Catholic employers
have weeded out workers who don’t match up to the ideals of church doctrine,
but the moral purge may do more harm than good.
By Scott Alessi, managing editor of U.S
Catholic.
[Sounding Boards are one person's take on a many-sided subject
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of U.S.
Catholic, its editors, or the
Claretians.]
Please take the survey that
follows this essay.
Shaela Evenson was about to begin her ninth year as a teacher at
Butte Central Catholic Schools in the Diocese of Helena, Montana when she
became pregnant with her first child. The news was at first met with enthusiasm
and encouragement from the school principal, who gave no indication that being
unmarried and pregnant would put Evenson’s job at risk. But just a few months
later—and less than two months before giving birth to her son—Evenson was
fired.
The diocese had received an anonymous letter telling them that
Evenson, who taught literature and physical education classes to
middle-schoolers in grades six through eight, had become pregnant outside of
marriage. After confirming this with the school principal, the diocesan
superintendent asked Evenson to resign. When she refused, Evenson was sent an
email telling her that she’d violated her employment contract because “having a
child out of wedlock is considered 'at variance with or contrary to polices of
the School and the Diocese and the moral and religious teachings of the Roman
Catholic Church.’” As a result, Evenson was immediately terminated early last
year.
It is unclear whether the diocese knew Evenson was in a same-sex
relationship, or that her unborn child was conceived through artificial means.
The school had been always known that Evenson herself wasn’t Catholic, and this
never proved to be a barrier in her job teaching literature and physical
education. And there was no indication that she’d been performing poorly in her
job. Being a single mom on the faculty of a Catholic school was reason enough
for her to be fired.
Evenson’s story garnered media attention and led to a lawsuit
against the diocese for employment discrimination, which is still pending. But her
case is far from unique. The firing of church employees—regardless of whether
they are Catholic—for failing to adhere to church teachings in their personal
lives has become an alarming trend in recent years and one that has clearly
crossed a line.
Evenson isn’t even the only single mom to be booted by a
Catholic employer. Christa Dias, a computer teacher at two Ohio Catholic
schools, was fired in 2010 for becoming pregnant outside of marriage. In her
case the reason given for her termination wasn’t the pregnancy itself, but the
fact that she’d used in vitro fertilization (IVF). Dias, who is also not
Catholic, claimed she wasn’t even aware that the church is morally opposed to
IVF and had no idea it would be grounds for termination.
In the case of both Evenson and Dias, church officials could
point to a visible sign of their dissonance from Catholic teaching—pregnancy
outside of marriage. But that wasn’t the case with Emily Herx, a married woman
who began IVF treatments in 2010 when she and her husband were unable to
conceive a child. Herx requested, and was granted, time off from her job
teaching literature and language arts at an Indiana Catholic school to undergo
IVF treatments. Her employee health plan, administered by the Diocese of Fort
Wayne-South Bend, even covered the procedure.
One year later, when Herx again used sick time to begin a second
round of IVF, another teacher tipped off the school’s pastor who brought Herx
in for a private meeting. The pastor called Herx a “grave immoral
sinner”—despite her assertion that care had been taken to not destroy a single
embryo in the course of her treatment—and she was told her teaching contract
would not be renewed because her situation could cause scandal for the school
and the church.
Herx never actually became pregnant and, as a married woman,
what scandal would it have caused if she did? Her only offense was being honest
about her reasons for requesting sick time, and her private medical situation
should have neither been public knowledge nor a reason for her firing. (A jury
agreed, and Herx claimed $1.9 million in a lawsuit; Dias also won a suit
against her former employer.)
These firings paint a troubling picture of a church so concerned
with ensuring moral purity among its workers that it misses the bigger picture.
Certainly, the church should take great care in choosing the people who are
entrusted to carry out its work. And in some cases, an employee’s actions
outside of work would indeed conflict with their professional role—a religious
education director doubling as a spokesperson for a pro-choice group, for
example. But should computer teachers, janitors, and cafeteria workers be held
to the same standard?
Applying a moral purity test to employees at all levels, from
diocesan leaders down to administrative support staff, runs contradictory to
the very teachings that the church is trying so hard to protect. How can a
church that preaches a strong pro-life message in the public square maintain
credibility when at the same time it fires a single woman for getting pregnant
and choosing to keep her baby?
The recent wave of firings haven’t been limited to
schoolteachers, nor have they all been caused by pregnancy outside of marriage.
In the vast majority of cases, the issue of concern is same-sex partnerships.
Dozens of news stories in the past few years have detailed cases of employees,
from parish musicians to gym teachers to food pantry workers, being fired
either because they are gay or because they have entered into a legal marriage
with their same-sex partner. In many cases, the employee’s sexuality was not a
secret and was even made clear at the time they were hired. And often it has
been an anonymous tip from one concerned party that led to the firing.
Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski took things a step further in
January when he sent a letter to all archdiocesan employees warning them that
"certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church,
could lead to disciplinary action, including termination.” The letter
immediately followed Florida’s legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and
Wenski made clear that any implied support of same-sex marriage, including
actions outside the workplace and even on social media, could result in a trip
to the unemployment line. Other dioceses, including San Francisco and
Cincinnati, have also instituted morality clauses that govern employees’
behavior both on and off the job.
Such regulations raise a host of questions about what is and is
not acceptable behavior. Would an employee who attends the same-sex wedding of
their own child be fired for public support of same-sex marriage? What about a
person who congratulates a friend on Facebook on getting married to someone of
the same sex? In response to such questions, the Archdiocese of Cincinnati
recently issued some clarifications on what may constitute a fireable offense,
but the lines remain blurred for the rest of the country, with such decisions
left to the whims of the local bishop and diocesan administration.
Another concern raised by recent firings is the fact that in
most cases it was not a school, parish, or diocese looking to weed out
employees, but rather anonymous individuals voicing their concern. In one case,
a teacher was even fired over something that an anonymous source spotted in an
obituary for the woman’s mother. When church leaders give this kind of power to
self-appointed morality police, it only serves to create a culture of fear
among employees. Does the church really want to create an environment where
employees must constantly fear what they say and who they trust both on and off
the job, never knowing when something they say or do may be used to get them
fired?
The selective scrutiny in focusing on only a handful of
teachings related to sexuality also sets a double standard in the workplace. No
employees have been fired for taking public stances on social justice issues
that conflict with Catholic teachings, such as supporting companies that
exploit their workers or backing politicians whose policies are detrimental to
the poor. And if unwed mothers are to be fired, what about a female employee
living with her boyfriend outside of marriage? Or a male employee, single or
married, who helps to conceive a child through IVF?
Pope Francis has repeatedly called for a church of mercy, one
that does not focus on the faults of its members or obsess over a narrow set of
doctrinal issues. The church’s employment policies should take a similar
approach. Instead of coldly putting Shaela Evenson out of work two months
before she gave birth, just imagine what kind of message the church could have
sent with a more merciful approach.
It is
time to end the witch hunt for employees within the ranks of the church who may
not always be living according to the letter of the law. If such a strict test
were truly applied across the board so that anyone who sins were to be fired,
everyone from the pope on down would lose their job. Instead of trying to purge
the church of employees who may not meet the ideal, it is time to craft a new
approach that appreciates their gifts and talents, recognizes the value of
their contributions, and helps to point them—and all whom they encounter in
their work—toward the gospel.
To complete survey on line click here. Survey will be at end of article.
.jpg)
