But i know that at the Catholic diocese school at which my wife worked as an office manager, all teachers were specifically tasked, in writing, in their contracts, that in addition to whatever academic subjects they are assigned to teach, to teach catechism truths, to weave into their lessons the moral message of the Church, to serve as a witness to Christ’s message, and to assist as needed at Mass.
I would say if this woman had a contract that said she was solely responsible for teaching secular subjects, it will be harder for the Church to claim the ministerial exception laid out in Hosanna Tabor. And I would say that if she had a contract similar tothe one used at my wife’s former school, then the Church is in reasonably strong position, from a legal standpoint.
That’s what I was wondering about. The article in the OP says that the school requires all teachers to “abide by the tenets of the Catholic church,” which to me implies that this isn’t just something they pulled out of their ass, but rather a standing condition of employment. And that implies to me that this woman knew about this requirement and agreed to be bound by it when she hired in, in which case I don’t really see that she has a leg to stand on.
I don’t agree with that employment contracts that restrict aspects of your personal life that don’t impact your job performance, but we accept them from secular employers–whether or not you can have a second job, what that second job can be and what hours you can work it, where you can shop, what products you can use. If we accept clauses that restrict things that don’t affect job performance and are none of the employer’s business in the secular realm, I don’t honestly see how we can raise a stink when a church enforces those same sort of clauses.
Sure, if anyone can come up with a plausible argument that an English teacher (let’s bear in mind that she taught nothing else, including religious studies) is “the embodiment of the Church’s message.”
FWIW, at my Catholic high school, I think all of the layperson teachers were also Extraordinary Ministers of the Holy Eucharist - it made services in the gym go a lot faster. It wouldn’t surprise me if this is fairly common, depending on what the make-up of the teachers at the school is (mine only had 1 priest - of the rest about 1/3 were sisters, the rest laypeople - total students there was probably around 1200).
Claiming that they will hire non-Catholics but making them follow(through contract) all the tenets of the Catholic church, both on and off duty seems a little iffy legal wise to me. Would a Jewish woman who signed such a contract have to use a Catholic priest to get married?
I do not know about this school, but the local parochial school in my neighborhood will fire anyone that has an abortion or says anything other the offical RRC policy that abortion is a grievous sin while talking with the students. They also fire people for living together without being married, having an illegitimate child, or remarrying after a divorced. But you know what, everybody hired there from principal to janitor knows that from the moment they apply for a job and either lives with it or finds other work. If this was a teacher in a public school, I would say she should sue them until bleed. But it’s a private religious school, their rules, and she wasn’t compelled to teach there is she didn’t like their rules.
She had no other duties? Her mandate did not include the direction to teach English studies with an awareness of and integration to the catechism of the church? Really?
You teach nothing that the RCC has ever condemned as immoral or which contains opinions that contradict RCC values unless the purpose of their inclusion is to refute those opinions. Seriously, it’s not that difficult and religious schools of all faiths have these kind of clauses in employment contracts all the time. If you don’t want to abide by them, don’t take a job at a religious school. Before getting my ALA accredited MLS I worked as a school librarian in a religious school, RCC as a matter of fact, it was laid iout n the rules that I wasn’t suppose to discuss a lot of topics with the students such as birth control, abortion, and in my case a special line had been added to the contract to include fortune-telling. I could help them find all the research materials they wanted on the subject, but was not by word or deed to express any personal opionions on a subject when in contradicted official RCC policy.
And I thought reading the “classics” was boring for me! At least after reading the damn things, I didn’t have to sit through a lecture about all the shit they got wrong…
My take is that, no, it’s not all right. Even for a Roman Catholic teacher (to say nothing of a non-Catholic employee) ISTM that it’s an issue of the teacher having committed a “sin”, and the resolution of that transgression should be between the sinner and the sinner’s confessor; I’m not that comfortable with the diocese inserting itself into whatever reconciliation process the teacher avails herself of.
No, no, no, and let’s see, here…umm, no.
Heck back when I was a Catholic, the music director at my church was a freakin’ atheist. * ♫ There’s NO business like SHOW business… ♫*
Heh. I did Catholic school for twelve years, with the exception of half a year in public schools during my third grade. The readers in Catholic schools, instead of Dick, Jane, and Sally, had John, Jean, and Judy. Puff and Spot kept their names, as did Mother and Father. Also, there would be an occasional appearance by a priest or a nun; and one time, Spot kept interfering with John making himself a bologna sandwich as an afternoon snack, until John glanced at the calendar and noticed that it was a Friday.
Because they knew that was my other job. As long as I didn’t discuss is with the students other than to say that it was against the official teaching of the church, they really didn’t care.
The gist: although the Church forbids fertility treatments, as it does some other things most Catholics practice, such as birth control, the reason for this particular event lies in the takeover of some parts of the Church by the ultra-right; it is politically motivated.
How does what I posted lead to that conclusion?