My problem here is signing some kind of morality clause, code of conduct, or other conditions of employment on day one and then being shocked when you are eventually fired for violating them. There's something about that I just can't get past.
Now if you get fired for something not detailed there or that would be an unexpected interpretation of such conditions, sure. But otherwise, idk. Now this is separate from my feelings on whether or not these schools should have such conditions so there you go.
For all the stink I just threw about Catholic schools, I have to say that every one I've had experience with has clearly outlined their morality clauses/etc. in their handbooks. It's certainly not very Christian of them to do this to her, but I'm sure it wasn't a surprise.
I also wouldn't doubt that they just had a personal problem with her and used the pregnancy/gay aspect of her life as an excuse to get rid of her.
Do they go so far as to say that pregnancies of faculty/staff members which were created by "unnatural" means are grounds for termination? I would think the wording of the morality code is the gray area in the debate here.
Overall, though, I'd agree with you and HBC - the RCC position on ART, while abhorrent, is pretty darn clear.
My problem here is signing some kind of morality clause, code of conduct, or other conditions of employment on day one and then being shocked when you are eventually fired for violating them. There's something about that I just can't get past.
Now if you get fired for something not detailed there or that would be an unexpected interpretation of such conditions, sure. But otherwise, idk. Now this is separate from my feelings on whether or not these schools should have such conditions so there you go.
I think I'm about 90% in agreement with this.
But on the other hand, it's similar to me to any other kind of employment. Should companies be allowed to violate labor laws in other ways just as long as they are up front about it? Why should religious institutions? It goes back to the Hobby Lobby decision for me. If paying women the same as men is in violation of your religion, do you ignore the Lily Ledbetter Act? Should people be expected to research their employers, and if so, to what degree, before accepting a job? What if the job is their only option and they are between a rock and a hard place? I know when I went to Catholic school, most teachers weren't there for the pay, since private school teachers weren't a part of the state pension or benefits system, which is a HUGE financial incentive. Many teachers were Catholic, had other ties to the school, supported the school's mission, sent their kids there (with the accompanying free tuition), etc.
For all the stink I just threw about Catholic schools, I have to say that every one I've had experience with has clearly outlined their morality clauses/etc. in their handbooks. It's certainly not very Christian of them to do this to her, but I'm sure it wasn't a surprise.
I also wouldn't doubt that they just had a personal problem with her and used the pregnancy/gay aspect of her life as an excuse to get rid of her.
Do they go so far as to say that pregnancies of faculty/staff members which were created by "unnatural" means are grounds for termination? I would think the wording of the morality code is the gray area in the debate here.
Overall, though, I'd agree with you and HBC - the RCC position on ART, while abhorrent, is pretty darn clear.
Most reproductive technology is well-known to be against Catholic teachings. They PROBABLY have some kind of CYA clause like, "and anything that may be detrimental to our faith community or in violation of closely held Catholic beliefs." Like at my Catholic high school, I think our handbook agreement mentioned something about abiding by the Gospel values. Still not exactly sure what that means (but I'm also not Catholic).
For all the stink I just threw about Catholic schools, I have to say that every one I've had experience with has clearly outlined their morality clauses/etc. in their handbooks. It's certainly not very Christian of them to do this to her, but I'm sure it wasn't a surprise.
I also wouldn't doubt that they just had a personal problem with her and used the pregnancy/gay aspect of her life as an excuse to get rid of her.
Do they go so far as to say that pregnancies of faculty/staff members which were created by "unnatural" means are grounds for termination? I would think the wording of the morality code is the gray area in the debate here.
Overall, though, I'd agree with you and HBC - the RCC position on ART, while abhorrent, is pretty darn clear.
I don't remember offhand. I looked on the website of the school I attended, but it's been taken down since the school is gone. I also looked on the website for the school where I worked, but all I see is a student handbook, not a faculty handbook or a morals clause or anything like that.
Of course, this is also the same school that pushes academic excellence but also allows star football players to repeat a year or two when necessary, so I'm sure they just pick and choose which rules to follow anyway.
For all the stink I just threw about Catholic schools, I have to say that every one I've had experience with has clearly outlined their morality clauses/etc. in their handbooks. It's certainly not very Christian of them to do this to her, but I'm sure it wasn't a surprise.
I also wouldn't doubt that they just had a personal problem with her and used the pregnancy/gay aspect of her life as an excuse to get rid of her.
Do they go so far as to say that pregnancies of faculty/staff members which were created by "unnatural" means are grounds for termination? I would think the wording of the morality code is the gray area in the debate here.
Overall, though, I'd agree with you and HBC - the RCC position on ART, while abhorrent, is pretty darn clear.
They usually don't spell out things like IVF or IUIs, but they do say outside of Catholic teaching so that is broad (living with SO is also included).
My problem here is signing some kind of morality clause, code of conduct, or other conditions of employment on day one and then being shocked when you are eventually fired for violating them. There's something about that I just can't get past.
Now if you get fired for something not detailed there or that would be an unexpected interpretation of such conditions, sure. But otherwise, idk. Now this is separate from my feelings on whether or not these schools should have such conditions so there you go.
I think this is a fair criticism if the contract spells it out. I think it gets murkier, howeve,r if the contract doesn't spell it out. If it just says "outside of Catholic teachings" or some such, is it on you to know the teachings? Is it on them to provide you with that as professional development or job training?
Regardless, I agree with whomever wished that people would just not work in this system.
Makes me wonder if they make it a point to find out how every staff pregnancy is accomplished.
or anything about men's sex lives.
This is, by definition, unjust and in the category of sex discrimination, imo. Because women can have evidence of their "sin" (pregnancy) that can't be hidden, but men can hide all their sexual sins, so male employees are not subject to this scrutiny or these repercussions.
I have a friend, who is married, and works for a Catholic school.
She and her husband went to extraordinary lengths to make sure her pregnancy and the way they went about it was compliant with Catholic teachings. Mostly it was because they are devout Catholics but I also think they took her employment into consideration.
I don't think that is uncommon, and while I have a lot of issues with various teachings, the Church's teachings on IVF is not one I am against. People are welcome to disagree with it or think it's a ridiculous teaching (I disagree but don't care if others disagree with me), but my experience has been that the Church and it's schools are pretty consistent on this. I'm sure that varies by institution and diocese but I don't think it's about sexual orientation; it's just more obvious in those situations.
Wait, what? Isn't pregnancy discrimination illegal at the federal level and sexual orientation discrimination only illegal on a state-by-state basis?
I need an employment lawyer to clarify, but I think pregnancy falls under ability/disability status in the ADA or else family status in non-discrimination laws.
I don't think pregnancy falls under the ADA, but I believe there is case coming up before SCOTUS that would clarify that. mominatrix
Pregnancy discrimination is part of Title VII I believe. Again Momi will know more.
I think they will argue it was not the pregnancy itself that got her fired, but the action that resulted in the pregnancy.
My problem here is signing some kind of morality clause, code of conduct, or other conditions of employment on day one and then being shocked when you are eventually fired for violating them. There's something about that I just can't get past.
Now if you get fired for something not detailed there or that would be an unexpected interpretation of such conditions, sure. But otherwise, idk. Now this is separate from my feelings on whether or not these schools should have such conditions so there you go.
My guess is because its hard to get a job? People take the best they can get at the time, cos if its sign that or not pay rent? Being surprised afterwards is foolish, but I understand why they might take the job in the first place.
What's interesting, I think, is that the nun order (is that the right wording?!) they are associated with have said the school is private so they are hands off, and the Dioceses of Detroit has said the school is private and they are hands off.
That is what I found interesting, too.
I actually received a job offer from an independent school in my area that is a religiously affiliated boarding school. I ended up turning it down, but nowhere in the offer or negotiations did anything about upholding catholic teachings or a code of conduct for staff come up. I wonder if I would have been surprised with one thrust upon me had I accepted the position. The head of school was clear, though, in the interview that it was a Catholic institution. I told him that I wasn't Catholic and had been raised Presbyterian. He told me that was fine, I didn't have to be Catholic, but that I should know that the school was proud of its Catholic heritage and embraced it.
So that was probably code for "we have a code of conduct that you would have to abide by." They did seem to like the fact that I was married, though, which again, seemed a little strange to me during the interview process.
My problem here is signing some kind of morality clause, code of conduct, or other conditions of employment on day one and then being shocked when you are eventually fired for violating them. There's something about that I just can't get past.
Now if you get fired for something not detailed there or that would be an unexpected interpretation of such conditions, sure. But otherwise, idk. Now this is separate from my feelings on whether or not these schools should have such conditions so there you go.
I think this is a fair criticism if the contract spells it out. I think it gets murkier, howeve,r if the contract doesn't spell it out. If it just says "outside of Catholic teachings" or some such, is it on you to know the teachings? Is it on them to provide you with that as professional development or job training?
Regardless, I agree with whomever wished that people would just not work in this system.
I'd be more concerned about the possible ambiguity of Christian teachings if we weren't talking about a Catholic school. I feel like that's pretty well known and easily found and doesn't vary from diocese to diocese. Now if we were dealing with a Methodist school or some vague Christian non-denominational school, I'd expect a much more detailed description.
I have a friend, who is married, and works for a Catholic school.
She and her husband went to extraordinary lengths to make sure her pregnancy and the way they went about it was compliant with Catholic teachings. Mostly it was because they are devout Catholics but I also think they took her employment into consideration.
I don't think that is uncommon, and while I have a lot of issues with various teachings, the Church's teachings on IVF is not one I am against. People are welcome to disagree with it or think it's a ridiculous teaching (I disagree but don't care if others disagree with me), but my experience has been that the Church and it's schools are pretty consistent on this. I'm sure that varies by institution and diocese but I don't think it's about sexual orientation; it's just more obvious in those situations.
I thought all ART was against the Catholic teachings. Wouldn't this mean the only acceptable way to get pregnant is the old fashioned way?
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I have a friend, who is married, and works for a Catholic school.
She and her husband went to extraordinary lengths to make sure her pregnancy and the way they went about it was compliant with Catholic teachings. Mostly it was because they are devout Catholics but I also think they took her employment into consideration.
I don't think that is uncommon, and while I have a lot of issues with various teachings, the Church's teachings on IVF is not one I am against. People are welcome to disagree with it or think it's a ridiculous teaching (I disagree but don't care if others disagree with me), but my experience has been that the Church and it's schools are pretty consistent on this. I'm sure that varies by institution and diocese but I don't think it's about sexual orientation; it's just more obvious in those situations.
I thought all ART was against the Catholic teachings. Wouldn't this mean the only acceptable way to get pregnant is the old fashioned way?
I don't think all ART is. is an IUI against catholic teachings? (does that fall under ART?) I think the big reason IVF is, is because there may be discarded fertilized embryos. I think there is a way to do IVF that is compliant with catholic teachings.
I have a friend, who is married, and works for a Catholic school.
She and her husband went to extraordinary lengths to make sure her pregnancy and the way they went about it was compliant with Catholic teachings. Mostly it was because they are devout Catholics but I also think they took her employment into consideration.
I don't think that is uncommon, and while I have a lot of issues with various teachings, the Church's teachings on IVF is not one I am against. People are welcome to disagree with it or think it's a ridiculous teaching (I disagree but don't care if others disagree with me), but my experience has been that the Church and it's schools are pretty consistent on this. I'm sure that varies by institution and diocese but I don't think it's about sexual orientation; it's just more obvious in those situations.
I thought all ART was against the Catholic teachings. Wouldn't this mean the only acceptable way to get pregnant is the old fashioned way?
Not Catholic, but I seem to remember from my time on the IF forum on TB a few of the Catholic girls saying IUI was ok as long as the male-female couple had sex and used a special collection condom. Masturbation to collect the semen sample was not ok. I think there's a good deal of debate about that, though, because the actual "act" of conception is via a tube full of sperm.
I thought all ART was against the Catholic teachings. Wouldn't this mean the only acceptable way to get pregnant is the old fashioned way?
I don't think all ART is. is an IUI against catholic teachings? (does that fall under ART?) I think the big reason IVF is, is because there may be discarded fertilized embryos. I think there is a way to do IVF that is compliant with catholic teachings.
IUI is the gray ground. As debatethis mentioned below, there are catholic RE practices that say they are following catholic practices in collection and insemination. Personally, I don't agree. It's like all of the workarounds I see with really devout jews trying to uphold no working on the sabbath in today's high technology society (turn the oven on before the cutoff time, or have it auto come on/cut off, because then it's not you doing the work; sorry if I butchered that, but I had a friend trying to explain to me what his practices were).
Basically catholic reproductive rules boil down to is the opportunity for spontaneous conception always there. You can do things to try to enhance the possibilities, but you can't make the M-F married sex act no longer the primary driver.
I thought all ART was against the Catholic teachings. Wouldn't this mean the only acceptable way to get pregnant is the old fashioned way?
I don't think all ART is. is an IUI against catholic teachings? (does that fall under ART?) I think the big reason IVF is, is because there may be discarded fertilized embryos. I think there is a way to do IVF that is compliant with catholic teachings.
IUI is against Catholic teaching. The issues wrt ART are manifold.
First, masturbation is immoral. Anything that requires it is forbidden - IUI, IVF, etc. I perforated condom may be used during intercourse to collect a sample for testing.
Second, a child may not be conceived outside of traditional sex. This comes from a doctrine that states that every child has the right to be born "to a mother and father known to him". The Church objects to methods of conception that separate conception from sex because of the risk that samples will be mislabeled/mishandled and the child conceived will not know his biological parents.
Third, discarded embryos with IVF.
So, ART that involved medication to help with ovulation or implantation or sperm quality is licit, so long as conception takes place as a result of vaginal intercourse.
My problem here is signing some kind of morality clause, code of conduct, or other conditions of employment on day one and then being shocked when you are eventually fired for violating them. There's something about that I just can't get past.
Now if you get fired for something not detailed there or that would be an unexpected interpretation of such conditions, sure. But otherwise, idk. Now this is separate from my feelings on whether or not these schools should have such conditions so there you go.
My guess is because its hard to get a job? People take the best they can get at the time, cos if its sign that or not pay rent? Being surprised afterwards is foolish, but I understand why they might take the job in the first place.
I agree in general terms, but in this case it seems like the school is pretty exclusive and so it doesn't seek like someone taking anything they can get just to pay the rent.
Unless it's exclusive only in the student sense and they pay shit just like other (or I should say ones I know of, I can't speak about all of them) Catholic schools. When I went to CS it was all nun teachers. I think I remember the first lay woman starting, and I was in the sixth grade by then. Fast forward some years, when I sent ds to CS (not the same one I attended) when he was in kindergarten, it was all just graduated 23 year olds who most hadn't yet become certified. And this was at a 125 year old school, so I would have expected some older teachers still. They just pay shit.
This school and this case seems to be a different story. The exclusivity and her achievements and record as a teacher make me think this woman won't have a hard time finding employment elsewhere. She shouldn't, anyway.
And even if she knew about this policy and yeah she shouldn't have signed it then acted surprised, it was 9 years ago she signed it. Maybe she had no clue she would fall in love and want a child and didn't make an employment decision based on what ifs 9 years down the line. And maybe she thought that since she had been there 9 years and seems to have a pretty impressive record there, that maybe, just maybe, they'd recognize her as an individual since they'd gotten to know her, and would have worked with her to sweep it under the rug so to speak.
I feel badly for her. I wish her well and hope she finds a similar position when she's ready to go back to work.
Do they go so far as to say that pregnancies of faculty/staff members which were created by "unnatural" means are grounds for termination? I would think the wording of the morality code is the gray area in the debate here.
Overall, though, I'd agree with you and HBC - the RCC position on ART, while abhorrent, is pretty darn clear.
Most reproductive technology is well-known to be against Catholic teachings. They PROBABLY have some kind of CYA clause like, "and anything that may be detrimental to our faith community or in violation of closely held Catholic beliefs." Like at my Catholic high school, I think our handbook agreement mentioned something about abiding by the Gospel values. Still not exactly sure what that means (but I'm also not Catholic).
My mother works for a local Catholic school system and this is how the Diocese operates. To work there, you're expected to live your life in the manner that you believe and teach to the students. So you're required to be Catholic, not only on paper, but a registered member of a parish that you attend weekly. Also, if you are married, you must be married in the church. No children outside of marriage, because sex and babies only happen when a man and woman are married and living the life of the Lord (lol). Also, if you divorce (THE HORROR!) then you must get your marriage annulled if you plan to remarry (as that marriage must be within the church also).
In her 30+ years at the school system, they've recently relaxed in enforcing these rules. They generally pay shit. So as long as you're not open about these offenses (ie. mentioning your live in boyfriend at a faculty lunch or around students) then they often look the other way. But if they wanted to, they could enforce these rules as they've been spelled out as a condition of your job.