| Christa Dias with Daughter |
On the first day of the new year I would have hoped to be writing about something much more hopeful, progressive, and encouraging than clerical suppression of individual liberty, but at the beginning of 2013 our country, founded on the principles of liberty and justice, is observing the Catholic Archdiocese of Cincinnati arguing in court that it has the "right" to regulate and control employees' lives and prevent them from making decisions based on conscience.
Meanwhile in the last political campaign, the Catholic bishops tried to make their view of contraception a matter of "religious liberty." Apparently the bishops' concept of religious liberty is: we should be free to impose our religious views on our employees, and others if possible.
There are two court cases in which the Archdiocese is defending its "right" to interfere in women's lives.
Case One: A Catholic school teacher, Christa Dias, was fired after she became pregnant by using artificial insemination. The archdiocese of Cincinnati has said the woman was fired because artificial insemination is immoral and violates church doctrine. Dias' contract requires all employees to "comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." In other words, the Church is saying, "if you work for us, we can control the most intimate parts of your life.
Case two: in Kettering, Ohio, an unmarried first grade teacher, Kathleen Quilan, was told to resign or she would be fired on the day she told the school's principal that she was pregnant. Her offer to work behind-the-scenes until she gave birth was rejected. According to the Church, Kathleen, by engaging in premarital sex, failed to "comply with and act consistently in accordance with the stated philosophy and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church." (The use of the word "philosophy" in this context proves quite interesting. Since when did the Church have an official "philosophy'? Where might one find that philosophy?)
Needless to say, no matter the other ramifications of her firing, it is discriminatory because male employees engaging in premarital sex are not fired. In effect, because of the obviousness of her pregnancy, she was be fired because she was female.
Many of us are left to wonder why these "morality clauses" were not invoked to fire pedophile priests who broke not only Catholic, but also civil law.
In the over-all view, it seems the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is confused about its role in a democracy which is by definition non-religious. Obviously some bishops would like a theocracy in which they could impose their religious law on everyone; other bishops would just be happy to slowly break down the wall that separates church and state.
2 comments:
"The use of the word "philosophy" in this context proves quite interesting. Since when did the Church have an official "philosophy'? Where might one find that philosophy?"
Read Augustine.
"she was be fired because she was female."
No, she was fired because she broke the rules. A male who was having premarital sex and got caught would face the same punishment.
"Many of us are left to wonder why these "morality clauses" were not invoked to fire pedophile priests who broke not only Catholic, but also civil law."
This mostly happened decades ago, when the consensus was that you could "fix" abusers through counselling. Schools did similar things.
Your anti-Catholic bias is all too apparent. It's the last bastion of intolerance.
Dear Anonymous (above):
Thank you for your comments and please allow me to respond.
You suggest that I read Augustine for the official Catholic philosophy. Thank you. I have and I would be reluctant to accept Augustinianism as a substitute for the christianity I find in the New Testament.
I stand by the statement: "She was fired because she was female." She was fired because she was pregnant and unmarried. From what I know about human physiology, such a condition can occur only for females.
As for your remarks about the Church trying to "fix" (an interesting word choice)abusive priests instead of firing them, I am left to wonder why Kathleen Quinlan could not have received the same forgiveness as the pedophiles.
Although I have been a Catholic for over seventy years, I can understand that you probably consider anyone who questions the hierarchy to have an anti-Catholic bias. I will not try to persuade you otherwise, however, I find it extremely confusing that you defend the Archdiocese of Cincinnati in these cases and then label my position as being intolerant. Reminds me of the pot calling the kettle black.
Post a Comment