Samantha Hillgartner

July 18, 2014

iLead
All four of the scenarios presented in this essay prompt are very difficult to adjudicate. I
understand that one of the tenants of Catholic schools is, to create an environment in which students
can learn how to live a virtuous life, and that the administrator of a school has the moral duty to
maintain a virtuous staff, who all hold to the morality clause in the contracts, but I find that I am very
hesitant to pass judgment in any of these cases (pg 2). And that truly is what I am being asked to do
(and would be asked to do as an administrator); pass judgment.
I also understand that as a Catholic school administrator I am held to two main standards
concerning moral decision-making: 1) it is not my place to determine if the Church is right or wrong
about their moral stance on issues, it is only my place to hold my school (faculty, staff, and students) to
the moral standards of the Church, and 2) it does not necessarily follow that because a teacher has
violated church teaching, and his or her contract, that he or she should be terminated (pg 3). The
question that needs to be asked after someone violates the moral clause of their contract is, Does [this]
violation of the contract disqualify the teacher from educating students in a Catholic context? (pg.3).
That is a very lofty decision to lay in the lap of a Catholic school administrator, or even in the hands of a
counsel.
I also understand that the purpose of the school is the academic, spiritual, and moral education
of the students, and it is only logical to state that the rights of faculty and staff are limited by the rights
of students to receive a high quality Catholic education (pg 5). However, it seems that an issue which is
clearly black or white (moral violation of a contract), which the Church recognizes as a black or white
issue, is trying to be turned into a grey issue by stating that this teacher should not necessarily be
terminated. I suppose the other area I am having a hard time grappling with is the concept of school
culture in relation to the adjudication of moral clause contract violations. If we are to watch what we

do, to see what we believe, then would retention of an unwed mother send the message that the
school believes that premarital sex is ok, or would it send the message that we believe in mercy and the
redemption of those who confess their sins to God?
My hesitation to adjudicate (with a counsel) in these moral scenarios presented to me, should
not be mistaken as a weakness. On the contrary, those who are quick to make decisions and pass
judgment in moral situations are too proud and righteous. Quick adjudicators lack the necessary
emotion of empathy. One does not have to commit a moral sin in order to empathize with the sinner.
Similarly one does not have to condone moral sins to maintain love for the sinner. Sins are sins, and no
one is without at least one, and Jesus said, Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a
stone at her (John 8:7).
I can also see how many would argue that terminating people in violation of the moral clause of
their contracts is not passing judgment, it is simply upholding the law of both the Church (morality) and
the state (the contract). However if no judgment is transpiring, then how can there be room for a grey
area? Grey areas are the birthplace of judgment. Grey areas imply there is a right and a wrong manner
in which to adjudicate in the matter, and termination of this individuals career is subjective. Equally as
grey is the prediction of whether or not a violator of the moral contract clause will cause scandal in
the community. How is one really to know what will or will not cause scandal? Termination of a
contract is too grave a matter to base even partially upon the prediction of future events.
Finally, I am led to question the true purpose of jus post terminationem. If we learned in our
classes earlier this week that termination of a teacher mid-contract is almost always a guarantee that
they will never get hired again (in an educational context), why then do they need a letter of
recommendation to future employers regarding the faculty members teaching ability and character?
(pg. 7). Is this so the terminated person can find a job outside of the institution of the Catholic Church
and outside of the field of education? Is that truly justice after termination? (p 7). Additionally, how

can that letter of recommendation speak to the character of that individual without taking into account
their moral character, which clearly is not even adequate since they were just terminated from their
place of employment in violation of the morality clause?
I pose these questions not as a testament to my indecisiveness, but as a clarification to my grave
concerns regarding the adjudication of those who have violated the moral clause of their contracts. If
forced to adjudicate, could I? Certainly, I could, but if the violation truly fell within the grey area (the
violation did not include harm/abuse to the students or great scandal), I would grapple with the
justness of the decision I made for the rest of my life.