V
vames
Guest
It seems that this is how things work in German Catholic institutions:
spiegel.de/international/germany/german-politicians-fight-catholic-church-power-over-public-institutions-a-879198.html
- Status
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
Re: the addendum: maybe I’m just overtired at the moment, but what the heck is the part about teachers/witnesses?
I’m uncomfortable with the “10 commandments part” in that it specifically mentions one’s “personal life.” I’m not uncomfortable attempting to obey the 10 commandments at all, inside a school or outside one. And I also understand that, if it was discovered that I was a male stripper on the side, etc. things of that ilk, then of course any Catholic school with integrity is going to want nothing to do with me. So, I don’t know how exactly to phrase my objection… it just makes me uneasy in a big brother sort of way. I could see this making me paranoid that I’m being watched and judged outside of school hours, and I could see that paranoia manifesting itself in scrupulosity which is not healthy.
It makes it sound like all of my sins (that is, all violation of the commandments) are between me and the school/the school’s administration/the Bishop even if they occur off school grounds and not on school hours. I’m extremely uncomfortable with that. Unless my sin is so severe (e.g., rape, murder, etc.) that it undermines my ability as a teacher, then my sins should be between me and God, by way of my confessor.
Also, if anyone argues that this pledge is insulting to their character, I could see that. I don’t know if I would feel that way, but I could understand it. It certainly would have been best delivered at the time of original employment, though that’s obviously not an option anymore.
I’m uncomfortable with the “10 commandments part” in that it specifically mentions one’s “personal life.” I’m not uncomfortable attempting to obey the 10 commandments at all, inside a school or outside one. And I also understand that, if it was discovered that I was a male stripper on the side, etc. things of that ilk, then of course any Catholic school with integrity is going to want nothing to do with me. So, I don’t know how exactly to phrase my objection… it just makes me uneasy in a big brother sort of way. I could see this making me paranoid that I’m being watched and judged outside of school hours, and I could see that paranoia manifesting itself in scrupulosity which is not healthy.
It makes it sound like all of my sins (that is, all violation of the commandments) are between me and the school/the school’s administration/the Bishop even if they occur off school grounds and not on school hours. I’m extremely uncomfortable with that. Unless my sin is so severe (e.g., rape, murder, etc.) that it undermines my ability as a teacher, then my sins should be between me and God, by way of my confessor.
Also, if anyone argues that this pledge is insulting to their character, I could see that. I don’t know if I would feel that way, but I could understand it. It certainly would have been best delivered at the time of original employment, though that’s obviously not an option anymore.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
It looks to me as if the entire document is geared toward teachers who identify as Catholic. Again, both non-Catholic teachers and non-Catholic students/parents are asked, when participating in Catholic education, to respect the faith, to attend school Masses, etc. respectfully and with decorum. They are never asked to assent to Catholic doctrine, whether truly or dishonestly. Non-Catholic teachers and parents can be divorced and remarried without raising eyebrows. Etc.
On what authority to do you assume that the Bearing Witness document was demanded of non-Catholic teachers/administrators? (I read the article but was mostly interested in the quoted comments by the supposedly effronted Catholic teachers.)
V
vames
Guest
The 5th clause about attending Mass on Sunday specifies “If Catholic myself”. If the document was addressed only to those who identify themselves as Catholic, such a specification would have been absurd.
And the article says that the document was distributed to all the 200 teachers who are employed by the bishop, 25% of which are non-Catholic.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
That’s the document that all teachers, Catholic and non-Catholic, are being asked to sign. As already noted, 25% of the teachers in that school system are non-Catholic. As only the 5th clause specifically mentions Catholic teachers, it seems reasonable to conclude that all of the rest apply to all teachers. I’d be delighted if it didn’t apply to non-Catholic teachers, but that’s not a conclusion I can draw from the document itself.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Why does the first paragraph of the addendum start with a “* …”. Is that link the full addendum? Because it looks like there is more that comes prior to the " …"
Edit: In addition, I can’t seem to find the addendum in the article(s) itself (themselves).
V
vames
Guest
Re the addendum:
it is uploaded on the left column, next to the article: “Key documents - Catholic Diocese document (JPG - 40kb)”, no matter what link you use to read the article:
pressdemocrat.com/article/20130227/articles/130229571?p=1&tc=pg
petaluma360.com/article/20130227/ARTICLES/130229571/-1/PT07?p=1&tc=pg
Re the asterisk:
I can only speculate, as we don’t know the entire employment contract form, but usually an asterisk can denote new information, revisions or additions applied to an existing document. The article says the teachers must sign this addendum if they are to return for the 2013-2014 school year, so since it concerns already hired teachers, it would follow that they don’t have to sign again the entire employment contract, but only the addendum.
The diocese has on its site an application form for employment at its schools; so far there’s no addendum uploaded. Howewer, for those who want to apply for a principal position at one of the schools, the site lists this among the Preferred Qualifications: “well-informed, practicing Catholic, registered within a parish”.
santarosacatholic.org/catholic_schools/employment
it is uploaded on the left column, next to the article: “Key documents - Catholic Diocese document (JPG - 40kb)”, no matter what link you use to read the article:
pressdemocrat.com/article/20130227/articles/130229571?p=1&tc=pg
petaluma360.com/article/20130227/ARTICLES/130229571/-1/PT07?p=1&tc=pg
Re the asterisk:
I can only speculate, as we don’t know the entire employment contract form, but usually an asterisk can denote new information, revisions or additions applied to an existing document. The article says the teachers must sign this addendum if they are to return for the 2013-2014 school year, so since it concerns already hired teachers, it would follow that they don’t have to sign again the entire employment contract, but only the addendum.
The diocese has on its site an application form for employment at its schools; so far there’s no addendum uploaded. Howewer, for those who want to apply for a principal position at one of the schools, the site lists this among the Preferred Qualifications: “well-informed, practicing Catholic, registered within a parish”.
santarosacatholic.org/catholic_schools/employment
S
SonSearcher
Guest
Right. Speculate. I think our arguments are missing the entire point of the addendum. In our Catholic schools we must promote the Catholic faith. In a country where a majority of our fellow parishioners check a box and go home it is a refreshing drink of water, a Bishop doing this. If there are hairs to split they will be split in the court system. We here on a forum (mind you a forum)… can only speculate.
We should be rejoicing about a Bishop that has testosterone and uses it to further Our faith. Not his. Ours. We should be unifying ourselves around him and his choice to lead his flock in the way he chooses as guided by the Holy Spirit within the Magisterium of the Church we all profess to be Truth.
Speculation does nothing for our Faith. Jesus teaches us to listen to the Holy Spirit. I think the Holy Spirit is there is His decision.
L
Lucky7
Guest
Yes let’s give this Bishop a huge thumbs up! It’s so nice to see when our leaders are so courageous!
F
FreciaMarie
Guest
Amen, amen, AMEN.
As a Catholic mother of a four year old daughter- one I’m striving to raise immersed in an orthodox, Catholic environment- I truly admire, respect and appreciate the Bishop’s efforts.
(Particularly since I also reside in the same, godless state of California. I only hope and pray that Bishop Gomez will receive a similar prompting of the Holy Spirit.)
C
Capuchinfan1337
Guest
Yay! less confusion, more natural law! 
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
I’ve read more, from other sources, and I see why the Bishop asked non-Catholics also to sign the document:
As a practical matter, it makes no sense for those who oppose (or have reservations about) Catholic doctrine to be trusted to teach enthusiastically and without bias or inerrancy, the Catholic positions – in all matters of doctrine, not just some. Lucky7 mentioned earlier that it would similarly be a practical difficulty for Catholics to teach in a Jewish school, and I think he meant specifically to teach the Jewish religion. Catholics well versed in Judaism (such as I am) could teach a great deal about Judaism until the ministry of Jesus. But what Jews believe about Jesus radically opposes what Catholics believe, obviously. I would not be able to teach “enthusiastically” that the Messiah has not yet come.
For Catholic schools, it goes beyond “teaching religion,” because Catholic teachers & administrators who do not teach religion are asked to role-model, so again, practically speaking, if you are role-modeling something directly opposed to Catholic teaching, you will be (a) unenthusiastic about Catholic positions, and (b) a poor role model, according to the Church, should families discover your oppositional lifestyle. Nowadays people have very little privacy. There is a strong likelihood that private lives would be discovered. Alternatively, allowing duplicitousness in a teacher is something that itself violates truth. (Shielding a controversial lifestyle from knowledge of enrolled families.)
There is a right to privacy in secular employment, such as public schools. Private education is a different matter because of the issue of example, which is built into the very mission of such schools (including non-Catholic Christian schools as well). As a practical matter, those working in private education can expect that lifestyles and beliefs judged oppositional by those institutions, will become a matter of controversy and possibly a matter for firing as long as the requirements for employment are laid out clearly, which is precisely what this man is trying to do.
I can speak to the other side of the issue, as I no longer offer myself for employment to teach in public schools, given the filth that I am required to endorse and even accompany. I have, i.m.o., wisely chosen to withdraw myself from institutions whose current values I cannot enthusiastically endorse, since that would affect the quality of my teaching and the mission of those institutions to endorse beliefs and lifestyles which are controversial from a practicing Catholic’s point of view.
It’s a practical matter, and he does have the right, for a private institution under his leadership, to try to ensure that practically speaking the goals for which he is morally and spiritually responsible are executed.
As a practical matter, it makes no sense for those who oppose (or have reservations about) Catholic doctrine to be trusted to teach enthusiastically and without bias or inerrancy, the Catholic positions – in all matters of doctrine, not just some. Lucky7 mentioned earlier that it would similarly be a practical difficulty for Catholics to teach in a Jewish school, and I think he meant specifically to teach the Jewish religion. Catholics well versed in Judaism (such as I am) could teach a great deal about Judaism until the ministry of Jesus. But what Jews believe about Jesus radically opposes what Catholics believe, obviously. I would not be able to teach “enthusiastically” that the Messiah has not yet come.
For Catholic schools, it goes beyond “teaching religion,” because Catholic teachers & administrators who do not teach religion are asked to role-model, so again, practically speaking, if you are role-modeling something directly opposed to Catholic teaching, you will be (a) unenthusiastic about Catholic positions, and (b) a poor role model, according to the Church, should families discover your oppositional lifestyle. Nowadays people have very little privacy. There is a strong likelihood that private lives would be discovered. Alternatively, allowing duplicitousness in a teacher is something that itself violates truth. (Shielding a controversial lifestyle from knowledge of enrolled families.)
There is a right to privacy in secular employment, such as public schools. Private education is a different matter because of the issue of example, which is built into the very mission of such schools (including non-Catholic Christian schools as well). As a practical matter, those working in private education can expect that lifestyles and beliefs judged oppositional by those institutions, will become a matter of controversy and possibly a matter for firing as long as the requirements for employment are laid out clearly, which is precisely what this man is trying to do.
I can speak to the other side of the issue, as I no longer offer myself for employment to teach in public schools, given the filth that I am required to endorse and even accompany. I have, i.m.o., wisely chosen to withdraw myself from institutions whose current values I cannot enthusiastically endorse, since that would affect the quality of my teaching and the mission of those institutions to endorse beliefs and lifestyles which are controversial from a practicing Catholic’s point of view.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
S
SpeakInSilence
Guest
I think it’s insane for a Bishop to expect Catholic School teachers to teach according to Catholic doctrine!
S
SonSearcher
Guest
insert sarcasm as needed
V
VeritasLuxMea
Guest
The addendum went far beyond expecting teachers to “teach according to Catholic doctrine,” as you put it.
Clear requirements for employment would involve a list of things which one could adhere to in full, if they chose to do so.
The Bishop mentions living in accord with the 10 commandments. However, even the most conscientious Catholic will violate at least 1 of the commandments on a regular basis. We are all sinners, even the Saints, sadly.
In that way, I do not think this is clear at all.
V
vames
Guest
As I said previously, it seems that Bishop Vasa has no idea how many teachers taught Communist doctrine “with zeal and enthusiasm” in the Communist countries, while disagreeing with it “in the privacy of their heart”. They did that to keep their jobs.
You have just described a Big Brother society. In Communist countries, the Party used to bug houses and institutions, to listen to private phone conversations and to use informers to police the thought of people. Teachers endangered their jobs if they dared to listen to Free Europe Radio, to make jokes about the belly of an official of the regime or to tell their children that they had doubts about the Communist future of the world.
This control was not a problem for those who believed in Communism. But the vast majority of people didn’t believe; they pretended to believe and obeyed only because they had nowhere else to go.
In a tight job market, a teacher can choose to lie and obey, too, if he doesn’t want to lose his job at one of these Catholic schools. So if the bishop really wants to have honest Catholic teachers and good role models for the Catholic community, IMO it’s much more honest to accept only Catholic teachers in his schools, from the very beginning. Otherwise, to ask all the teachers to sign this addedum is only a demonstration of power. No wonder that someone already remarked with admiration: “well, he has testosterone!”. Right! The more Power & Testosterone one has, the more the others have to submit and obey.
L
Lucky7
Guest
If I am remembering correctly, it also stated to the “best of one’s ability”, no? The good bishop knows we sin and he isn’t asking for perfection.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Overreaction, much? Yes.
Drama? (Yes.)In any job market a teacher can lie. The point of a written agreement is to provide acknowledgement. Then a break in the contract is sufficient grounds for dismissal. It’s to provide the legal document to make that possible. That is true for any kind of contract for employment. For example, my company sets out my requirements in a handbook, forbidding certain conflicts of interest, forbidding sharing trade secrets, and interestingly, they are especially protective of trade secrets of other companies – reiterating over & over that we are not to embarrass ourselves, this company, and the competing company by divulging trade secrets or disseminating proprietary information.
None of that prevents an employee from engaging in subterfuge. A contract is merely a tool which provides a concrete avenue for action (firing, prosecution, employee discipline, etc.)
No. It is not “only” that. It is mostly a demonstration of three things:
(a) leadership
(b) responsibility (his and theirs)
(c) communication
Again with the drama.
F
fix
Guest
So- called Catholic teachers are asked to live their faith. Signing the document should be a pleasure and badge of honor. The real question is: Is there any honor left in this culture or Do we really believe what we claim or are we hypocrites?
- Status