Morality Clauses

I am thinking here, specifically, of those used by certain Catholic institutions.

Basically, you agree to abide by certain standards of conduct, if you are employed by one of those institutions -- standards of conduct which are approved by the Church -- or else you can be terminated from your job.

And, yeah, if you read my blog post from a couple of days ago, I guess this post is sort of related to that one.

Not all Catholic institutions require employees to sign morality clauses.  It seems to me -- and this is based on my own personal observations -- that they are a growing trend among those institutions that consider themselves more "orthodox" or "traditional" or "faithful."

When I first heard of morality clauses, they were presented to me as a way by which a Catholic institution could protect its mission and ensure that it was setting an example of "correct" Church teaching.  These contracts between an employer and employee were said to be a method by which a Catholic institution could avoid scandalizing the faithful.  I guess it is thought that if everybody in the Catholic institution -- like a college, for instance -- is "on the same page" morality-wise, then the students won't become confused about what "being a Catholic" really means.  Likewise, the surrounding community will also be clear as to what "being Catholic" truly entails, by observing the behavior of those at the Catholic institution. 

How did I feel about that?  Well, on the one hand, I could understand it.  There is obviously a lot of confusion in our culture and society about what Church teaching actually is.  So, I thought that if there was an institution dedicated to presenting it acurately -- both in word and example -- that it could be a positive thing.  On the other hand, it struck me as rather elitist.

How do I feel about morality clauses now?  I think they suck, basically.  Why?  Because schools -- and who knows what other kind of entities -- are firing people, not because they are poor employees, but because they do not conform to the "approved" morality.  And, in doing this, legalism is being allowed to trump mercy, compassion, and charity.  Also, in doing this, certain kinds of "sinners" are being singled out in a world where "all sin and fall short."  ALL sin and fall short.

Why is this bad?  Why is it bad to single out and fire certain kinds of sinners?  Well, this is my experience, based on certain social situations I have had to endure.  What happens is that the people who are left in the institutions -- the "pure" Catholics -- start to become rather prideful and self-congratulatory.  Oh, yes, they beat their breasts and call themselves sinners and go to confession and profess to love mercy and compassion.  But, when you hear them start talking to each other?  There is an awful lot of pride going around.  There is an awful lot of "let's pat each other on the backs because we're the 'good' Catholics" kind of attitude.  There are a lot of unkind words concerning "unfaithful" Catholics and the "Hollywood Liberals" who want to "destroy marriage" and the "pro-aborts." Are all conservative Catholics this way?  Of course not.  But, there are enough.  There are enough.  And it makes me ill.

As an example, I was once talking to a Catholic "apologist."  This person said that living on the Gulf Coast would be desirable.  I commented that there are a lot of hurricanes in that area of the country.  This person replied, "Well, at least you wouldn't have to worry about Steve and Steve living next door."  EXCUSE ME?!?!?!  I happen to have a so-called "Steve and Steve" as neighbors, and they are the best neighbors you could possibly have.  I am embarrassed to say that I didn't say anything to this person expressing my discomfort at this statement.  At the time -- because of my personal situation -- I was feeling like a rather bad Catholic who should just shut up and listen to the "respected" Catholics.  But, I have had a lot of time to think about and observe things since that time.

So, to bring this back to the issue of morality clauses:

Morality clauses -- because they keep certain "disapproved of" people out of places of employment -- cause the "approved of" people to have the "privilege" of not having to actually interact with these "marginalized" individuals.  The people living "in sin" become more of a theological/philosophical concept than actual human beings, in all their wondrous complexity.  A situation develops where the religious person may never have the necessity of forming a close, personal relationship with, for example, an LGBT person or a pro-choice person.  And even if there are such people in a religious person's life, there is created vast opportunity to -- on a day-to-day basis, in a Catholic institution -- to regularly criticize those types of people, without them being present or being part of the discussion.  To me, this is dangerous.  It creates an atmosphere of superiority and snobbery and isolationism.  It creates an atmosphere of fear.  And the "holy" people -- even though they profess to being sinners -- almost can't help but take on the attitude that these other types of "sinners" are far worse than they.  That has been my experience, at least.

As you may know, I homeschooled my kids.  And for a long time, our homeschool group had a "park day," where the moms would bring their kids on Friday afternoons for playtime and socialization.  My sister happened to be visiting one time, and accompanied my kids and I to "park day."  She watched the kids and chatted with the moms.  Later, though, she told me that one of the moms said to her that we, as a group, prayed for our homeschool community to remain composed of "pure" Catholics.  "Huh?" I remarked. "I was never aware of that.  That is not my intention."  I asked one of the other moms if she was aware of this praying for our group to remain "pure," and she told me that she had no knowledge of this, either.  That was a relief.  Maybe it was some quirky thing.  I don't know.  But, I have to say that it has been my experience -- based on many years of hanging around with more conservative Catholics -- that this rather elitist attitude does not seem uncommon.  And it seems to me that morality clauses -- and the fruits of those clauses -- only exacerbate these problematic attitudes among Catholics who consider themselves to be the "faithful" ones.

I am quite certain that a "logic" person could poke all kinds of holes in what I have just said here.  Whatever.  Somebody recently said to me, in a rather derogatory tone, "You just want everybody to feel good about themselves."  Whatever.  But, I just think about Jesus and how he acted towards the "sinners" versus how he acted toward the "teachers of the law."  And many of the "sinners" really loved him and wanted to hang out with him all the time.  So, obviously, he was not hitting them over the head with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  On the contrary, he showed them true compassion.  And compassion is a very powerful thing.  Perhaps more powerful than morality clauses in the teaching of the faith and in setting an example for our children and teens and young adults.

The Christianity Of Dot-Marie Jones

Who is Dot-Marie Jones?  She is an actress who plays one of my favorite characters on "Glee."  If you don't know what "Glee" is, then, "Google it, Boot."  She is also a lesbian, married to the lady she loves and has been with for a long time.

Is Dot-Marie Jones a "professed" Christian?  I have no idea.  But, what I do know is that she acts like one.

Here is a case in point.

She said to her Twitter followers:  HEY! PLEASE DO NOT SEND HATEFUL TWEETS TO ANYONE THINKING YOU ARE DOING IT IN MY DEFENSE! THERE IS NO HATE HERE OR BULLYING! PLEASE!

To me, this is Christianity in action.  She is doing as Jesus instructs us.  She is doing to others what she would have them do to her.  She is turning the other cheek.  She is showing forgiveness.  She is showing charity to those who persecute her.

In the face of nasty attitudes and comments, Dot-Marie Jones could be justifiably angry and hurt.  And maybe she is.  I would be.  But, look at the example she sets for others.  She is a peacemaker.  And what does Jesus say about peacemakers???

I hope Dot-Marie Jones would not mind me making these comments.  I don't mean to imply that I think she should become a Christian, if she is not a Christian.  I hope I don't make her a target of more nastiness.  I don't wish to turn her into some kind of symbol for the "culture war."  It's just that I've seen a lot of terrible things said to and about LGTB individuals by Christians, even by those of my own faith, and it feels like a knife to my heart.  I think it is scandalous.

In fact, I am seeing a lot of things being said and done by Catholic individuals and institutions lately that disturb me.  The other day, for example, I read about a single woman who teaches at a Catholic school.  She is pregnant.  She got fired.  Because -- horror of horrors -- she had SEX.  WITHOUT BEING MARRIED.  Hello.  But, did I fall asleep and wake up in the Middle Ages!?!?

Yes.  The Catholic Church teaches that sex is for marriage.  But, you know, sex happens.  It can happen more easily than you think.  I mean, I don't know this lady's story.  Is she engaged?  Is she dating someone whom she loves?  Is she lonely?  Did she want to feel close to somebody, if even for a little while?  Did she encounter a hot man and lose control of herself momentarily?  Did she encounter a hot man and just decide, "I AM GOING TO HAVE THAT HOT MAN."  I mean, that could have happened.  Ovulation, you know.  And she was obviously ovulating.  Was she raped?  But, you know, whatever happened, IT DOES NOT FREAKING MATTER, AND IT IS NONE OF OUR FREAKING BUSINESS, BECAUSE SHE IS NOT OURS TO JUDGE." 

AND -- if a dude teacher from that same Catholic school went out to a bar on a Friday night and picked up a hot woman and had sex and got the hot woman pregnant, he could just keep it a secret and nobody would ever have to know and he could just keep his dandy reputation and his job and his health insurance and retirement benefits. 

WHAT YEAR IS THIS, ANYWAY?!?!  1950?!?!

ALSO -- This woman could have had an abortion.  Yes, she could have gotten fired for that, too.  But, it would have been much less likely, because it would have been very easy to keep it a secret.  A pregnancy, though?  And a wee little new baby?  Not so easy to hide, eh?  And if she had a secret abortion, she could have kept her sterling reputation and her job and her health insurance and retirement benefits. 

But, now?

The single pregnant mother-to-be has no job and no income.  Perhaps she is keeping her health benefits, because of COBRA.  But, COBRA is freaking expensive for a singe lady with no job.  Perhaps, the care of Obama will help her out.  Thank God for Mr. Obama.  Maybe she has family and friends who will come to her aid.  Maybe the daddy is around.  But -- the thing is -- this Catholic institution, all pro-life and moral and stuff like that, took away her means of supporting herself at a time when she is most vulnerable.  Fuck that.  "Well," you may be thinking to yourself, "she can just get another job."  But, HELLO, have you checked this economy lately?  And a single pregnant lady is not exactly the most appealing candidate for a prospective employer.  Personally?  I hope she sues that Catholic school and wins an absolute PILE of cash.

And why did this school feel justified in firing this lady?  Because, probably, in violating Church teaching, the Powers-That-Be decided that she had become a poor example to the kids.  I ask you, though, who is being the poor example here?  If my kids were in that school, I'd yank them out so fast that the principal's head would spin.

I look at this stuff, ya know?  The stuff that is being said and done in the name of keeping the Church and her institutions "pure" or whatever?   The stuff that is being done in order to "defend the 'truth'?"  And I am just ashamed.  I hear Jesus' words about the "scribes, pharisees, and hypocrites" echo in my mind. 

I guess there's one piece of news I feel better about.  At my son's college, they are building a special place for single moms to live while they undertake their studies.  I tip my hat to that.  Because that is what Christians do.  They take people, in whatever hurting situations they find themselves in, and lift them up.  They don't judge them.  They lift them up.

And the same goes for how we should treat the LGBT community.  My daughter follows the blog of a Catholic gay man.  This man is trying to live out the Church's teaching, and so is abstaining from sexual activity.  He seems to have chosen this for himself, freely.  He doesn't seem to feel that it has been imposed on him.  I will take him at his word.  But, one thing that he expresses quite beautifully is how DIFFICULT this choice is for him to live out.  It is painful.  And I wonder, if I were a lesbian, if I would make the same choice, or if I would choose to be with somebody.  Because I know myself.  And I know that an intimate relationship has always been important to me, almost like life-blood.  And I hope, that if I were a lesbian, and if I had a partner or a wife, that people would understand about that.  I would hope that people would still accept me and love me and not judge me.  And not fire me from my job.  Or slash my tires.  Because I know of at least one case where a married lesbian couple had their tires slashed by those who disapprove of them.

And if there is a Heaven, and if I somehow manage to get there, I guess I hope my company will be Dot-Marie Jones and the brave single mom, rather than the tire-slashers and the employers who are trying to keep their institutions "pure."

Junebug And The Dignity Of Human Work

Gaaa...  That sounds so boring and academic.

Sorry.

If you read the post I wrote yesterday, you know that "Junebug" is a movie.  And in that post, I summarized, briefly, the plot of that movie.  So, I am not going to summarize it again today, because that would just be dull.  And this topic is already sounding dull enough, as it is.

So, here we go.

There is a scene in "Junebug" in which Johnny is at work.  It is a darling scene, one of my favorites in the film.  It is probably the only scene where Johnny looks totally, unabashedly happy.  He clearly loves his job and his co-workers.  You may now be wondering, "What type of awesome job could this be, that young, high-school-dropout Johnny loves so much?  It must be some wondrous, pipe-dream, unrealistic for an 18-year-old to have, type of job.  A job thought up by some out-of-touch-with-reality movie producer."  I understand if you are thinking that.  But, you are wrong.

Johnny's job is what many would describe as blue-collar.  He works in a packing plant, I guess you could call it.  It is a place where things like dishes are packed into boxes using various types of packing materials -- like styrofoam peanuts and bubble wrap.  The workers chat among themselves while going about the job.  They go outside and eat their lunches together.  They go back inside and pack some more.  And they are all obviously good people -- salt-of-the-earth people.  They are very fond of Johnny and he of them.  They clearly enjoy one another's company; and they take pride in their work.  And the workplace itself, though not at the level of a company such as Google, appears to be clean and safe and comfortable.

As I watched this scene, I started to think about the Catholic Church's teachings on the dignity of human work.  Now you may be thinking, "NOOO!!! Do not shove your religious viewpoints down my throat!!!"  That is not what I am trying to do, though.  You can take these things or leave them.  You can have a different opinion.  You might believe that the Catholic Church likes to "keep people down" by advocating stuff like no birth control and big families and other things you see as being in direct opposition to human development.  And, I admit, it can sometimes look that way.

Be that as it may, though, I do very much enjoy the Church's teachings on human work.  And as I watched Johnny at his job, as I said, I began to reflect on these teachings and on how this film poignantly illustrates and gives life to them. 

The Catholic Church teaches that work is important to and for people, and that people have both the right and duty to work.  The Church also tells us that human work is FOR the good of those who do it and that people should benefit from their work.  To quote from "The Catechism Of The Catholic Church" -- "Everyone should be able to draw from work the means of providing for his life and that of his family, and of serving the human community."  (And, just so you know, "his" in this case also means "her.")  The "Catechism" also addresses unemployment in this fashion -- "Unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life.  Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family."

Human work is important then, in and of itself, as an activity pertaining to human dignity.  It is also the means by which most people provide for themselves and their families. 

The job done and the wages earned are not the only concerns of the Church about work, though.  Catholic leaders have often spoken about the environment of the workplace, itself.  This environment should respect the dignity of the person -- his or her mental and physical health and well-being.

So, back to "Junebug."  As I watched Johnny and his colleagues doing their jobs, I saw many of the Church's teachings in action.  I saw a workplace in which the employees appeared to feel safe and happy.  It seemed that they derived satisfaction from their work.  I saw a place where the joyful side of their humanity could be expressed and where they could care for one another as friends.

On the flip side, Johnny and his very pregnant bride are living with his parents.  This made me wonder if his job pays a living wage.  Could Johnny and Ashley live independently if they didn't have the support of his mother and father?  In wondering about this, I thought about the teaching of my faith regarding the importance of jobs paying a living wage.  Of course, "Junebug" is pretend.  But, there are people in Johnny and Ashley's situation.  And though it is not a bad thing for a young couple expecting a baby to live with either the bride or the groom's parents, it is still best if the newlyweds could feel capable of providing for themselves.  And perhaps, as a society, we could think of ways in which people who do not have a high degree of education -- but who are, nonetheless, bright, capable, and willing to work -- could be paid a wage which would allow them to establish new and happy households and families.  Is it really fair to expect young people to all earn college degrees and be 30 years old before they can marry and have children?  Maybe our country has a little problem in this regard.  Not every person likes school.  Not everybody is good at school.  Too many bright young adults are having their potentials wasted in our current economic set-up.  In my opinion, anyway.

You may be thinking to yourself right now, "This Marla person really over-analyzes things."  And you would probably not be wrong.  I think it is interesting to consider, though, how "Junebug" brings to light and encourages us to think about situations that are not uncommon for the young adults of our country to be in -- beautiful young adults who are our legacy.