Catholic teachers challenge morality clause

[barbara]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/30/living...hers-morality/

[merrylander]

I recently wondered about the so called Ten Commandments. Is that our wording or God's? What I mean is surely they were suggestions of a way to live in harmony, otherwise how could He have enforced them?

[Dondilion]

Basically it is a catholic school.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Basically it is a catholic school.

True but does any school or business or any other organization have any right to dictate how people live their llves when not on the job? It seems to me that has been a recent outcry about personal privacy. If one does nothing against the law and therefore does not have a criminal record then it is nobody's business what they do in private.

I have, as I have recently discovered while writing, some pretty firm and strong beliefs but I would not dream of imposing those beliefs on others, They have brought me a very happy life and at best I might explain them to others but whether anyone would wish to follow them is entirely their choice. The true function of any religion is to explain and show the way, not to demand adherence.

[barbara]

I agree there should be limits on job requirements that restrict your private life.

On the other hand, if both parties enter into an agreement of employment, then the employed has, essentially, agreed to those conditions.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by barbara

I agree there should be limits on job requirements that restrict your private life.

On the other hand, if both parties enter into an agreement of employment, then the employed has, essentially, agreed to those conditions.

Perhaps I misread the article, were these requirements not a new imposition by the school for already employed teachers? Rather like changing the rules in the middle of the game. Usually a 'grandfathering' ckause is used in such instances. I wonder how Pope Francis would respond?

[Dondilion]

A religious school stipulates that it does not want anyone who does not believe in its dogmas teaching there. Providing the school is not taking government money I cannot object to the school position.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

A religious school stipulates that it does not want anyone who does not believe in its dogmas teaching there. Providing the school is not taking government money I cannot object to the school position.

Yes but as I noted in my response to Barbara this was a new imposition placed upon existing employees. And isn't the view, even the Catholic view, hate the sin but love the sinner?

"The revised contracts forbid teachers from -- among other things -- living together or having sex outside of marriage, using in-vitro fertilization, a gay "lifestyle," or publicly supporting any of those things."

Being a poor WASP I was not aware that any Catholic school was teaching "common law marriage", "sex outside of marriage", "in vitro fertilization" (unless that comes under the concept of 'spare the rod and spoil the child'), or engaging in a gay lifestyle. I guess things have changed since my nieces were being schooled in a convent.

[Rajoo]

"First, the 2014-15 contract adds the title "ministers" to all teachers -- from geography to gym class -- a move seen as a legal maneuver to try to protect the archdiocese from discrimination lawsuits."

It is a new imposition and besides their job titles have been changed.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by BeamOn

"First, the 2014-15 contract adds the title "ministers" to all teachers -- from geography to gym class -- a move seen as a legal maneuver to try to protect the archdiocese from discrimination lawsuits."

It is a new imposition and besides their job titles have been changed.

The ministerial language is a big deal. A recent Supreme Court case gives religious schools broad leeway in firing teachers who are ministers of the church. My guess is that the list of "Shall Nots" in the contract provide concrete evidence of what the teachers/ministers are supposed to be promulgating so that the contract in its entirety has some hope of passing the laugh test should it ever see litigation.