Archdiocese of Cincinnati expands morals clause in teacher contracts

[Tony_Micelli]

If you have been to confession lately then you would know how it works and it’s not like that.

Funny you should ask, I had the good opportunity to teach math full-time at my catholic high school years ago. I never signed a contract, but one time asked the priest to hear my confession before school started. I’m being serious that if I did sign a contract like this one, he could say for my penance to recuse myself from teaching because I sinned and failed to live up to the terms of my contract.

Let’s say a teacher was engaged or was courting someone and got knocked up. Even if she confessed this common sin, she still will have a baby belly which may cause scandal among the more pharasidical parents. Ostensibly, a man could keep teaching, but not the woman. This isn’t fair to me.

 

[Trader]

Let’s say a teacher was engaged or was courting someone and got knocked up. Even if she confessed this common sin, she still will have a baby belly which may cause scandal among the more pharasidical parents. Ostensibly, a man could keep teaching, but not the woman. This isn’t fair to me.

Take it up with the one who created us male and female. Yes, only women get pregnant. The issue in these contracts is scandal. A comparable situation for a male teacher would be a paternity suit. That is a public matter and indicates that a particular sin has become public. I am pretty sure that a Catholic school teacher who had his wages garnished for child support would also be fired in most cases if that became public. If you are in a position that requires you to be a role model for children, you can choose to accept or refuse that job.

Sometimes even parents have to be removed from their positions when they act against the good of their children.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

Funny you should ask, I had the good opportunity to teach math full-time at my catholic high school years ago. I never signed a contract, but one time asked the priest to hear my confession before school started. I’m being serious that if I did sign a contract like this one, he could say for my penance to recuse myself from teaching because I sinned and failed to live up to the terms of my contract.

Let’s say a teacher was engaged or was courting someone and got knocked up. Even if she confessed this common sin, she still will have a baby belly which may cause scandal among the more pharasidical parents. Ostensibly, a man could keep teaching, but not the woman. This isn’t fair to me.

Do you really believe that the Catholic teaching of sexual abstinence until marriage is impossible for Catholics?

 

[JRKH]

Funny you should ask, I had the good opportunity to teach math full-time at my catholic high school years ago. I never signed a contract, but one time asked the priest to hear my confession before school started. I’m being serious that if I did sign a contract like this one, he could say for my penance to recuse myself from teaching because I sinned and failed to live up to the terms of my contract.

Let’s say a teacher was engaged or was courting someone and got knocked up. Even if she confessed this common sin, she still will have a baby belly which may cause scandal among the more pharasidical parents. Ostensibly, a man could keep teaching, but not the woman. This isn’t fair to me.

First of all - - women don’t get “knocked up” they become pregnant. Such vulgar expressions as the one you used are demeaning to both the woman and the child.

As to the specific question -,
Since the person freely signed the contract and is therefore aware of the consequences, it seems the is to do is to live up to the terms of the contract - then the problem won’t come up…

Of course you are right that there could be fairness problems - just like there could be abuse problems. For instance a jilted boyfriend or girlfriend could make false accusations that could cost someone their job. We’ve seen this happen with the priest abuse scandal.

That said - - -

Your scenario offers other possibilities - if the teacher, “comes clean”, confesses the fault and asks forgiveness. How might that be handled?

There is no doubt but that this change will have consequences…

Peace
James

 

[oldburkes]

First of all - - women don’t get “knocked up” they become pregnant. Such vulgar expressions as the one you used are demeaning to both the woman and the child.

As to the specific question -,
Since the person freely signed the contract and is therefore aware of the consequences, it seems the is to do is to live up to the terms of the contract - then the problem won’t come up…

Of course you are right that there could be fairness problems - just like there could be abuse problems. For instance a jilted boyfriend or girlfriend could make false accusations that could cost someone their job. We’ve seen this happen with the priest abuse scandal.

That said - - -

Your scenario offers other possibilities - if the teacher, “comes clean”, confesses the fault and asks forgiveness. How might that be handled?

There is no doubt but that this change will have consequences…

Peace
James

:clapping: Thank you JRKH.

 

[Elizium23]

I’m being serious that if I did sign a contract like this one, he could say for my penance to recuse myself from teaching because I sinned and failed to live up to the terms of my contract.

No, the priest could never say that, and you should know better.

 

[Tony_Micelli]

No, the priest could never say that, and you should know better.

I agree with you that a priest shouldn’t however that contract doesn’t say that confessed private sins are not grounds for dismissal.

I acknowledge and agree to act and speak in a way that supports the Catholic Church and its teachings.

The contract makes it sound like you are held to a standard few can achieve–sanctity. I sin without number, maybe they should take my children away from me lest they are scandalized.

Again, I give the example of a pregnant single teacher who could be fired for essentially being pregnant while a guy involved probably wouldn’t be disciplined.

I think only public and scandalous sins should be grounds for dismissal, and not confessed private ones. This contract seems to me to be about protecting the church from lawsuits rather than ensuring a good catholic faculty

 

[GraceSofia]

which may cause scandal among the more pharasidical parents.

I don’t think it is right to call people who would like – and have every right to expect – that Catholic morals be upheld “pharasidical.” It’s like calling people who don’t believe in homosexual marriage “homophobes.”

 

[Tony_Micelli]

I don’t think it is right to call people who would like – and have every right to expect – that Catholic morals be upheld

Unless you haven’t sinned, you have no right to judge someone who seeks God’s mercy, especially when it comes to their private lives.

Of course we should demand that teachers at a catholic school teach according to the Catholic Church and are not scandalizing the students with their behaviors.

 

[GraceSofia]

When I was in Catholic school we had several non-Catholic teachers. Simple reason: The school was desperate for teachers and the teachers were desperate for jobs.

That still doesn’t make sense to me. How can there be both a shortage of teachers and of jobs? Should be one or the other. I still believe if Catholic schools made a serious effort, it could be done. I know of at least some Protestant schools which manage to hire only Protestant teachers-- sometimes even the teachers come from foreign countries, but the schools do not want to be compromised in their mission. I know of Protestant schools which have morality clauses that the parents and students have to sign, too. It varies from country to country, and school to school, of course.

I know teachers in our local Catholic schools who are not Catholic, but take very seriously the responsibility to live by their contracts.

Our diocese has a standard contract that requires teachers to familiarize themselves with Catholic teaching so the “I didn’t know” defense won’t work. That came into play when one teacher wanted to continue using in-vitro fertilization treatments. Her contract was not renewed when that became public.

And I take it she did not sue?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

That still doesn’t make sense to me. How can there be both a shortage of teachers and of jobs?

Because I lived in a part of the country that was more economically depressed than others. Many of the teachers in the area had moved away seeking better employment leaving a shortage of teachers in the area. Those that wouldn’t or couldn’t leave vied for what teaching jobs were still available.

 

[JRKH]

I agree with you that a priest shouldn’t however that contract doesn’t say that confessed private sins are not grounds for dismissal.

It says nothing at all about private, confessed, sins. That is because the seal of the confessional is absolute.

The scenario you propose - of a teacher who confesses to a priest and the priest telling them to resign is far fetched for a number of reasons.

1. Would a person confess something they do not repent or?
2. If they have repented, why would the priest tell them to quit their job?
3. Telling a person to quit their job as a penance, would only make a headache for the school and the priest.
4. If the person confessed behind a screen - how wuld the priest even know this was one of his teachers? OR
5. If the person went to a priest who did not know them - even face to face - how would the priest know they were a teacher in a Catholic School? The person would have to confess that they “broke their contract”.

The contract makes it sound like you are held to a standard few can achieve–sanctity. I sin without number, maybe they should take my children away from me lest they are scandalized.

Actually in certain cases this does happen. The state reserves the right to take your children if they feel circumstances warrant it.

Again, I give the example of a pregnant single teacher who could be fired for essentially being pregnant while a guy involved probably wouldn’t be disciplined.

And again - I say that such matters - contracts and such - are always subject to the possibility of abuse. It’s up to all parties involved to try to see that the matters are handled in a fair and positive way for the good of all.

I think only public and scandalous sins should be grounds for dismissal, and not confessed private ones. This contract seems to me to be about protecting the church from lawsuits rather than ensuring a good catholic faculty

Indeed such contracts often ARE about avoiding lawsuits. Contracts are intended to give clear assurance to both parties as to the obligations and responsibilities of each.
When ambiguities are made known or, as in this case, a new court ruling makes a change desirable or necessary, contracts are amended to cover these.

I don’t agree that only public sins should be grounds for dismissal, however, those are the only kind that can be known. Private sin - that known only to the sinner - cannot be addressed - except by the sinner. Those private sins revealed in the confessional remain, because of the nature of the sacrament of reconciliation, just that - private.

Yes it does hold the teachers to a high standard in their conduct. Something they are aware of at the time they sign the contract. It is a good contract. Everything is out in the open. They are free to choose…sign or not…

Just some thoughts.

Peace
James

 

[Brendan]

I agree with you that a priest shouldn’t however that contract doesn’t say that confessed private sins are not grounds for dismissal. The contract makes it sound like you are held to a standard few can achieve–sanctity.

Really, you’re a teacher, I would have expected better reading comprehension that that. . Go back and reread Section 4 of the contract. The contract only addresses public

 

[ProVobis]

Really, you’re a teacher, I would have expected better reading comprehension that that. . Go back and reread Section 4 of the contract. The contract only addresses public sins. The vast majority of Catholic DO sin, I do. But the vast majority of Catholics are capable of not making their sins into a public issue. Generally, when we sin, we are ashamed of it, and make not public reference to it all.

Those who don’t sin have really no reason to be Christian.

Seriously, though, you make a good point.

 

[JRKH]

Tony Micelli;11782522:

I agree with you that a priest shouldn’t however that contract doesn’t say that confessed private sins are not grounds for dismissal. The contract makes it sound like you are held to a standard few can achieve–sanctity.

Really, you’re a teacher, I would have expected better reading comprehension that that. . Go back and reread Section 4 of the contract. The contract only addresses public sins. The vast majority of Catholic DO sin, I do. But the vast majority of Catholics are capable of not making their sins into a public issue. Generally, when we sin, we are ashamed of it, and make not public reference to it all.

If his fatherhood of the child became publically known, then yes, he would be disciplined, as he too is in violation of his contract.

Then you and the contract have no fundamental disagreement.

 

[GraceSofia]

Because I lived in a part of the country that was more economically depressed than others. Many of the teachers in the area had moved away seeking better employment leaving a shortage of teachers in the area. Those that wouldn’t or couldn’t leave vied for what teaching jobs were still available.

Ah, okay.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

It is worth remembering that just about every diocese has had contracts with moral clauses in them. It was in mine when I was a catechist ten years ago. The only difference is that this one gets specific both by underlining the fact that you are not just a teacher, but also a minister (Thank you SCOTUS. The blind squirrel finds an acorn!) and by specifying the kinds of acts in the external forum (thank you markomalley) that can get you fired. This actually helps the teachers because there have been a few public relations disasters because teachers were under non-specific clauses and then got blindsided due to ignorance (not to excuse them because in every case the teacher showed zero remorse). Now all cards are on the table and everyone knows what is expected of them.

If there is a downside to the implications of the Hosanna-Tabor ruling, I haven’t seen anyone come up with one yet.

 

[JRKH]

It is worth remembering that just about every diocese has had contracts with moral clauses in them. It was in mine when I was a catechist ten years ago. The only difference is that this one gets specific both by underlining the fact that you are not just a teacher, but also a minister (Thank you SCOTUS. The blind squirrel finds an acorn!) and by specifying the kinds of acts in the external forum (thank you markomalley) that can get you fired. This actually helps the teachers because there have been a few public relations disasters because teachers were under non-specific clauses and then got blindsided due to ignorance (not to excuse them because in every case the teacher showed zero remorse). Now all cards are on the table and everyone knows what is expected of them.

If there is a downside to the implications of the Hosanna-Tabor ruling, I haven’t seen anyone come up with one yet.

Well stated Scott.

I think this contract clears up things on both sides of the table. I’m afraid that over time some Catholic Schools have allowed - even encouraged - a much too liberal view of things. By thus clarifying these matters, the diocese is putting the magisterial teachings squarely at the center - where they should be.

Peace
James

 

[Tony_Micelli]

Those private sins revealed in the confessional remain, because of the nature of the sacrament of reconciliation, just that - private.

Hypothetically, your penance could be to quit teaching.

The contract only addresses public sins.

No, if it did, I would agree with the contract. As it is written it says refrain from any conduct… in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals. Other than this sentence, I have no problem with the document. How could anyone agree to never sin?

I think privacy should always be respected until something becomes scandalous. Cursing, drinking or eating too much at home, or even pre marital sex, shouldn’t be grounds for dismissal, especially when there is repentance.

We don’t need a church of judgment, but one of mercy.

 

[JRKH]

Hypothetically, your penance could be to quit teaching

Hypothetically your penance could be to drive hot needles under your fingernails.
But I think you’ll agree it’s better if we stay in the realm of reality.

Realistically speaking - if a person feared for their job, they would go to a priest they don’t know and / or confess from behind a screen. They need not confess that they violated their contract, only that they committed whatever sin. Since the priest would not know that they are teaching at a Catholic School - there is zero chance that he will give your hypothetical penance.

That said, I agree that we need a church of mercy - but mercy does not mean she need to overlook behavior that can be detrimental to the proper teaching of the children in her care.

Peace
James