Archdiocese of Cincinnati expands morals clause in teacher contracts

[Mulligan2]

What part of “Catholic” do you not understand? Don’t concentrate so much on the “school” part of the description and more on the “Catholic” part and you may start to see why your thinking is off the mark.

To your first question, I have never heard “Catholic” associated with forced compliance via contract.

If I focus less on the 'school" part of the description and more on the “Catholic” part of the description, as you suggest, the slippery slope becomes even more severe. Would you favor the same sort of contracts for all employees at a Catholic hospital? I certainly would not. I find the entire notion of this contract very unseemly.

 

[oldburkes]

To your first question, I have never heard “Catholic” associated with forced compliance via contract.

If I focus less on the 'school" part of the description and more on the “Catholic” part of the description, as you suggest, the slippery slope becomes even more severe. Would you favor the same sort of contracts for all employees at a Catholic hospital? I certainly would not. I find the entire notion of this contract very unseemly.

What kind of reaction do you think there would be if a Catholic secured a position as a teacher in a secular school, and one day brought his or her copy of the Catechism to their English class, and started a study session on that book, including a recommendation of chastity and/or the benefits of traditional marriage?

 

[ProdigalSun]

Response to Mulligan 2 above.

Which is your right. You have every right to say and really believe this. I for one am glad our teachers are held to a higher standard. If one has a problem with a contract like this it would be highly recomended that you do not sign one. This will save both yourself and the Catholic School from any issuse further down the road. I for one believe there are many teachers that would be happy to sign these contracts so they can work and teach in a dedicated Catholic environment.

Peace to you !

PS sorry I missed quoting your post!

 

[Lapey]

To your first question, I have never heard “Catholic” associated with forced compliance via contract.

If I focus less on the 'school" part of the description and more on the “Catholic” part of the description, as you suggest, the slippery slope becomes even more severe. Would you favor the same sort of contracts for all employees at a Catholic hospital? I certainly would not. I find the entire notion of this contract very unseemly.

You still miss the point…its a CATHOLIC SCHOOL!!! And yes, if a Catholic hospital chooses to only employ faithful Catholics then each prospective employee will be offered a contract stating the conditions.

 

[Trader]

As long as you are truly sorry and have no expressed intention to murder again, the priest would be wrong to withhold absolution. Restitution is a separate issue. Absolution cannot be conditional on the restitution.

Restitution is not the issue here. I don’t know what sufficient restitution for a murder could be. For a valid confession, you have to confess all the mortal sins of which you are aware. To leave an innocent person at serious risk for a crime you have committed would be grave matter, and to knowingly allow that to continue would be a separate mortal sin. The priest cannot offer absolution if you are not sorry for that and lack the intention to stop it.

 

[Coatimundi]

To your first question, I have never heard “Catholic” associated with forced compliance via contract.

If I focus less on the 'school" part of the description and more on the “Catholic” part of the description, as you suggest, the slippery slope becomes even more severe. Would you favor the same sort of contracts for all employees at a Catholic hospital? I certainly would not. I find the entire notion of this contract very unseemly.

Teachers are role models for their students, who are still learning about the world and what life in it is like. Catholic hospitals have a different mission, and patients are not shaped by its staff as happens in schools.

In the secular world, firing an an employee for off-hours behavior is not uncommon. Even someone in a modest position, such as a bank teller, have been terminated because her (non-criminal) behavior in another state made the news.

In the case of teachers, the archdiocese is not requiring that the employee be Catholic. However, the teacher is expected to advance the mission of the schools. The new contract makes this more explicit than past contracts. However, the mission of Catholic schools has always been to shape students so they develop as Christians and are able to carry their faith into adult life.

This mission is not unique to Cincinnati. If you check out the mission statement of any Catholic school system, I think you will find that to be true. Here are a few, taken at random:

Archdiocese of New York
The mission of the Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese of New York is to ensure our schools are Christ-centered, academically excellent, and welcoming communities that teach students to be life-long learners and leaders energized by fidelity to Christ, the Church, and one another
adnyeducation.org/about-us/mission-statement/

Archdiocese of San Francisco
*The Department of Catholic Schools of the Archdiocese of San Francisco is dedicated to the teaching mission of the Catholic Church. For our elementary and secondary schools we strive to provide quality leadership, to develop programs of educational excellence, and to prepare students for a truly Christian life. *
sfdcs.org/dcs/about

Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston
*Catholic schools call young people to holiness and prepare them to live and proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In collaboration with families, Catholic schools teach the values of our faith and tradition, foster experiences of community and service, and provide educational excellence. *
archgh.org/cso/

The “faith and morals” clause has always existed in the teacher contracts of Catholic schools. It is one of the things which sets Catholic schools apart from other schools. The Archdiocese of Cincinnati is simply tightening up the language of the contract so it will stand up in court.

 

[Corki]

Restitution is not the issue here. I don’t know what sufficient restitution for a murder could be. For a valid confession, you have to confess all the mortal sins of which you are aware. To leave an innocent person at serious risk for a crime you have committed would be grave matter, and to knowingly allow that to continue would be a separate mortal sin. The priest cannot offer absolution if you are not sorry for that and lack the intention to stop it.

A penitent is not required to fix all of the *consequences *of his past sins in order to demonstrate contrition and the firm desire not to sin again.

 

[Trader]

A penitent is not required to fix all of the *consequences *of his past sins in order to demonstrate contrition and the firm desire not to sin again.

I agree that the penitent is not required to fix all the consequences of his sins. In many cases that is truly impossible. An example of that could be a person who has been a frequent fornicator and now cannot reasonably support ten children he helped to create. He still has a duty to make his best efforts to do what he can, even if that means he will never be able to marry and support a new family.

I would still argue that the murderer in the above case has a positive duty to end a great injustice for the wrongly arrested man when he does have the ability to do that. The fact that he may face the just consequences of his first sin does not excuse the duty to end another injustice. An refusal to perform a required act is a separate serious sin and makes sacramental absolution impossible.

 

[Corki]

I agree that the penitent is not required to fix all the consequences of his sins. In many cases that is truly impossible. An example of that could be a person who has been a frequent fornicator and now cannot reasonably support ten children he helped to create. He still has a duty to make his best efforts to do what he can, even if that means he will never be able to marry and support a new family.

I would still argue that the murderer in the above case has a positive duty to end a great injustice for the wrongly arrested man when he does have the ability to do that. The fact that he may face the just consequences of his first sin does not excuse the duty to end another injustice. An refusal to perform a required act is a separate serious sin and makes sacramental absolution impossible.

You are sort of on the right track. If a person has an opportunity to exonerate an innocent man and does not, he likely commits a sin - at least a sin of omission. And a man who fathers a child but does not provide support incurs a sin as well. But that doesn’t mean that the priest can withhold absolution.

There are only two times a priest can withhold absolution 1) if the penitent is not truly sorry for his/her sins and 2) if the sin is something where absolution is reserved to a Bishop or the Pope.

BTW, we are getting seriously off topic from the OP. There are many, many, many threads on this topic in the Moral Theology forum. You might try a search there or start a new thread over there.