Rebuke for Religion-Driven Policy

[estesbob]

A Roman Catholic college in North Carolina discriminated against employees by denying them health care coverage for contraceptives, and then retaliated against those who complained, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined.

Belmont Abbey College, which was founded by Benedictine Monks, changed health care coverage in December 2007 to exclude oral contraceptives, abortions, vasectomies and tubal ligations. That decision drew the rebuke of at least eight faculty members, who filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. After first denying the discrimination complaint in March, the commission reversed its decision in a July 30 letter.

insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/11/belmont

---

Note how some of the Catholic mambers of the faculty asrcibe catholics teachings as"twisted"

*Others who challenged the policy change, however, are staying put. Janette Blandford, an associate professor of philosophy and a practicing Catholic, says she wants to continue teaching at a Catholic institution – just not the kind Thierfelder envisions. *
*“He’s not open to any form of Catholicism except his own twisted brand,” says Blandford, who does not subscribe to the church’s teachings on birth control. “I’m staying. He’s got to go.” *

She wants the president of a Catholic College fired for ubholding catholic teachng!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

A Roman Catholic college in North Carolina discriminated against employees by denying them health care coverage for contraceptives, and then retaliated against those who complained, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined.

Belmont Abbey College, which was founded by Benedictine Monks, changed health care coverage in December 2007 to exclude oral contraceptives, abortions, vasectomies and tubal ligations. That decision drew the rebuke of at least eight faculty members, who filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. After first denying the discrimination complaint in March, the commission reversed its decision in a July 30 letter.

insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/11/belmont

---

Note how some of the Catholic mambers of the faculty asrcibe catholics teachings as"twisted"

Others who challenged the policy change, however, are staying put. Janette Blandford, an associate professor of philosophy and a practicing Catholic, says she wants to continue teaching at a Catholic institution – just not the kind Thierfelder envisions.
“He’s not open to any form of Catholicism except his own twisted brand,” says Blandford, who does not subscribe to the church’s teachings on birth control. “I’m staying. He’s got to go.”

She wants the president of a Catholic College fired for ubholding catholic teachng!

Not to side with those who are wrong but I think the College errored by allowing for the coverage and then later changing it.

They should have never allowed for this. As they did, I think it is what has hurt them with the EEOC.

 

[estesbob]

Not to side with those who are wrong but I think the College errored by allowing for the coverage and then later changing it.

They should have never allowed for this. As they did, I think it is what has hurt them with the EEOC.

Agreed. I am more concerend about the reaction of the some of the faculty than am the EEOC. Since there is no consitutional rght to have contraception covered in your insurance policy i suspect this will be overturned on appeal.

 

[Sabda]

A Roman Catholic college in North Carolina discriminated against employees by denying them health care coverage for contraceptives, and then retaliated against those who complained, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has determined.

Belmont Abbey College, which was founded by Benedictine Monks, changed health care coverage in December 2007 to exclude oral contraceptives, abortions, vasectomies and tubal ligations. That decision drew the rebuke of at least eight faculty members, who filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. After first denying the discrimination complaint in March, the commission reversed its decision in a July 30 letter.

insidehighered.com/news/2009/08/11/belmont

---

Note how some of the Catholic mambers of the faculty asrcibe catholics teachings as"twisted"

Others who challenged the policy change, however, are staying put. Janette Blandford, an associate professor of philosophy and a practicing Catholic, says she wants to continue teaching at a Catholic institution – just not the kind Thierfelder envisions.
“He’s not open to any form of Catholicism except his own twisted brand,” says Blandford, who does not subscribe to the church’s teachings on birth control. “I’m staying. He’s got to go.”

She wants the president of a Catholic College fired for ubholding catholic teachng!

The red is what I’m commenting on.
Makes sense to me. At least they didn’t say she was devout.

May God richly bless their president.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Agreed. I am more concerend about the reaction of the some of the faculty than am the EEOC. Since there is no consitutional rght to have contraception covered in your insurance policy i suspect this will be overturned on appeal.

Depends on how the contracts for the professors is written. They may not have the right to change what the health care policy covers without consent.

They could change it for all new hires but the old ones may get to keep it.

I am grateful to be working at a Catholic High School that upholds Catholic Teaching.

During new teacher orientation we were told of a couple of things (which are contrary to Catholic Teaching) that if we do them we will lose our job, no ifs and or buts about it.

 

[Corki]

Depends on how the contracts for the professors is written. They may not have the right to change what the health care policy covers without consent.

They could change it for all new hires but the old ones may get to keep it.

I am grateful to be working at a Catholic High School that upholds Catholic Teaching.

During new teacher orientation we were told of a couple of things (which are contrary to Catholic Teaching) that if we do them we will lose our job, no ifs and or buts about it.

If that were the case with Belmont College, I think the EEOC would have mentioned it. The letter also says that the college submitted the change to the State first, who approved it. They wouldn’t have done that if there was a contract violation.

The rationale of the EEOC has been used before to say that contraceptives are only for women so to deny them is to discriminate against women. But what’s to stop the argument that only women can have abortions so to deny them is discrimination?

 

[Lancer]

This is great…this is exactly what we need…seriously…each and everyone of us who calls himself/herself “a Catholic.”

As Father Wade Menezes, CPM (Fathers of Mercy), describes (I have to paraphrase as best as I can…rather poorly…forgive me)ur Country/current culture…with all of the moral and ethical issues we face and “swim” in daily…

(abortion including the pill-types, contraception, embryonic stem cell experimentation, invitro fertilization, homosexual marriage, etc…-- “the non-negotiables moral and ethical issues”)
…are so prevalent and we are so polarized into “red state-blue state”…“liberal-conservative”…“orthodox-heterodox” labels…that we can’t find any “gray areas” to hide behind…everything is becoming a definitive choice…between “Light and Darkness”…with all of these “black and white” issues…that force us to make definitive moral and ethical decisions. Rapidly fading into the sunset are the days of “have a nice day” …and…“I am O.K…you are O.K.”…!

And precisely because God is who He is…the God of All persons and all things…He demands and requires that we choose – (…that “free will” gift we all received…has actually kept us all…in the Garden…listening to all those voices whispering into our ear…just like Eve had to endure and choose…to obey or to become our own god…) – He demands that we choose definitely between the forces of “light and darkness”… precisely becasue He is God…He deserves our definitive answer (Pope B-XVI).

But…for us Catholics…the decisions are becoming even more monumental because in all faith and morals issues…the Pope (Ex Cathedra) and the Pope/Bishops/Magisterium are infallible…on these issues…we have the fullness of truth on all these issues. JP-II always said that the Catholic Church only “…proposes…it never imposes”…but the kicker is that what the Catholic Church proposes is the absolute objective Truth… and Truth is not something…but someone…Our Lord Jesus Christ:John 14:6 (RSV-CE)
​

*6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me. *​

Luke 10: 16 (RSV-CE)
​

*16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who **rejects me rejects him who sent me.” ***
​

So when we go against the Church on faith and moral issues…in which “Peter has spoken”…we are getting into a “sword fight”…without a sword…and fighting against a double edged sword at that!

1 Timothy 3: 15 (RSV-CE)

*15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.
*​

Pax Christi

 

[WillieWonka]

Note this was decided as a gender discrimination issue, not a religious issue.

“In its letter, the commission noted that failure to cover oral contraceptives constituted gender-based discrimination because it denied a benefit to women only. The commission did not find evidence, however, to support the claim that employees had been discriminated against based on their religion, since the policy applied to employees regardless of their religion.”

Further, under state law, the college did not qualify for a religious exemption.

State law says contraceptives must be provided if drug coverage is provided. So, I am not sure from the article why gender was grounds rather than simple non-compliance with law.

I think the college could drop all drug covereage and be OK.

This seems very similar to the California Catholic Charities case from a few years back.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Note this was decided as a gender discrimination issue, not a religious issue.

“In its letter, the commission noted that failure to cover oral contraceptives constituted gender-based discrimination because it denied a benefit to women only. The commission did not find evidence, however, to support the claim that employees had been discriminated against based on their religion, since the policy applied to employees regardless of their religion.”

Further, under state law, the college did not qualify for a religious exemption.

State law says contraceptives must be provided if drug coverage is provided. So, I am not sure from the article why gender was grounds rather than simple non-compliance with law.

I think the college could drop all drug covereage and be OK.

This seems very similar to the California Catholic Charities case from a few years back.

Couldn’t one argue that offering oral contraceptives is gender-based discrimination as men are not also offered that benefit? Offering it offers a benefit to women only.

 

[WillieWonka]

Couldn’t one argue that offering oral contraceptives is gender-based discrimination as men are not also offered that benefit? Offering it offers a benefit to women only.

I imagine a man could take the pill, too, if he wanted. Now, prengancy coverage might be a more difficult to finesse.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I am grateful to be working at a Catholic High School that upholds Catholic Teaching.

During new teacher orientation we were told of a couple of things (which are contrary to Catholic Teaching) that if we do them we will lose our job, no ifs and or buts about it.

Imagine being a faculty member at Bob Jones University and dating someone outside your race!

 

[Emiliana7]

Hi! I know this college quite well! The problem is mainly that they are not typed as a religious insitution; so they can recieve state and federal aid (for the students). Since they are a “nonreligious” institution per educaitonal terms and per the state their helathplan has to offer those services. One option they can do is to drop all healthcare coverage. So those professors basically messed themselves up. OR second option would be to be re-typed as a “religious” institution and be allowed to not offer those healthcare services such as abortions, the pill, tubals, etc. However that also means less student aid, federal money, grants, etc. Therefore making some academic programs need to be cut- therefore messing with those professors. Some of those professors did not think all that through!

As to if Dr. Janette Blandford, is a “devout” Catholic, she thinks she is. The local parish church Queen of the Apostles is her church and she is consistantly a server, or EM, and both her and her husband are quite involved in this church.

On that same note, however, QofA is about as Protestant as a church could be and still have the words Catholic on the sign! My family is suppose to attend this church however whenever we do we come out frustated as all the non-Catholic-y ways and the Mass is only a Mass because of the technicallities of the fact there is a Preist. (but going into that is a whole other ball of wax)

I fully support Belmont Abbey College and Dr. Thierfelder in their mission to remain faithful to the real Catholic Church. Before Dr. T came the college was mostly (%-wise) non- Catholic; since him coming to the College has grown in reputation and increased its Catholicicity (is that a word? I think you get my point though!).

Long live Belmont Abbey College, Dr. Thierfelder and the Monks of Belmont Abbey!