A Spanish court has rendered an interesting decision: ordering the Catholic Church to re-hire a teacher fired for adultery and to pay back pay of $12,888 to Maria del Carmen Galayo.
Galayo was fired from her positionafter she separated from her previous husband and remarried without having an annulment.
In the United States, this remains a difficult question given the guarantees of free exercise of religion. As an organization, the Church is based on certain moral precepts and the question is the scope of that right as it applies to employees. Homosexuals and non-faithful Catholics are at risk of discrimination under such church doctrines. Yet, not only does free exercise protect religious practices but there is also the right of association.
This issue has arisen recently in the states, here and here.
For the full story, click here.
I understand the Church’s position on these kind of cases, but at what point does a worker lose his free association rights when hired by a religious organization? Would it matter if the person was a janitor and not a teacher? The employee has to be able to have a life outside of the job and if his/her activities are legal, then the job should be protected.
I think it’s called “right to work” which is Right speak for “we can fire you for no reason at any time”.
This is an interesting case, but it does not have much relevance to the situation in the United States. The countries of Europe are continuing to struggle with these issues within the context of a history of state endorsed religions, the Roman Catholic Church in most instances. I have no difficulties with private religious schools adopting specific religious policies as a condition of employment, provided that the policies are applied to all employees, faculty and staff included, regardless of their personal religious affiliations. The issue has become complicated, in my opinion, with the growth of the so-called “faith based initiatives” programs because religious institutions increasingly seek to feed at the public trough while simultaneously insisting that constitutional protections should not be afforded to persons employed by them. When this occurs, the essential effect is the constructive endorsement by the state of particular religious views, contrary to the constitution. The only appropriate policy is both simple and understandable. If a faith-based entity is receiving public funds in the furtherance of work deemed to be in the public interest, its employees must receive the same constitutional and statutory protections as are afforded to employees in entities which are not faith-based.
“If a faith-based entity is receiving public funds in the furtherance of work deemed to be in the public interest, its employees must receive the same constitutional and statutory protections as are afforded to employees in entities which are not faith-based.”
**********
It’s a simple and very old concept but apparently lost on the neo-con crowd, whose reading skills I have always questioned. They should, however, know this passage:
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar’s. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.
– Matthew 22 (KJV)
Even Jesus believed in the separation of church and state!