Archdiocese Letter Warns Employees About Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Last edited Tue Jan 6, 2015, 05:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: NBC Miami

Tuesday, Jan 6, 2015 • Updated at 1:44 PM EST

The Archdiocese of Miami is warning employees that they could be fired for any conduct that is “inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church" in the wake of the start of same-sex marriages in Florida.

The letter, from Archbishop Thomas Wenski, told employees that "because of the Church’s particular function in society, certain conduct, inconsistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church, could lead to disciplinary action, including termination, even if it occurs outside the normal working day and outside the strict confines of work performed by the employee for the Archdiocese.”



Wenski’s letter also warned employees that the conduct requirements also extend to the Internet. “Employees should exercise discretion when posting on social media sites, and note that online activity indicative of prohibitive behaviors may subject an employee to disciplinary action or termination," it read.


Read more: http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/Archdiocese-Letter-Warns-Employees-About-Supporting-Same-Sex-Marriage-287597661.html

---

Hat tip, Joe.My.God.:

Miami Archdiocese: If You Say You Back Gay Marriage, You Will Be Terminated

[nichomachus]

1. Anyone who stays in the Catholic Church is an idiot. n/t

[SylviaD]

10. Thank you for that piece of anti-Catholic "wisdom".

As my faith struggles with these matters, it's nice to know that, by staying firm in my own religious beliefs and striving to bring forth change and renewal, I am an idiot.

Following the example of my Savior, Jesus Christ, I will respond by wishing you a Happy New Year, but by also encouraging you to perhaps make avoiding name-calling and anti-Catholic bigotry as one of your resolutions for 2015.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. Hey, recognition is always easier than recollection.

But, if you recall your bible teachings, there are hundreds of biblical conflicts which cannot be explained or prayed away. I think one of the primary reasons that you feel conflicted is based purely on the subject matter. Your rational brain is fighting against the idiotic lessons that must be accepted as fact, even though they are inane, impossible, idiotic, even insulting. Ergoi, you feel conflicted. I feel sorry for you going through that until you finally see the light, and realize that this light was brought by your god on the second day. Oops. I meant NOT brought by your god.

[SylviaD]

26. What are you rambling about? n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

29. You, and your ancient beliefs based on fairy tales.

How does it feel to live in a nonsensical (non)reality that others demand that you live? Do you pray every day? And does it work? Why has no amount of prayer ever regrown an amputated limb? Or resulted in winning lottery numbers? Or healed a diabetic teen?

I am vehement only because I am sick and tired of religionists and Christianists forcing their bullshit down America's throat, while they claim to be persecuted.

Hey, stupid is as stupid does. You want to believe in fairy tales, then please do. But what about Santa, or the tooth fairy, or even the great pumpkin?

[LincolnsLeftHand]

39. Huh

I thought that in America you had both freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Didn't know people were forcing religion down our throats. I should pay more attention so I can also be oppressed.

[Gore1FL]

15. It will be difficult to change the Catholic church as a woman, I would think.

They don't stop at homophobia. They embrace misogyny too.

[SylviaD]

28. So kind of you to point that out. n/t

[Gore1FL]

32. You're welcome!

[DeSwiss]

18. You hang in there.

- You're wrong, but you're right to be indignant and to find your own way -- without idiots yelling at you that ''you're the idiot,'' the whole time.

[center][/center]

[SylviaD]

27. Thank you. n/t

[DeSwiss]

17. We're all idiots.

- It's just a matter of degree.

[upaloopa]

2. Super control freak.

If you work for him you turn in your mind first.

[BlueJazz]

3. I'm glad to hear this. I'll check your property value (s) and send you a bill Quick-as-a-wink !

I wish

[Sanity Claws]

4. I wonder whether this applies to Diocesan agencies, like Catholic Charities

If it does, it is even worse.
The Diocese is not a government contractor but Catholic Charities is. If the Diocese tried to apply that to Catholic Charities, I think it may be in violation of its contracts.

[davidpdx]

7. I think it does

Any arm of the Catholic Church does.

[Bluenorthwest]

5. It gets old, and those who continue to lend legitimacy to these hate mongers need to accept

accountability for their actions.

[davidpdx]

6. This goes way too far

It is essentially muzzling an employees right to freedom of speech outside the workplace to support social policies (besides the one mentioned, another policy would be taking a pro-choice stance). Where does it end? Do they get to pick your friends too?

Just an comment that is way off-topic: I am flying somewhere in a week and got a notice from the airline that the first half of my flight was canceled (it didn't say way, just forced majeure). It turns out the Pope was flying in that afternoon and they canceled all flights. So if it isn't bad enough that they control your lives, you better make sure the Pope isn't going into the same airport as you are on the same day.

[douggg]

8. "for any conduct that is “inconsistent with..."

Hundreds, if not thousands, of child molesting priests were not fired or punished but were protected and moved to new prey.

"Prey" is spelled correctly in this context.

[Adrahil]

40. Not to mention....

The archdiocese employees that publicly support Republicans who advance economic policies that the Pop calls sinful. I seriously doubt the Archbishop intends to act against these obvious violators.

[Humanist_Activist]

9. Why should anyone expect any better conduct from this homophobic organization? n/t

[Major Nikon]

12. "if you want money for people with minds that hate..."

[kydo]

13. Wenski needs to take his motorcycle and ride really fast into on coming traffic

He is an idiot! Until recently he was our Bishop. Didn't like him then and from what I can see not much has changed with him. He is still a pompous ass. Actually he was a pompous ass back in his seminary days. My bother in-law attended seminary with him back in the 1970's.

He thinks he is cool because he rides Harley's. The only peeps sad to see him leave the Orlando Diocese were the owners of the Harley Davidson Store.

[msanthrope]

14. I await the smackdown from Pope Francis. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

21. It'll be a long wait. Francis has Bishops in Uganda saying much, much worse and he has not said a

word. When he was Bergolio, Francis himself used language far more bigoted than this guy's.

[msanthrope]

22. Oh I know....lots of PR, not a word of dogma changed. nt

[dbackjon]

16. And they are tax exempt, why?

If there is a heaven and hell, this asshole is going to be mighty warm for eternity

[DeSwiss]

19. The Most Bullshit Thomas Wenski is more like it.

Hey Tommy:




What an asshole..........

[Cryptoad]

20. The Archdiocese shold be informed that

he can be damned for behavior that is inconsistent with the teachings of Jesus!

[blkmusclmachine]

23. Hey, Church, what are you doing about your pedophile priests, the ones you try to hide from public

view and accountability?!?!

Is the Church anything more than an organized hate group, worthy of a listing in the SPLC's "hate groups" series???



The Pope-mobile...nothing says "I trust God" like 4 inches of bullet proof glass!!!

Send your tithes now!!! Lots and lots of cold, hard cash!!!

Ka-ching!!! (And God bless you; so please keep sending money...)

[Jefferson23]

24. Intimidation and threats that you'll be fired. You're not too confident you're keeping the status

quo alive when you feel the need to resort to threats....fear and hatred don't serve the religious well.


When are they going to stop?

[happyslug]

25. Who is this aimed at???

This is a memo telling employees NOT to do something, they should already know NOT to do. Thus this is like sending out a letter reminding employees NOT to commit Murder. You do NOT send such a letter, unless you suspect someone is about to commit murder and you want to stop it.

This is complicated by the Catholic Church viewing its employees into two categories, normal employees and the Religious. Religious include Priests, Nuns and Monks.

Under Priests, includes Deacons and Bishops:

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/vocations/diaconate/faqs.cfm

Technically Catholic "Priests" are NOT priests but "Presbyter" which is generally translated into English as "Preists" but "Elder" is another form of translation):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter

Priests, Nuns and Monks (The Religious) can NOT be terminated. If you enter the religious group you are in it for life. People in the these groups can asked to return to secular society, but that requires papal approval (Unless someone just leaves, the Church does NOT enforce its requirements but if they want NOT to be excommunicated they must ask permission and such permission is rarely denied).

I bring up the above, so people can understand why I am asking "Who is this aimed at?". Priests can NOT be fired, they can be disciplined but NOT terminated (same with Nuns and Monks). Secular employees can be fired. Now, this does NOT mean this letter was aimed at secular employees, bureaucrats are known to send out memos to people who the memo is NOT intended for, but sending out such a memo is a way to warn someone without actually accusing them of a forbidden act.

i.e. which religious (I suspect a Nun, but that is just me) is wanting to say something about same sex marriage and this is a warning to that person NOT to do so?? I suspect a Religious for secular employees already know they can be terminated if they do something against Catholic Doctrine, thus secular employees do NOT need to be warned. On the other hand a religious (as that term is used within the Catholic Church) person can NOT be terminated, but just reassigned to an isolated convent or monastery.

In the pedifile cases, the problem of what to do with a perpetrator who was also a member of the "Religious" was a complicated factor (The biggest problem in such cases is the same as the problem with the Police and their "Thin Blue Line" how do you get friends to inform on each other? As one commentator made the comment "With the Church you do NOT have to worry about sovereign immunity and other legal defenses independent of the issue if a criminal act was done, those defenses are used by the Police all the time&quot . With the religious the Bishops had to move the accused priests to a place where that priest could do no harm, unlike a secular employee that the Bishop could just fire. Most bishops made such moves, the problem is a sizable number of Bishops (mostly in the larger cities) adopted a policy of moving such priests around where they had new opportunities to get new victims. Such Bishops claimed they did so, for they feared the accusation was false. In the first case of such accusation that was a defendable position, for if the priest was moved AND no new accusation occurred, it is clear evidence of a false accusation. On the other hand if new accusation occurred, it was support that such activities did occur. The courts have been very careful, if a priest was accused, moved and accused again and the bishop NEVER left him near children afterward, no liability has been held. The first accusation MAY have been false, the second accusation was the legal test, if the bishop refused to put the priest near children no liability, if the bishop did, liability.

I bring up the Pedifile priests to show that since the Religious are life time employees of the Church (the Church's position) the Bishop's ability to prevent them from talking is restricted. Assignment to an post the Religious does not want to hold is the worse the Bishop can do. Thus this letter, while addressed to Secular Employees, seems to be aimed at someone else. I do NOT know who, but addressed to someone the Bishop can not just terminate.

It will be an interested few weeks to see who is the real target? A priest who follows Catholic Doctrine and refuses to marry a gay couple, but then blesses both couple and their relationship? Blessing of Marriages by Catholic Priests were done as early as the 200s, but the requirement that a marriage occurred in a Church is ONLY a requirement of the Council of Trent in the 1560s. Prior to that date, all that was required to have a valid marriage was a man and woman, both competent and single, to exchange vows. No one else needed to be present. This is till the law in those States that recognize "Common Law Marriages".

Thus it is possible that Priest (or even a Nun) is willing to bless a Gay Marriage even as the Catholic Church refuses to recognize such a marriage as valid. Blessing are NOT banned under the Catholic rule NOT to recognize such marriages.

I suspect some priest has suggested he would do such a blessing of a couple and that is who this letter is aimed at, not some secular employee who under American Employment law, can be fired for any reason or no reason unless the reason for termination is illegal (and discrimination against Homosexuals is still legal under Federal Law AND most State laws).

[Warpy]

30. It's to intimidate non Catholics who work in their hospitals

and other businesses. He has absolutely no right to threaten people for deeply held beliefs which they discuss off the job.

He's way out of line here. There is no way that old fraud is going to get this enforced.

[happyslug]

33. That is NOT the law

Sorry, but the at will doctrine still applies to all employment situations and thus an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at any time EXCEPT if the reason for termination is against the law. The reasons can be for things done off work while at home.

The exceptions to the "At Will" Doctrine are limited, Jury Duty is an exception, if you are called up for military service is another exception. Union activity is another big exception (even if it has nothing to do with forming a union, any collective act by employees is protected under the National Labor Relations Act). The big exception is violation of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 as to one of the prescribed protected classes (including classes added after 1964).

List of Protected classes of People under FEDERAL LAW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class

Religion was added in the 1990s subject to a huge exception:

Sec. 2000e-1. Applicability to foreign and religious employment

(a) Inapplicability of subchapter to certain aliens and employees of religious entities

This subchapter shall not apply to an employer with respect to the employment of aliens outside any State, or to a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities.

In short, people can NOT discriminate against someone due to their religion, but religious groups can discriminate against people NOT of their religion provided the employment is tied in with the religion (a Church can run a food pantry and makes sure all of the employees are of their religion, but if it sets up a grocery store, that Religion can NOT discriminate by Religion UNLESS it can clearly show the Store is tied in with their religion (i.e. Sam's Jewish catering tied in with the local synagogue can discriminate, but Sam' Jewish Catering that operates out of his house can not).

Yes, sometimes it is hard to draw the line when something is no longer under the above exception but in this letter that issue is not no addressed for everyone is assuming that this Catholic Diocese has no non-religious activities (and if it is, then this issue will appear but not till then).

Just pointing out that the Catholic Church, like any other employer, can terminate anyone for any reason or no reason. Given Homosexualiy and the right for gay couples to marry are NOT covered by Federal Civil Righs Law or Florida Civil RIghts Law, it is perfectly legal for the Catholic Church to fire anyone for actions even done when they are NOT employed.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

34. Thank you for that explanation.

I suspected that nothing can stop them from firing people in this regard, as long as they comply with the law.

[Trillo]

36. Then they need to pay their wages 24/7... NT

[happyslug]

37. That is the law in regards to ALL employees,if you want to keep your job, you do what the boss says

That is the law to ALL EMPLOYEES and Employers do NOT have to pay you for the time off work, but they can use it to terminate you.

Now, the biggest restriction is such a person would be eligible for Unemployment Compensation for Unemployment Compensation is paid to any employee who quit for "Good Cause" OR terminated for some reason other than "Wilful Misconduct". "Good Cause" is NOT an issue in this case, but it varies from state to state, for example in Pennsylvania if a spouse takes a job elsewhere so that both spouses have to move do to an inability to maintain two households, that is "Good Cause" in Pennsylvania (The couple MUST be married, I tried to extend it to people living together and the courts shot me down). Other states have said the move of one spouse is NOT "good cause" for the other spouse to quit her or his job and thus NOT eligible for Unemployment Compensation.

As to "Wilful Misconduct", that is generally NOT following what your employer tells you to do. The Classic case of this was a 2nd Lieutenant during the Vietnam War who went in Uniform to an Anti-War protest on his own time. That was ruled to be a Court Martial Offense for he "extended" his "Uniform" and thus the US Army to a Political Protest (This is also if the person went to a pro-war protest, and even a support the troops parade, unless one had permission from the Pentagon).

As to Unemployment Compensation and off work activities, such activities MAY affect the employer and thus "Wilful Misconduct". Please note in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 an exception exist for any actions against members of the "Communist Party of the United States" and any "Front" organization of such party. That clearly shows off work activities were considered in the Civil Rights Act and what it protects, i.e. it covers on work AND off work activities for both can be grounds for termination under the "At Will" Doctrine of employment adopted in the 1860s in the US. Remember the Bill of Rights applies to GOVERNMENT action not actions of individuals, i.e. your employer CAN deny you "Freedom of Speech", "Freedom of Assembly", "Freedom of Associations" etc. UNLESS there is a LAW forbidding such a ban (Thus the National Labor Relations Act includes such a ban, imposed on employees by employers as to Union Activity AND any activity that involves the employees of an employer in regards to work related activities).

In simple terms, if your employer finds out you are doing something off work that is NOT a protected activity, you can be terminated for that activity AND if you had been told NOT to do it and still did it that can be "Wilful Misconduct" and grounds to be denied Unemployment Compensation. You may dislike this, but it is the law (I dislike it to, but I have to point out what is the LAW in this matter NOT what I would like the law to be).

[Trillo]

38. Thank you. It is fascinating that simply by being employed,

your private employer may restrict your freedom of speech while off the clock. These laws are more evidence, since I'm not a lawyer it's new evidence to me, that the Bill of Rights is a fraud for any but the wealthy "owner" class. If a boss can say, "You may not express your opinion on Same Sex Marriage," then they might also say, "You may not express your opinion on Police Brutality, and on Social Security, and on Corporate Personhood," or any one of a number of other issues, whatever the bosses pet peeves may be. In a corporate system where most folks are employed as a matter of lack of choice (most folks don't desire to be homeless, earning a living is seemingly required for all but the luckiest), all of a sudden, all the Right Wing opinions begin to make more sense.

A further issue becomes all the monetary speech a corporation may use to promote their views, in addition to any declared private-to-legislators or public statements. If all that money as speech were cut off by legislative demand, they'd still have their First Amendment and Bill of Rights control over their employees. It is no wonder we are now a Corporatist Police State.

How can any legislator not vote for a living wage under such a legal reality? It's as if they say, "We'll pay you peanuts, you'll struggle to survive, and you have to think, act, and breathe like your employer says, under threat of termination, for those peanuts. You may only use your creative individuality in the service of making them more profit."

We are more slaves than we thought.

[happyslug]

41. The only off work speech clearly protected by law is in regards to "Labor Rights"under the NLRA

Your employer can NOT restrict you talking to your fellow employees about wages and other benefits under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) but that is about the only restriction on employers as to restrictions on what employees can talk about. Please note, the NLRA is NOT restricted to unions or unionization efforts, but any discussion about wages, benefits and working conditions among employees. It is best to be a member of a Union to do so, for the Union has the funds to file an action with the National Labor Relations Board to reverse any such termination but technically if you are discussing wages your employer can NOT fire you for that (and the National Labor Relations Board can reverse that decision and order back paid to be paid).

The problem is NLRA is restricted to labor issues only NOT any other issue, including political issues (unless Labor related).

As to Freedom of the Press, I believe it was Randolph Hearst who said (Paraphrased from memory) "Freedom of the press only applies to those who can afford a press". The real enemy of the 99% since 1776 has NEVER Been the Government per se, but Corporate America (and its ability to use Government to suppress the 99%). The real Horror stories of acts against Labor tend to be private police forces against labor (Pennsylvania's Coal and Police were the classic example of such private action, technically they were licenses Police officers of the State of Pennsylvania, but paid by various Iron, Steel and Coal companies to suppress workers).

State Police and National Guard Troops were used to suppress labor, but only after private Police Forces had made the situation so bad something had to be done (and the press made sure it was labor's reaction to violence against them as strikers that was the cause for State Police and National Guard intervention, not the efforts of the Pinkertons, Coal and Iron Police and other such groups to suppress labor no matter how violent the later had been).

The US had the most violent labor-management relationship in history, Europe did NOT have the labor violence that the US had between 1860 and 1940. The main reason was Europe had embraced universal Service (Draftee) armies do to the Napoleonic wars (Britain was the sole exception, and the second highest level of violence against labor). This meant the Army was made up of the same population that was going on strike, unlike the US where the enlistee ranks tended to be people of the lowest ranks of society (who Marx called the Lumpenproletariat, the poorest of the poor who will do anything for the money they do not have, including kill other people if paid to do so). These poorest of the poor do not see the people they are fighting as fellow workers, but people they have been paid to suppress. They do as they are paid to do, unlike Universal Service Armies whose enlistees see themselves as one with the workers. Thus the Armies of Eastern Europe could NOT be used to suppress the overthrow of their Communist Governments in the early 1990s once Russia decided to withdraw its troops (But the police could be used and were, until it was clear the Army was about to move in to support the revolution).

Thus the difference in the make up of the enlisted ranks of the US Army and National Guard when compared to the makeup of various continental European Army is the best explanation why the US had the worse record of suppression of labor (i.e. the US, having a "Volunteer Army" had the Army that could suppress labor, Europe, with its much larger but Universal Military Service Armies could not).

Now Draftee armies have been used to suppress labor, but never to the degree of Volunteer Armies, on the simple grounds in that role Draftee Armies and NOT reliable.

I bring this up for from the 1930s the US suppressed the older private police forces and increased the size of the Army so that it was less volunteer of the poorest elements of society. The use of the Draft from 1941 to 1973 made the Army and the NAtional Guard less reliable when it came to strikes and thus not used to the extent they had been used prior to 1930. We are returning slowly to a pre 1930 period when it comes to labor management relations and the switch to a volunteer army in 1973 was part of that movement (The Draft could have survive Vietnam if the people in Washington wanted it, but leadership in the GOP wanted to return to a Volunteer army they had prior to 1930 and did so, for they foresaw future labor problems and wanted a volunteer army to suppress labor.

[Dawson Leery]

31. Sticking their noses into our personal lives

is what religious fundamentalists of all striped want.