the ‘hot button’ nature of the same-sex issues, here, too, you are disingenuous by pleading ‘how perfect must we all be?’ It is one thing to be imperfect, as obviously we all are, and another thing to know a particular position, one that is particularly controversial, held very publicly by the Church, and say ‘I don’t think so.’ Then, too, you have to admit that teachers may not be ‘ministers’, but they hold remarkable authority at all levels. (This leaves aside the many legal questions of a non-Catholic employee, what constitutes a ‘ministerial’ employee, and so on — a mess, to be sure!) That said, while I am wary of putting too much weight upon will or intention, clearly the cases you list here admit great variation on the part of the motivations of those acted against.
A last thought, following upon this point: I think a previous response asked the great question of how we define the Church. And you have to admit, this is really difficult in these cases. What constitutes legitimate, legally binding, forms of ecclesial community? How does employment locate a person in a community? I don’t know. Back in ye good olde days, the issue of ‘scandal’ was easier to conceptualize, because penance had a public dimension: it really was about the community. I think we are all glad that people are not cast out from parishes when someone commits a grave sin, and publicly reconciled after, say, a year of serious penance. But now that the moral life is adjudicated privately, internally, as a matter of sensed need, and the expectation of confession would never be enforced even with the most pastoral and discrete intentions: does this mean that the community, imperfect by nature as it is, has no way at all to speak as a community about sin? I can imagine an employee spoken to, and told why the Church thinks x is gravely bad for the soul, for society, in which case the nature of the response might determine the course of action for an institution — which should first be concerned with the well-being of souls, and then with the common good of the whole. That is all to say, it is weak argumentatively to only say that we are all sinners… how dare we judge! At the same time, I would observe again that, in a time of rapid change in America viz. ‘Catholic identity’, these matters are complicated. We are likely to see a lot of talk from Bishops about contracts, more legalistic language, and all sorts of institutions rushing about to protect themselves legally through greater specificity. But we are all to be blamed for our litigious culture.
No, I don’t just want the ‘best teacher’ for my students: I want the best person — as Plato says, such is always the best leader. I would not know how to go about determining the best person, from among many, but in an academic market over-flooded with good people, and Ed. departments hardly able to find jobs for their new B.Eds, it is not ridiculous for all levels of educational institutions to ‘hire for mission.’
Finally, many evangelical institutions, even very mainstream ones like Calvin College, have a great many expectations of their employees, including regular attendance at Christian Reformed worship. Is this policed by the institution? more likely by the community. Is there are lot of fudging? Are some behaviors, when kept private and quiet, that are just not talked about? You bet. Maybe this raises the specter of ‘don’t ask, don’t tell,’ but in truth a little bit of gray, a little casuistry, co-existing with a strong sense of the right of a particular community or tradition to adjudicate itself, kinda works — and indeed, may work better than the Catholic route which, when faced with the prospect of litigation argued on the basis of personal freedom, may simply generate more complex contracts and rules and ‘chill’ for employees at Catholic institutions.
David C, thanks so much for your response. I find your distinctions very helpful, and I think it would be good to treat the multiple layers separately when possible. Another distinction that I would want to make has to do with what I consider “contested claims” in moral theology as separate from core issues of the faith. One of the problems I see in the diocesan documents I reviewed was that all authoritative teachings are lumped together without any sense of the relative weight of different teachings, the church’s tradition of prudential application, and/or the church’s tradition of conscience.
On your point about it not making sense to a student when the teacher does not believe what s/he is teaching, I think this depends. I think that a good teacher can model respectful engagement with the tradition, an understanding that learning is a process and that one needs to continually be open to learning no matter one’s age, and a deep appreciation and love for the church even when one may disagree (and I don’t think it is always wise to honestly share points of disagreement with students). Much depends not just on the material covered but how the material is covered and how it is presented. If one ridicules the pope and dismisses magisterial teaching as irrelevant, that is definitely a problem.
On your final point, about subsidiarity, I think this definitely has merit. But the consolidation of power with the bishop and the way that diocesan decisions are made for everyone (for example, the Office of Schools in the Diocese of San Diego and their mandated forms cited above)– makes your suggestion unworkable at least in the present context. But in principle I think it is appropriate for– let’s say a Jesuit high school to have a different interpretation of their Catholic mission than a Brothers of the Sacred Heart high school (to use my husband’s and my own experiences as examples). I think this is what often happens at the college level too. But the tricky part is how to defend that identity when one must negotiate contested personell issues with the diocese.
One last thing- you say there must be a judgment of gravity so that we don’t just fall back on the “we are all sinners” argument and say anything goes. I quite agree. There is much work left to be done on that piece. My only contribution so far is to say that part of what must be considered is whether the offensive action had anything to do with the person’s job, and in these cases above I do not see the connection.
Phil, I agree that part of the underlying issue we need to more fully address is the ecclesial one.
Thanks, all– very fruitful discussion. And thank you to everyone who has emailed me. I know that many are not comfortable chiming in to the comments box, especially if you find yourself in a vulnerable position like the ones I’ve described. My thoughts and prayers with you all.
Emily Reimer-Barry,
By my count you showed sensitivity to those adults considering IVF in six different ways. And to children learning about IVF you showed sensitivity in four different ways. But to the victims you showed nothing at all (except for: “I would avoid using the term ‘children'”, and perhaps “raise questions of personhood”).
I will stick to the preference for the poor.
Carie Charlesworth’s case is for me the most ironic. She had the relatively bigger family urged by conservatives in the Church and was nevertheless sent into poverty by firing, by the Church perhaps because to hire an armed security guard from an agency for the school on a temporary basis is theologically incorrect and thus image incorrect since pacifism reigns supreme since the latter years of John Paul II. The Amish would not protect her with a gun either…but they’d shelter and feed her. We do neither.
The one financial support web site I visited could be real, could be a scam ( another woman named as beneficiary?). Her lawyers should set one up. Her children just learned to leave the Church in my view as will other children who knew them and who slowly ruminate that the Church may not have their back if it costs Her and if the danger to them is very real.
News this morning indicates that Carrie Charlesworth has been offered a job in Los Angeles: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/06/update-teacher-fired-over-abusive-husband-offered-new-job/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Catholic%206.20.13%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=41845353&spUserID=NDEwMTQ5ODE0NTQS1&spJobID=191970493&spReportId=MTkxOTcwNDkzS0
I have a couple of points. First, the title of this article is, “How To Be Fired From Your Job at a Catholic Institution.” Yet pretty much we have been talking about Catholic Schools. What about other Catholic institutions. What about the staff who worked in, or had privileges at our local “St. Joseph Hospital.” What if we tried to fire every doctor
who requested maternity leave but was not married;
practiced birth control; or
lived with a domestic partner in a “quasi-spousal relationship”?
I use “Doctor” because that is definitely a different pay grade than an elementary school teacher, but what if we scrutinized all the staff at the local Catholic Charities?
The bishops, with their objections are clearly claiming that our Catholic hospitals are Catholic institutions. And if this is the case, then why doesn’t this apply to Doctors:
The Church needs the service of dedicated lay persons who have a clear knowledge and proper understanding of the teachings of the Church with a firm adherence to those teachings, and whose words and deeds are in conformity with the Gospel. Those employed by the Church in our parishes, Catholic schools and other institutions, as co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord, are rightly expected to be practicing Catholics whose faith is an essential part of their daily lives, ….
Does this change our discussion about the need for quality staff?
My second point pertains to Emily’s comment, “I know that many are not comfortable chiming in to the comments box, especially if you find yourself in a vulnerable position like the ones I’ve described.” My wife is in a “vulnerable position” and could not respond here or talk about these things publicly. She sometimes feels that she is a coward most of the time because she doesn’t speak up more. I want to say my wife, and those who emailed Emily are not cowards. We do what we can do. Perhaps someday though, Catholic lay people won’t allow themselves to be bullied because they buy into the notion that truth of God =hierarchy of church.
Emily,
Thank you for this post. Many of the respondents point out interesting and clarifying details, but I believe one of your salient and undeniable points is that the Church picks and chooses these “wedge issues” usually along very specific lines.
Would we need to terminate the Bishop with the DUI? Maybe not, but would a real leader stand up to his diocese, admit he was wrong and ask to be let go to attend rehab if needed, to live those “other” moral points that seem so rarely to be emphasized in the RC Church’s public life?
Not too long ago, a gay man was killed here in NYC. I dreamt of plastering posters with “The Dignity of the Human Person” on the front of every RC Church and having Catholics rally along with others in the gay community, not to say we suddenly have changed our moral stripes on sexual teaching, but to express what we do believe in a true, consistent manner that comes to the aid of those who are in need. Isn’t failing to do so giving into a “culture of death?”
How can we act to pressure the Bishops to act more consistently in these matters?
I think Stephen makes an important point about consistency.
I haven’t heard of the Church ever firing anyone who supported the death penalty, or the invasion of Iraq, or opposed trade unions or a Just Wage, or took any actions against Church teaching in those areas.
There is an apparent hypocrisy here in the primacy given to sexual morality and the silence on other important matters of Catholic teaching.
God Bless
Well allow me this thought… I sit with Jesuit priests and brothers and discuss the role of the Catholic Church in our lives.. How best to represent the faithful to the religious so they can understand we are all brothers and sisters in Christ..yet their policies that are ” troubling at best” in a compassionate and informed society has led to great division within the body of the church. How can any institution that is charged with education of both the mind and the spirit display such distasteful conduct with one of its beloved educators when they now are able to legally honour their committed relationship. There are parts of our church that shine brightly as compassion for the poor and suffering are cared for by the religious communities in cities across the world, yet there is still this ability to overlook “church doctrine” that has questionable credibility in our societies today. His Holiness said” who am I to judge”…yet your rendering of this decision to remove this educator for simply being honest and respectful of his legal relationship is anything but ” within the teachings of Christ” and shame upon those “PIOUS FOLK” that sat in judgement of this man……