More excerpts from the story in Cleveland.
For example, the current contract prohibits teachers from "public support" of abortion, a "homosexual lifestyle" or in vitro fertilization, to name a few issues.
The new contract for teachers in the 19-county Archdiocese of Cincinnati school system uses the term "advocacy" instead of public support, said Dan Andriacco, Archdiocese spokesman.
"If I go to my gay child's wedding, is that 'public support?' Well, the answer is no," he said.
Advocacy could mean, for example, writing a blog in support of gay marriage, he said.
It would not mean, however, writing a personal letter to a senator on the topic.
However, Andriacco said the main changes include the cover letter and the switch from "public support" to "advocacy."
"What we wanted to do was, without in any way softening our intentions of the contract, make it still clearer what was intended," he said. "We had a lot of questions from people."
The current contract prohibits teachers from "any conduct or lifestyle" that would discredit, cause scandal or public embarrassment, or contradict Catholic teachings or morals.
Specifically, the current contract lists public support of couples living together or having sex outside marriage, improper use of social media, and public support of a "homosexual lifestyle," abortion or birth methods contrary to Catholic teaching.
Andriacco said there has long been a morality clause in the Catholic schools contract, but officials made changes this past year after several judges told them the language was not specific enough.
The latest updates are in response to input from teachers, priests, students, parents and a newly formed teacher advisory committee, Andriacco said – not in response to any backlash.

Given that the Catholic Church has paid out approximately 3 billion to victims of clerical abuse, I am surprised that they would have the hypocrisy to attempt to restrict their teachers from speaking freely about moral issues. I suppose I should not be.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/sex-abuse-catholic-church_n_5085414.html

So that would mean that I could not go on FB to congratulate my daughter and DIL on their wedding? Could not post a picture of their wedding? Yes, I have a married gay daughter. Yes, their wedding pictures are on FB.

In a way similar to when I had to swore allegiance to the Constitution of Florida. I refused to do that working in public schools. Florida passed that State Amendment Banning Gay Marriage. Could that also be grounds for firing a civil servant for not "supporting" the state's Gay Marriage Ban? No regrets at all for refusing and was told many others refused for the State Constitution, but not the FEDERAL Constitution. Feds take precedence in my book over any state.

My interpretation is that posting pictures, absent "social commentary" about marriage equality, would not constitute advocacy. But the very fact that the question could arise is ridiculous.

I worked for the Federal Government for 37 years. I also swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution but nowhere in that oath was there any obligation to "defend" against marriage equality.

se issues are 'sinful'?

I wonder why the entire membership of said church doesn't tell them to go pound sand up their asses over it?

You would think people who claim to have a divinely revealed truth lock on morality would be able to figure this one out.


Apparently not!