Archdiocese Letter Warns Employees About Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

[Crossbones]

Are you serious with the stupidity of this post? Fasting? Going to Mass? Contact with a gay person? You are either completely ignorant on what is being talked about here or you choose to be rather silly.

You have more than likely been told probably more than once divorce is not a sin. Remarriage can pose a problem if scandal is created.

This post is uncharitable. The points ComplineSanFran brought up are valid and the end effect of this policy will likely do more harm than good.

 

[zz912]

So the Archbishop is saying that ‘Employee Jane’, who is on the Housekeeping staff of the one of the office buildings, and works primarily at night, cannot go to her niece’s house for lunch because her niece is married to another woman. Nor can she post pictures of their new baby daughter on Facebook. Do I have that right?

No, you don’t have it right. Not at all. And I find it difficult to believe you actually thought these actions would warrant punishment.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

This post is uncharitable. The points ComplineSanFran brought up are valid and the end effect of this policy will likely do more harm than good.

Thank you, Crossbones.

If indeed the Archbishop is asking each and every employee of the Archdiocese (Catholic, observant and non-observant, and non-Catholic alike) to follow Church teachings in the workplace AND outside the workplace - "because of the Church’s particular function in society, certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, could lead to disciplinary action, including termination, even if it occurs outside the normal working day and outside the strict confines of work performed by the employee for the Archdiocese’ - then indeed people need to know where that line is and what is on the list.

Is a non-Catholic allowed to purchase and use condoms?

Is a divorced and remarried person allowed to be an employee? Someone who lives with a partner and is not married?

Will you insist that non-Catholics take on Catholicism? It seems to me that is what he is asking. Not just ‘Don’t bash the Church’ but any conduct that is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church can bring on termination.

It is a HUGE concern of both privacy and legal rights.

As a non-Catholic who has worked in Catholic institutions, I would be very, very distressed.

 

[zz912]

Well, in my argument, drinking hot chocolate was based in LDS practices, not RC. And I believe that employees of the Archdiocese are being held accountable for all Catholic teachings, whether they are members or not. It would be extremely helpful to have a list, as I said before. Does it include divorce and remarriage? All contraception? Fasting? Going to Mass? What about their own worship services? Allowed or not allowed? Not allowing contact with gay family members/friends or their families? Who they vote for?

These are all pretty strict rules for someone who is not Roman Catholic yet receives a paycheck from the Archdiocese.

This post shows you aren’t seriously seeking better understanding, but merely playing devil’s advocate to argue against the Church enforcing its beliefs.

It’s not possible that you actually are confused enough from this letter to think that a Jewish employee would be punished if they went to synagogue on the Sabbath.

 

[ProdigalSun]

This post is uncharitable. The points ComplineSanFran brought up are valid and the end effect of this policy will likely do more harm than good.

I disagree with everything you wrote!

The policy is good for the church and her employees. I certainly don’t have a problem with a list.

The points CSF brought up were not valid because she obviously does not understand what is being talked about here.

The church does not have a problem with someone visiting a person with SSA anymore than a murderer in prison. Missing mass is a mortal sin but is not a scandal unless made into one. Have you heard of a person being fired for going through a divorce? or visiting their gay son?

The issue is scandal and always has been. SSM creates a scandal, missing mass does not create scandal unless the person makes something of it and creates scandal.

Like I said it really is not hard to grasp.

Also I was not uncharitable but I call it the way I see it! CSF refences to the issues was clearly ignorant of facts or was trying to be deliberately obtuse! Would it help if I put a please do not take offense at the beginning of the sentence?

 

[ProdigalSun]

Thank you, Crossbones.

If indeed the Archbishop is asking each and every employee of the Archdiocese (Catholic, observant and non-observant, and non-Catholic alike) to follow Church teachings in the workplace AND outside the workplace - "because of the Church’s particular function in society, certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, could lead to disciplinary action, including termination, even if it occurs outside the normal working day and outside the strict confines of work performed by the employee for the Archdiocese’ - then indeed people need to know where that line is and what is on the list.

Is a non-Catholic allowed to purchase and use condoms? Who is to know? Will it cause "SCANDAL"
Is a divorced and remarried person allowed to be an employee?Will it cause scandal Someone who lives with a partner and is not married?Will it cause scandal

Will you insist that non-Catholics take on Catholicism?MOre of your silliness It seems to me that is what he is asking. Not just ‘Don’t bash the Church’ but any conduct that is inconsistent with the teachings of the Church **“cuasing scandal”**can bring on termination.

It is a HUGE concern of both privacy and legal rights."No it is not"

As a non-Catholic who has worked in Catholic institutions, I would be very, very distressed.

" Why, just don’t create scandal or go to work some where else

 

[Crossbones]

I disagree with everything you wrote!

The policy is good for the church and her employees. I certainly don’t have a problem with a list.

The points CSF brought up were not valid because she obviously does not understand what is being talked about here.

The church does not have a problem with someone visiting a person with SSA anymore than a murderer in prison. Missing mass is a mortal sin but is not a scandal unless made into one. Have you heard of a person being fired for going through a divorce? or visiting their gay son?

The issue is scandal and always has been. SSM creates a scandal, missing mass does not create scandal unless the person makes something of it and creates scandal.

Like I said it really is not hard to grasp.

Punitive measures will have to be applied consistently to be legal. It will open the Archdiocese to lawsuits that will be costly… Furthermore, it will increase calls for public funding to be pulled. I don’t believe that it is clear at all what is allowed and what isn’t based on the Archbishop’s letter. In my opinion, it will hurt more than it helps.

Also I was not uncharitable but I call it the way I see it! CSF refences to the issues was clearly ignorant of facts or was trying to be deliberately obtuse! Would it help if I put a please do not take offense at the beginning of the sentence?

Calling someone’s post stupid is uncharitable.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

" Why, just don’t create scandal or go to work some where else

So let’s go back to the teacher who became pregnant and was fired for that. She probably assumed that her legal and available IVF treatments were 1) her own business and 2) not something that would cause ‘scandal’. What IS scandal for people on this site? It is a harsh word that is not used in the public in the same way that I see it used here. For me, a scandal is, for example, Josh Duggar speaking publicly about Christian moral issues and then molesting young girls and then having sexual encounters when he is married and a father. THAT is a scandal.

You would have to define to a non-Catholic what is on your list of scandalous behaviour. Is it a teacher in a Catholic school who is gay and married? Obviously yes, because there are lawsuits over that. Is it someone on birth control? If they are seen publicly purchasing it, it reflects on their job in a Catholic institution. Yes? Is that going to cause scandal?

All I am asking is that you make a list of what a person can and cannot do if they are employed by the Church. That helps everyone know where the line is and what one can get fired over.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

So let’s go back to the teacher who became pregnant and was fired for that. She probably assumed that her legal and available IVF treatments were 1) her own business and 2) not something that would cause ‘scandal’. What IS scandal for people on this site? It is a harsh word that is not used in the public in the same way that I see it used here. For me, a scandal is, for example, Josh Duggar speaking publicly about Christian moral issues and then molesting young girls and then having sexual encounters when he is married and a father. THAT is a scandal.

You would have to define to a non-Catholic what is on your list of scandalous behaviour. Is it a teacher in a Catholic school who is gay and married? Obviously yes, because there are lawsuits over that. Is it someone on birth control? If they are seen publicly purchasing it, it reflects on their job in a Catholic institution. Yes? Is that going to cause scandal?

All I am asking is that you make a list of what a person can and cannot do if they are employed by the Church. That helps everyone know where the line is and what one can get fired over.

St. Thomas defines scandal as “Something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall.”

The Catechism promulgated under Pope St. Pius X. says
Q: What is Scandal?
A: Scandal is any word, act, or omission which is the occasion of another’s committing sin.

When a teacher, who a parent trusts to educate their child on their behalf, uses IVF to get pregnant, this scandalizes the students. Imagine when they encounter the Church’s teachings on IVF, they now have a conflict “The Church says it’s wrong, but Miss Susie, who taught me to read and helped me learned math did it and is proud of it, so surely it can’t be wrong.”

While it is not really this simple, a good rule of thumb is this: If you are in a position where children are expected to look up to you, any sin you commit that they see is scandal.

A teacher is not just administering a class on a specific subject, but is a role model and someone for students to look up to. I understand that this is confusing to non-Catholics, but ultimately every Catholic institution whether it is a school, hospital, charity, etc. has the primary goal of getting souls into heaven. If you provide some material service for someone that helps them in this life (teach them math, feed them, etc.) but your immoral behavior causes them to think certain sins are ok and it threatens their eternal soul, then they are much worse off than if you had not provided them with the material service.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

St. Thomas defines scandal as “Something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall.”

The Catechism promulgated under Pope St. Pius X. says
Q: What is Scandal?
A: Scandal is any word, act, or omission which is the occasion of another’s committing sin.

When a teacher, who a parent trusts to educate their child on their behalf, uses IVF to get pregnant, this scandalizes the students. Imagine when they encounter the Church’s teachings on IVF, they now have a conflict “The Church says it’s wrong, but Miss Susie, who taught me to read and helped me learned math did it and is proud of it, so surely it can’t be wrong.”

While it is not really this simple, a good rule of thumb is this: If you are in a position where children are expected to look up to you, any sin you commit that they see is scandal.

A teacher is not just administering a class on a specific subject, but is a role model and someone for students to look up to. I understand that this is confusing to non-Catholics, but ultimately every Catholic institution whether it is a school, hospital, charity, etc. has the primary goal of getting souls into heaven. If you provide some material service for someone that helps them in this life (teach them math, feed them, etc.) but your immoral behavior causes them to think certain sins are ok and it threatens their eternal soul, then they are much worse off than if you had not provided them with the material service.

I think it is an abuse of the ministerial exception. If Lucy the lunch lady’s only job is to slam yesterday’s mashed potatoes on a lunch tray and has no conventionally understood ministerial titles or duties then she should not be classified as a minister for the purpose of evading the law. It also becomes a question of how it is enforced as it seems there is a great deal of cherry-picking in the current environment. The employee fired for her IVF treatments provided a good example. She was fired, but the male employees who were booted from a strip club for putting their hands on a stripper were allowed to stay. It seems to be a fine for me but not for thee atmosphere.

 

[exnihilo]

Well, in my argument, drinking hot chocolate was based in LDS practices, not RC. And I believe that employees of the Archdiocese are being held accountable for all Catholic teachings, whether they are members or not. It would be extremely helpful to have a list, as I said before. Does it include divorce and remarriage? All contraception? Fasting? Going to Mass? What about their own worship services? Allowed or not allowed? Not allowing contact with gay family members/friends or their families? Who they vote for?

These are all pretty strict rules for someone who is not Roman Catholic yet receives a paycheck from the Archdiocese.

It might be helpful to have a list. The hypothetical employee could start with the Ten Commandments. That is a pretty short list. Of course a list will never be complete and include all the possibilities. Plenty of contracts in the entertainment field include morality clauses. These are perfectly valid, enforceable and comprehensible despite being somewhat open ended.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

St. Thomas defines scandal as “Something less rightly done or said, that occasions another’s spiritual downfall.”

While it is not really this simple, a good rule of thumb is this: If you are in a position where children are expected to look up to you, any sin you commit that they see is scandal.

A teacher is not just administering a class on a specific subject, but is a role model and someone for students to look up to. I understand that this is confusing to non-Catholics, but ultimately every Catholic institution whether it is a school, hospital, charity, etc. has the primary goal of getting souls into heaven. If you provide some material service for someone that helps them in this life (teach them math, feed them, etc.) but your immoral behavior causes them to think certain sins are ok and it threatens their eternal soul, then they are much worse off than if you had not provided them with the material service.

Then there is a gap here - what some people see as sin, others do not. The woman trying to get pregnant? Not a sin at all, in fact perhaps just the opposite.

In San Francisco, gay marriage? No sin at all. In fact a cause for great happiness.

Do you see where there is a disconnect here?

 

[exnihilo]

Then there is a gap here - what some people see as sin, others do not. The woman trying to get pregnant? Not a sin at all, in fact perhaps just the opposite.

In San Francisco, gay marriage? No sin at all. In fact a cause for great happiness.

Do you see where there is a disconnect here?

It isn’t a question of what an individual thinks is sinful. It is a question of what the Church teaches is sinful. And I’m sorry but that isn’t hard to figure out. I knew what the Catholic Church taught about most things long before I even considered becoming Catholic.

We can’t build a society on ignorance. We’ve been trying that for a while and it isn’t working out well at all.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

I think it is an abuse of the ministerial exception. If Lucy the lunch lady’s only job is to slam yesterday’s mashed potatoes on a lunch tray and has no conventionally understood ministerial titles or duties then she should not be classified as a minister for the purpose of evading the law.

No. School is a place where children go for formation. Life skills are learned in and outside of the classroom, including at lunch. It’s natural for children to be fond of the friendly adults they encounter (lunch ladies, crossing guards, school nurse, secretaries). If one of these adults publicly embraces an immoral lifestyle, either through participation or advocacy, there is a great danger for scandalizing the children.

Surely this makes sense logically to you. If a school exists to form students into educated, morally upright adults, placing them in an environment with adults who chose not live morally upright lives is a direct impediment to the mission of the school.

It also becomes a question of how it is enforced as it seems there is a great deal of cherry-picking in the current environment. The employee fired for her IVF treatments provided a good example. She was fired, but the male employees who were booted from a strip club for putting their hands on a stripper were allowed to stay. It seems to be a fine for me but not for thee atmosphere.

Anecdotal. The government cannot make Catholic schools a free-for-all for every pervert based on a specific instance where a school didn’t fire someone who did something wrong.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

No. School is a place where children go for formation. Life skills are learned in and outside of the classroom, including at lunch. It’s natural for children to be fond of the friendly adults they encounter (lunch ladies, crossing guards, school nurse, secretaries). If one of these adults publicly embraces an immoral lifestyle, either through participation or advocacy, there is a great danger for scandalizing the children.

Surely this makes sense logically to you. If a school exists to form students into educated, morally upright adults, placing them in an environment with adults who chose not live morally upright lives is a direct impediment to the mission of the school.

It doesn’t make logical sense to me. I’ve never known anyone to claim their sense of right and wrong was formed in part or whole by brief interaction with a lunch lady. In fact, I couldn’t name a single person, including myself, that even remembers anything about their lunch lady. I also do not think it wise to remove children entirely from those that may lead differing lives outside of work (made widely known through the gossip of parents in several of these cases). It is not reflective of the world we live in and may deprive them of the experience required to know how to engage such people in their daily lives. It is also rather ironic considering that many of the saints and doctors of the Church had seedy aspects to their own lives and so would not be qualified to teach in a Catholic institution.

Anecdotal. The government cannot make Catholic schools a free-for-all for every pervert based on a specific instance where a school didn’t fire someone who did something wrong.

Two or more anecdotes is called data and I have more examples. I think the government can point to discriminatory enforcement of policy and require either total enforcement or equal exemption. I also think the appearance of tolerance of some sins and immoral behavior causes scandal, does it not? Interesting also that different rules seem to apply to clergy than lay persons and non-Catholics (see sex scandal).

 

[LordHaveMercy]

Then there is a gap here - what some people see as sin, others do not. The woman trying to get pregnant? Not a sin at all, in fact perhaps just the opposite.

In San Francisco, gay marriage? No sin at all. In fact a cause for great happiness.

Do you see where there is a disconnect here?

There is no disconnect. You seem to think that because you believe IVF and same sex marriage are not sins that there is a gray area where there is not one. Essentially, you are taking your subjective belief that there is uncertainty in these matters and projecting it onto society at large and claiming objective status for it.

 

[LordHaveMercy]

It doesn’t make logical sense to me. I’ve never known anyone to claim their sense of right and wrong was formed in part or whole by brief interaction with a lunch lady. In fact, I couldn’t name a single person, including myself, that even remembers anything about their lunch lady. I also do not think it wise to remove children entirely from those that may lead differing lives outside of work (made widely known through the gossip of parents in several of these cases). It is not reflective of the world we live in and may deprive them of the experience required to know how to engage such people in their daily lives. It is also rather ironic considering that many of the saints and doctors of the Church had seedy aspects to their own lives and so would not be qualified to teach in a Catholic institution.

In the school example, it is about creating the right environment. Every adult who is permitted to work in the environment with children must be committed to creating a healthy, morally upright atmosphere. Children take note of their environment, even if you don’t consciously remember the adults from your school growing up, they did have an impact on your understanding of adulthood as a child. A person who struggles with immorality needs our support, they need help, they don’t need to be put in a position where they interact with young developing minds.

The Church is supposed to be a field hospital. When somebody is wounded, you don’t send them on a mission to help those more vulnerable than themselves. You care for their wounds, you nurture them.

Two or more anecdotes is called data and I have more examples. I think the government can point to discriminatory enforcement of policy and require either total enforcement or equal exemption. I also think the appearance of tolerance of some sins and immoral behavior causes scandal, does it not? Interesting also that different rules seem to apply to clergy than lay persons and non-Catholics (see sex scandal).

If it were put to a vote I would support the death penalty for everybody directly involved with the sex scandal, so I won’t disagree with you on that. It was scandalous. However, if the government has judged that there are instances where the Church has violated its own principles, that still doesn’t give the government authority to force the Church to violate its principles in other areas.

 

[zz912]

It doesn’t make logical sense to me. I’ve never known anyone to claim their sense of right and wrong was formed in part or whole by brief interaction with a lunch lady. In fact, I couldn’t name a single person, including myself, that even remembers anything about their lunch lady. I also do not think it wise to remove children entirely from those that may lead differing lives outside of work (made widely known through the gossip of parents in several of these cases). It is not reflective of the world we live in and may deprive them of the experience required to know how to engage such people in their daily lives. It is also rather ironic considering that many of the saints and doctors of the Church had seedy aspects to their own lives and so would not be qualified to teach in a Catholic institution.

It’s funny how you believe your personal opinion about how best to raise children should trump the beliefs and views of others. Very totalitarian.

 

[exnihilo]

Two or more anecdotes is called data and I have more examples. I think the government can point to discriminatory enforcement of policy and require either total enforcement or equal exemption. I also think the appearance of tolerance of some sins and immoral behavior causes scandal, does it not? Interesting also that different rules seem to apply to clergy than lay persons and non-Catholics (see sex scandal).

You seem to be saying the Catholic Church can’t enforce its understanding of morality in private contracts but the state must enforce its moral claims as expressed in law in these same situations. So you want a morality enforced. You just don’t want the Catholic understanding to be enforced. You want the morality arrived at by quasi democracy to be enforced.

It should then be pointed out that the state is the ultimate unequal enforcer of laws. It exempts itself from the law and stands above it. It picks and chooses who to apply the law to without much regard for fairness. For all the concern you expressed about equality you pick an enforcer that doesn’t have a very good reputation in that regard.

 

[Louie1983]

It isn’t a question of what an individual thinks is sinful. It is a question of what the Church teaches is sinful. And I’m sorry but that isn’t hard to figure out. I knew what the Catholic Church taught about most things long before I even considered becoming Catholic.

We can’t build a society on ignorance. We’ve been trying that for a while and it isn’t working out well at all.

This!!!

Many miss this.