Faith-Based Firing in Iowa

[Brown]

In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=91881), I wrote at some length about the controversy in Iowa pertaining to gay marriage.

But there is another marriage-related controversy in Iowa. A teacher with over thirty years of experience has been forced to resign (or be terminated) from a Catholic High School in Waterloo. He lost his pension, his retirement income and other benefits. And why?

Was he a bad teacher? No, nothing like that.

Had he committed some sort of misconduct, perhaps broken a law? No, that wasn't it.

Maybe he had been tardy or unclean or disrespectful? No, not that, either.

His offense was that he had been remarried without getting an annulment, as Catholic dogma requires. One week after his second marriage (in a civil ceremony), the teacher got called onto the carpet. From the Des Moines Register (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/LIFE05/709030340/1001/NEWS&lead=1):"We didn't think the marriage was going to cause trouble," said Tom Girsch. "But a few days after the ceremony, I got called to the office. When I walked in, (school officials) offered congratulations on my marriage and said they were happy for me. Then they asked if I ever got an annulment. I said I hadn't. Then they asked if I was aware that they could terminate me."The rationale, if I may dignify the Church's pitiful excuse with such a word, is that teachers must be role models. And in the Church's view, the Church's interest extends deep into their members' private lives.

In an even more bizarre twist, the teacher tried to obtain an annulment, but his request for an annulment was denied. So he was forced to quit.

The tale gets curiouser and curiouser. The teacher tendered his resignation, but the school board by a close vote refused to accept it. Enter the archdiocese, which insisted "that the board follow church law and archdiocesan policy," coupled with an implied but unmistakable thread of pulling funding. Faced with loss of funding, the board reversed itself.

The teacher has now sued the school and archdiocese for breach of contract.

This "faith-based" termination is disgraceful in its own right. But it would be even more disgusting if the archdiocese were to allow other "sinners" to work at the school. Compound the distaste with a reminder that Jesus and Paul railed against legalism and hypocrisy. Add to that the fact that many of those in the Catholic Church used the church to prevent inquiry into what they considered their private lives, when their activity consisted of criminal fondling and abuse of children.

Let's sing it all together, shall we? "They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love...."

[pgwenthold]

A friend of mine was a superb professor at a catholic university. When it came time for promotion/tenure, her case sailed through. She was a great teacher and nationally recognized as an innovator. So her promotion got through the department, the dean, and the president of the university, all with the highest commendations. The Board of Directors denied her promotion because she is divorced.

Regardless of whether they have the right to do so, it's really bad policy.

[ponderingturtle]

Is a school even a religious school able to discriminate in such a fashion?

[Miss Anthrope]

The comments on the story are unbelievable.

Did Mr Girsch:

1) openly cheat on his first wife?
2) physically abuse his first wife?
3) regularly use pornography?
4) become a homosexual sodomist?
5) physically abuse his children?
6) attempt to dominate and control his family?
7) become an alcoholic?
http://forums.dmregister.com/images/smiles/icon_cool.gif use illegal drugs?
9) regularly lie to his family to the point where he couldn't be trusted?
10) force either his first wife or another woman to abort his child?
11) force his first wife to use birth control against her will?
12) commit a crime?
13) do any one of a number of other things?

Each and every one of these is sufficient grounds from his first wife for divorce - and these would all be his fault.

Since the Register won't tell us this info, and since this guy is trying to evoke sympathy by going to the media, I ASSUME THAT HE'S GUILTY OF ALL OF THESE.

Come on, Girsch - tell us the REAL REASON why you got divorced.
I could have predicted this story as well coming right after the activist revisionist judge hanson allowed a few hours window for gays to get all giddy about being able to get married and make "official" that they are living in sin.

I used to think that the Antichrist would be a person, but now I am thinking that it is probably a newspaper, The Des Moines Register.

And they wonder why those who lack faith fight against this kind of thinking.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Doesn't the Catholic church have to do something like this every so often? Isn't it a not-so-subtle reminder of who exactly is in charge?

What is the point of an annulment? (good, concise definition here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment) It seems to be the same as shutting your eyes in order to make something disappear.

Charlie (annulled Catholic) Monoxide

[Miss Anthrope]

I think the point of annulment is to prove they have control over the lives, and, ultimately the after-lives of their followers.

[Daylight]

With the push for school vouchers, would a school like this qualify?

[Alt+F4]

With the push for school vouchers, would a school like this qualify?

Of course, it's all about school choice. Vouchers would also apply to Scientologist and Mormon fundamentalist schools.

But back to the OP. My ex teaches at a Catholic high school. Her doctor prescribed birth control pills after she had surgery to remove fibroids. The school's health insurance plan refused to pay for the pills because birth control is a big Catholic no-no.

[hgc]

I know it was mentioned in the OP, but it bears repeating: This is the same organization that repeatedly covered up for known child-molesters and sent them to work in other parishes where they could get fresh meat. One of the most notorious practitioners of this child victim procurement scheme, Bernard Law, Archbishop of Boston, was kicked upstairs to the Vatican in order to keep him out of American courts.

I honestly can't understand how RCC adherents continue to hold the faith.

[geni]

His offense was that he had been remarried without getting an annulment, as Catholic dogma requires. One week after his second marriage (in a civil ceremony), the teacher got called onto the carpet. From the Des Moines Register (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/LIFE05/709030340/1001/NEWS&lead=1):The rationale, if I may dignify the Church's pitiful excuse with such a word, is that teachers must be role models. And in the Church's view, the Church's interest extends deep into their members' private lives.

Um marrage is a public statement that appears in public records. It is not private.


In an even more bizarre twist, the teacher tried to obtain an annulment, but his request for an annulment was denied. So he was forced to quit.


If he didn't have valid grounds for an annulment there was no reason to supply it. The church is not interested in allowing annulment to become divorce by proxy.

[Alt+F4]

If he didn't have valid grounds for an annulment there was no reason to supply it. The church is not interested in allowing annulment to become divorce by proxy.

Unless your last name is Kennedy, Kerry or Giuliani.

[Loss Leader]

Is a school even a religious school able to discriminate in such a fashion?



Yup. Private schools can do pretty much whatever the hell they want to.

Colleges that accept federal money may not have so much freedom.

[TragicMonkey]

Catholicism seems to be doing all it can to make itself more and more irrelevant to the modern world. I wouldn't be surprised if it dies out entirely in the US within fifty years. Celibacy in holy orders, no women priests, no birth control, no divorce...they are swimming against the current and have been for decades. If God has a message for his creation, the message seems pretty clear: adapt or die.

[ponderingturtle]

Yup. Private schools can do pretty much whatever the hell they want to.

Colleges that accept federal money may not have so much freedom.

But this would seem to be in a sense religious discrimination, and most employers are not allowed to do that. So what I was wondering is does the school get exempted from anti-discrimination laws like a church does, or is it subject to them like a hospital run by the church would be?

[drkitten]

But this would seem to be in a sense religious discrimination, and most employers are not allowed to do that. So what I was wondering is does the school get exempted from anti-discrimination laws like a church does, or is it subject to them like a hospital run by the church would be?

Religious schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. Most of the smart ones don't, simply because the educational world is a very small one, and the whispering chamber can completely destroy your staff in less than two years.....

[geni]

Celibacy in holy orders,

Not really that wide an issue moth catholics are not preists.


no women priests,


Given the number of no priests systems that is hardly uncommon.


no birth control


Definet evolutionary advantage there.


, no divorce...they are swimming against the current and have been for decades.


Centuries.

[Brown]

Updated link to the story. (http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070903/NEWS/709030340/1001)

Whether its legal or not, what the archdiocese did is chicken[rule8]. One might think that the Dubuque archdiocese would want to make sure its own skirts are as clean as fresh snow before pulling this sort of public relations idiocy, but apparently the archdiocese has filth all over itself but decided to throw stones anyway. From the Sioux City Journal and AP (http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2005/06/04/news/iowa/a2ac8026a57a0e3d8625701600100ee7.txt):Two more lawsuits have been filed against the Archdiocese of Dubuque alleging sexual abuse by former priests in the 1960s and '70s.
...
In the past two years, the Dubuque Archdiocese has received more than 30 reports of abuse dating as far back as 1950.

Archbishop Jerome Hanus has referred seven priests to the Vatican for possible sanctions, with the most serious penalty being removal from the priesthood. None of the seven men currently are working as priests.

[pgwenthold]

Religious schools are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion. Most of the smart ones don't, simply because the educational world is a very small one, and the whispering chamber can completely destroy your staff in less than two years.....

Particularly in a private catholic school in Iowa, where teachers get paid about 1/2 of what they would get in the public school system. When you find a good teacher willing to work for pittance, you don't want to be driving them away.

I know of another teacher in the same diocese who got pregnant while unmarried. There were rumbles about getting rid of her, but then she got married and they let it slide. I suppose she could claim that she at least wasn't using birth control...

[Loss Leader]

But this would seem to be in a sense religious discrimination, and most employers are not allowed to do that. So what I was wondering is does the school get exempted from anti-discrimination laws like a church does, or is it subject to them like a hospital run by the church would be?


A private organization can pretty much discriminate on whatever basis it wants. That is all the more true if they are not a place of public accomodation and can tie the discrimination to some aspect of the job. In this case, a Catholic organization says the job of a teacher extends to setting a good, Catholic example. If they can say it to a judge without laughing after practice, it's a good enough reason to discriminate.

[Meadmaker]

With the push for school vouchers, would a school like this qualify?

Milwaukee has the oldest and largest voucher plan in the United States. When the Milwaukee school system started its voucher program, all religious schools were excluded. This continued until 1998 when a Wisconsin judge, in an act I would call judicial activism, decided that religious schools had to be included.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to include religious schools in a voucher program, in the Cleveland case. To the best of my knowledge, they have not ruled on whether religious schools must be included, or how to apply various non-discrimination and privacy statutes in the case of the receipt of funds. Therefore, I don't think the court has made a ruling that could answer this question. It would be up to the legislators, unitl overruled by a court.

As for my opinion on the OP, they have the right to be as stupid as they wish in cases like this, and they seem to be exercising that right to the extreme. Perhaps they should launch investigations into married teachers who have no children, suspecting that those teachers are not completely following Vatican teaching on contraception?

[drkitten]

Perhaps they should launch investigations into married teachers who have no children, suspecting that those teachers are not completely following Vatican teaching on contraception?

That might find them at the wrong end of the HIPPA regulations, which could be a Very Bad Thing. As in "We now own the Archdiocese of Dubuque as well as the US-wide rights to the term Roman Catholic[tm]" level of Bad....

[Achán hiNidráne]

If he didn't have valid grounds for an annulment there was no reason to supply it. The church is not interested in allowing annulment to become divorce by proxy.

Actually, having come from a Catholic family where a couple family members had to get annulments after a divorce, the most persuasive "reason" can be a substantial financial offering made to the diocese/archdiocese.

[Kilgore Trout]

I have to side with the church on this one. I can't say I have any sympathy for the guy, either. He's Catholic and not knowing the Catholic doctrine, especially with respect to one of the sacraments, is no excuse. Live by the sword, die by the sword, so to speak.

[GhostofMaxwell.]

In , I wrote at some length about the controversy in Iowa pertaining to gay marriage.

But there is another marriage-related controversy in Iowa. A teacher with over thirty years of experience has been forced to resign (or be terminated) from a Catholic High School in Waterloo. He lost his pension, his retirement income and other benefits. And why?

Was he a bad teacher? No, nothing like that.

Had he committed some sort of misconduct, perhaps broken a law? No, that wasn't it.

Maybe he had been tardy or unclean or disrespectful? No, not that, either.

His offense was that he had been remarried without getting an annulment, as Catholic dogma requires. One week after his second marriage (in a civil ceremony), the teacher got called onto the carpet. From :The rationale, if I may dignify the Church's pitiful excuse with such a word, is that teachers must be role models. And in the Church's view, the Church's interest extends deep into their members' private lives.

In an even more bizarre twist, the teacher tried to obtain an annulment, but his request for an annulment was denied. So he was forced to quit.

The tale gets curiouser and curiouser. The teacher tendered his resignation, but the school board by a close vote refused to accept it. Enter the archdiocese, which insisted "that the board follow church law and archdiocesan policy," coupled with an implied but unmistakable thread of pulling funding. Faced with loss of funding, the board reversed itself.

The teacher has now sued the school and archdiocese for breach of contract.

This "faith-based" termination is disgraceful in its own right. But it would be even more disgusting if the archdiocese were to allow other "sinners" to work at the school. Compound the distaste with a reminder that Jesus and Paul railed against legalism and hypocrisy. Add to that the fact that many of those in the Catholic Church used the church to prevent inquiry into what they considered their private lives, when their activity consisted of criminal fondling and abuse of children.

Let's sing it all together, shall we? "They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love...."
Thats just the thin end of the wedge.

I can see a new talking point of : Atheist discrimination emerging, as religion grips the western world more and more.

[quixotecoyote]

I have to side with the church on this one. I can't say I have any sympathy for the guy, either. He's Catholic and not knowing the Catholic doctrine, especially with respect to one of the sacraments, is no excuse. Live by the sword, die by the sword, so to speak.

I think there was a thread in community recently where it came up that if you're taking money from a religious organization, you have to play by their rules. It's a good reason to avoid them if you can help it.

[The Atheist]

I have to side with the church on this one. I can't say I have any sympathy for the guy, either. He's Catholic and not knowing the Catholic doctrine, especially with respect to one of the sacraments, is no excuse. Live by the sword, die by the sword, so to speak.


Bloody well said. Sympathy level: Zero.

I think there was a thread in community recently where it came up that if you're taking money from a religious organization, you have to play by their rules. It's a good reason to avoid them if you can help it.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1037745273b48d5bd3.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1810)

[ponderingturtle]

A private organization can pretty much discriminate on whatever basis it wants. That is all the more true if they are not a place of public accomodation and can tie the discrimination to some aspect of the job. In this case, a Catholic organization says the job of a teacher extends to setting a good, Catholic example. If they can say it to a judge without laughing after practice, it's a good enough reason to discriminate.

This seems to be at odds with the various anti discrimination in employment laws.

[Loss Leader]

This seems to be at odds with the various anti discrimination in employment laws.


Like which one?

[ponderingturtle]

Like which one?

I think you would have a good argument that it was religious discrimination, and religion is not something that can be taken into consideration in most jobs.

The point is that as a religious school they had extra powers to discriminate.

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

Hmmm. This makes me think. A woman that I went to Catholic school with now teaches at that same school, and she lives with a man in a common-law marriage. How does she keep her job?

[drkitten]

Hmmm. This makes me think. A woman that I went to Catholic school with now teaches at that same school, and she lives with a man in a common-law marriage. How does she keep her job?

Several possibilities. First. my understanding is that Catholics do not object to common-law marriage per se (here's an article discussing the Catholic view of marriage (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09691b.htm)); as long as she is otherwise validly married (i.e. she's not bigamously common-law married to her brother, her father, her aunt, and her pet gerbil -- would that be tetragamously?), the Church will recognize the marriage.

The second is that the powers-that-be don't officially know about this. You'll notice in the OP that the board was happily letting him teach until the archidiocese stepped in. I suspect personal politics in this -- or else some high-powered "more-Catholic-than-thou" funder who is pulling the Archbishop's strings. If no one's told the Archbishop about her, then he probably doesn't know (he doesn't check up on every teacher in every school in his archidiocese; he doesn't have time).

The third is simply that she draws more water than the guy mentioned in the OP; if she's got pictures of the Archbishop in bed with his common-law gerbil, then she's untouchable no matter how many funders scream.

[Loss Leader]

I think you would have a good argument that it was religious discrimination, and religion is not something that can be taken into consideration in most jobs.

The point is that as a religious school they had extra powers to discriminate.


Once again, which law are you referring to?

[drkitten]

I think you would have a good argument that it was religious discrimination, and religion is not something that can be taken into consideration in most jobs.

Um.... sure it can, when it's a job requirement. Even the government can in such cases. If I wanted to become a catholic chaplain for the local public hospital, the government would be well within its rights to make sure that I was both catholic and qualified to minister.

It's an easy argument to make that a teacher should be a role model as well as an information source. They might have a harder time arguing that teachers much be Catholic (since beliefs are invisible to the students, in general), but arguing that they must publically demonstrate respect for Catholic virtue and publically follow Catholic teachines is very easy....

[ponderingturtle]

Um.... sure it can, when it's a job requirement. Even the government can in such cases. If I wanted to become a catholic chaplain for the local public hospital, the government would be well within its rights to make sure that I was both catholic and qualified to minister.

But loss leader is makeing a general statement that employers can discriminate about religion, with out it needed to be a job requirement

[ponderingturtle]

Once again, which law are you referring to?

Well

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments;
Sections 501 and 505 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibit discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities who work in the federal government; and
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.

link (http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html)

The point is as a religious school they are subject to fewer restrictions than most employers

[drkitten]

But loss leader is makeing a general statement that employers can discriminate about religion, with out it needed to be a job requirement

No, he's making the point that private employers --- and religious employers in particular -- can discriminate about religion.

He is (unfortunately?) correct. You are right that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/vii.html) prohibits religious discrimination, but it also specifically exempts religous employers:


SEC. 2000e-1. [Section 702]

(a) This subchapter shall not apply [...] to a religious
corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect
to the employment of individuals of a particular religion


The other laws you mentioned don't even apply to religion, unless you want to consider Catholicism to be a disability. Which I must admit is an innovative legal theory....

[Loss Leader]

But loss leader is makeing a general statement that employers can discriminate about religion, with out it needed to be a job requirement


No, I'm not. I stated that religious discrimination may be allowable if it can be argued that it is a requirement for a job. And I asked which law you thought disagreed with me.

In response, you gave a laundry list of laws that were mostly about people with disabilities.

[ponderingturtle]

No, I'm not. I stated that religious discrimination may be allowable if it can be argued that it is a requirement for a job. And I asked which law you thought disagreed with me.

In response, you gave a laundry list of laws that were mostly about people with disabilities.

Nope you started with this statement

A private organization can pretty much discriminate on whatever basis it wants.

[Loss Leader]

Nope you started with this statementA private organization can pretty much discriminate on whatever basis it wants.


And followed it with this:


That is all the more true if they are not a place of public accomodation and can tie the discrimination to some aspect of the job. In this case, a Catholic organization says the job of a teacher extends to setting a good, Catholic example. If they can say it to a judge without laughing after practice, it's a good enough reason to discriminate.


You, however, made this statement:

This seems to be at odds with the various anti discrimination in employment laws.


You still have yet to explain which employment law the firing is at odds with (although you gave a laundry list of several large federal titles, mostly having to do with people with disabilities).

But whatever. I probably don't know what I'm talking about. It's not like I'm a lawyer practicing employment law or anything. Oh, wait a minute ... I am.