> According to the policy, if one of the two spouses resigns within 30 days of contracting the marriage, the other spouse can continue their employment.
If the IOR does not pay a living wage then that's a problem that someone will need to resolve, but otherwise I think it's generally preferable for a woman to have the opportunity to be a homemaker and raise children for a while (without also having to work for pay). It broadens the mind.
Also, one time I looked up the etymology of "nepotism" (etymology is often a surprise and a delight), and the memory of this inclines me to think that it's quite a good thing for a Pope to be opposed to nepotism since popes invented it.
I’d be hard-pressed to say that forcing one or both spouses to resign constitutes an “opportunity” insofar as it removes this choice from the couple’s prudential judgment.
My employer wouldn't let relatives work for the same boss, but would probably be perfectly willing to move one or both to a different position within the company. This seems like a standard policy.
The article doesn't seem to state clearly whether the couple had the same boss, or were offered the opportunity to shift departments/bosses and declined that as well.
Just after The Pillar runs an article on that priest in Spain encouraging cohabiting couples to marry, the Vatican pursues a policy that practically encourages cohabitation and discourages marriage.
As the guys in Rome have a genius for achieving the worst of all possible worlds, I suspect the row will lurch on very publicly until someone backs down and Romeo and Juliet keep their jobs, maybe after a transfer to avoid conflicts of interest.
When I think of all the married and cohabiting people I know who met at work or joined the same large local company after they married....the economy would probably be heavily damaged if this policy was rigorously applied. But serious precautions against favouritism and outright criminality need to be taken by employers.
As if nepotism has not flourished throughout history, usually when the corrupt parties were not married to each other. The filthy London cops did not need to be married to each other or to the drugs and porn barons. Anyone remember Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee paying 450,000 dollars of diocesan money to his blackmailing ex boyfriend? Or was he just charitably responding to his pastoral needs?
"I suspect the row will lurch on very publicly until someone backs down and Romeo and Juliet keep their jobs, maybe after a transfer to avoid conflicts of interest."
-This would require humility and to admit there was an error in the policy. I'm not convinced that there is a cupful to be found amongst those in decision making positions at the "Vatican Bank".
For the life of me, i don't understand people that look at a bright line rule that an organization has established and say "damn the torpedoes" let's do it our way. They were warned, they ignored it, one of them had a chance to resign and they declined so they'll both forfeit their jobs. That's completely on them. The comment from Prof. Warren that this would be illegal in the US is meaningless because this isn't the US. People need to grow up and accept responsibility for the decisions that they make.
This was my take, too. Is the rule cool, smart, etc? Doesn't seem to be so to me, but I don't live there, I don't know all the history, etc. Did the couple know the rule and ignore it? Sure seems like it. So they risked it. They lost. Now time for them to both leave or one leave. Seems to "make sense" that one could get another Vatican job if they are a good worker, but not a guaranteed thing.
It’s not clear to me how bright and yellow this line was. Sometimes policies like these are hidden deep in the employee handbook, and if the reform was recent, it’s even possible that they were dating prior to the rule.
On the one hand, sure, but on the other, there's frequently an element to these rules that just strikes me as anti-human. I know a LOT of couples who met at work, which honestly may be the only place where many people can meet someone "naturally" anymore, and what ends up happening is they hide their relationship while awaiting a transfer or a new position before the relationship goes public because it's no longer breaking any corporate rules. Depending on the specific job or the nature of the industry, this could take a very long time.
The rule might be black and white, but it could also very well be a stupid rule. Since it's the IOR I have to admit I have my prejudices.
My comment was not from a standpoint of defending the rule. My point is that the policy exists - good, bad or otherwise - and it applies to their situation. My daughter cannot work in my organization. Should I throw a tantrum about it? Should I scream about how unfair it is? The ‘rule’ that keeps her out is one of a billion sections of the US Code. I can’t use ignorance of that section as a defense. Besides, the folks in HR would catch on to it as soon as she filled out her paperwork and got to the question “Are you related to anyone in this organization?”
Speaking as a former HR person, the rule is not necessarily a bad idea because workplace romance can be distracting and can impact productivity. If things go sour, you run the risk of someone claiming sexual harassment or having to reassign because bad blood is keeping folks from getting the work done. As far as work being the only place that people can meet “naturally” the Church springs to mind as a potential environment that would properly foster and nourish healthy relationships.
I will openly admit that I tend to be very anti-corporate and anti-HR in general, and would probably be deeply unhappy in that kind of work environment. I'm not ignorant of the rationale for the rules, either, but I think the "sneaking around" thing is really common in places with these sorts of policies. Spouses and jobs don't grow on trees, especially these days. I do agree that the parish is also a good place to meet a potential spouse, and again we don't know details about the employees or their exact situation, but I would probably find it difficult to "pass" on a coworker if there was a lot of potential, just because he was a coworker. Then again, I'm already married and a stay-at-home-mom, so I would probably be a lot more comfortable resigning in that situation, assuming it was financially feasible to do so.
Next month my husband and i will have been married 33 years. I met him because i was dating his best friend. It’s a shame folks spend so much time at work that that becomes the dating pool.
> which honestly may be the only place where many people can meet someone "naturally" anymore
This is an indictment either of modern society or of non-arranged marriages (I primarily intend to condemn the former but I have included the latter in order to cast a wider net.)
I should reread that book about "leisure the basis of culture" because to be honest I can't remember anything in it except that I am supposed to worship God (already knew that).
That book is excellent! I am also due for a reread. I agree that it's definitely not *ideal* that work is one of the few spaces left to normally meet people, but I wouldn't want to unnecessarily restrict it (unless you couldn't date anybody you worked with because you were already related to all of them!).
As it is, some of my friends and I joke-not-joke about just arranging our kids' marriages. That can have its own difficulties, but I think an argument could be made that "family-assisted" dating is a significant improvement over "technology-assisted" dating.
I'm inclined to agree with my fellow Americans that the policy is a bit draconian, but it's not obvious that it's wrong, especially in a swamp of corruption like the Vatican.
The usual rule in large corporations is the couple cannot be a manager on in the line of management of the other. My wife and I worked for a Fortune 500 company at the same time and we understood the rules and thought they were fair. In a company where the IOR rule is being applied, it discourages marriage and encourages cohabitation. I would think IOR would reverse the decision if only to end the negative publicity and damage to its reputation.
I believe you meant anti-nepotism, not antisemistism.
> According to the policy, if one of the two spouses resigns within 30 days of contracting the marriage, the other spouse can continue their employment.
If the IOR does not pay a living wage then that's a problem that someone will need to resolve, but otherwise I think it's generally preferable for a woman to have the opportunity to be a homemaker and raise children for a while (without also having to work for pay). It broadens the mind.
Also, one time I looked up the etymology of "nepotism" (etymology is often a surprise and a delight), and the memory of this inclines me to think that it's quite a good thing for a Pope to be opposed to nepotism since popes invented it.
I’d be hard-pressed to say that forcing one or both spouses to resign constitutes an “opportunity” insofar as it removes this choice from the couple’s prudential judgment.
My employer wouldn't let relatives work for the same boss, but would probably be perfectly willing to move one or both to a different position within the company. This seems like a standard policy.
The article doesn't seem to state clearly whether the couple had the same boss, or were offered the opportunity to shift departments/bosses and declined that as well.
Just after The Pillar runs an article on that priest in Spain encouraging cohabiting couples to marry, the Vatican pursues a policy that practically encourages cohabitation and discourages marriage.
As the guys in Rome have a genius for achieving the worst of all possible worlds, I suspect the row will lurch on very publicly until someone backs down and Romeo and Juliet keep their jobs, maybe after a transfer to avoid conflicts of interest.
When I think of all the married and cohabiting people I know who met at work or joined the same large local company after they married....the economy would probably be heavily damaged if this policy was rigorously applied. But serious precautions against favouritism and outright criminality need to be taken by employers.
As if nepotism has not flourished throughout history, usually when the corrupt parties were not married to each other. The filthy London cops did not need to be married to each other or to the drugs and porn barons. Anyone remember Archbishop Weakland of Milwaukee paying 450,000 dollars of diocesan money to his blackmailing ex boyfriend? Or was he just charitably responding to his pastoral needs?
https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/hush-hush/
"I suspect the row will lurch on very publicly until someone backs down and Romeo and Juliet keep their jobs, maybe after a transfer to avoid conflicts of interest."
-This would require humility and to admit there was an error in the policy. I'm not convinced that there is a cupful to be found amongst those in decision making positions at the "Vatican Bank".
For the life of me, i don't understand people that look at a bright line rule that an organization has established and say "damn the torpedoes" let's do it our way. They were warned, they ignored it, one of them had a chance to resign and they declined so they'll both forfeit their jobs. That's completely on them. The comment from Prof. Warren that this would be illegal in the US is meaningless because this isn't the US. People need to grow up and accept responsibility for the decisions that they make.
This was my take, too. Is the rule cool, smart, etc? Doesn't seem to be so to me, but I don't live there, I don't know all the history, etc. Did the couple know the rule and ignore it? Sure seems like it. So they risked it. They lost. Now time for them to both leave or one leave. Seems to "make sense" that one could get another Vatican job if they are a good worker, but not a guaranteed thing.
It’s not clear to me how bright and yellow this line was. Sometimes policies like these are hidden deep in the employee handbook, and if the reform was recent, it’s even possible that they were dating prior to the rule.
On the one hand, sure, but on the other, there's frequently an element to these rules that just strikes me as anti-human. I know a LOT of couples who met at work, which honestly may be the only place where many people can meet someone "naturally" anymore, and what ends up happening is they hide their relationship while awaiting a transfer or a new position before the relationship goes public because it's no longer breaking any corporate rules. Depending on the specific job or the nature of the industry, this could take a very long time.
The rule might be black and white, but it could also very well be a stupid rule. Since it's the IOR I have to admit I have my prejudices.
My comment was not from a standpoint of defending the rule. My point is that the policy exists - good, bad or otherwise - and it applies to their situation. My daughter cannot work in my organization. Should I throw a tantrum about it? Should I scream about how unfair it is? The ‘rule’ that keeps her out is one of a billion sections of the US Code. I can’t use ignorance of that section as a defense. Besides, the folks in HR would catch on to it as soon as she filled out her paperwork and got to the question “Are you related to anyone in this organization?”
Speaking as a former HR person, the rule is not necessarily a bad idea because workplace romance can be distracting and can impact productivity. If things go sour, you run the risk of someone claiming sexual harassment or having to reassign because bad blood is keeping folks from getting the work done. As far as work being the only place that people can meet “naturally” the Church springs to mind as a potential environment that would properly foster and nourish healthy relationships.
I will openly admit that I tend to be very anti-corporate and anti-HR in general, and would probably be deeply unhappy in that kind of work environment. I'm not ignorant of the rationale for the rules, either, but I think the "sneaking around" thing is really common in places with these sorts of policies. Spouses and jobs don't grow on trees, especially these days. I do agree that the parish is also a good place to meet a potential spouse, and again we don't know details about the employees or their exact situation, but I would probably find it difficult to "pass" on a coworker if there was a lot of potential, just because he was a coworker. Then again, I'm already married and a stay-at-home-mom, so I would probably be a lot more comfortable resigning in that situation, assuming it was financially feasible to do so.
Next month my husband and i will have been married 33 years. I met him because i was dating his best friend. It’s a shame folks spend so much time at work that that becomes the dating pool.
> which honestly may be the only place where many people can meet someone "naturally" anymore
This is an indictment either of modern society or of non-arranged marriages (I primarily intend to condemn the former but I have included the latter in order to cast a wider net.)
I should reread that book about "leisure the basis of culture" because to be honest I can't remember anything in it except that I am supposed to worship God (already knew that).
That book is excellent! I am also due for a reread. I agree that it's definitely not *ideal* that work is one of the few spaces left to normally meet people, but I wouldn't want to unnecessarily restrict it (unless you couldn't date anybody you worked with because you were already related to all of them!).
As it is, some of my friends and I joke-not-joke about just arranging our kids' marriages. That can have its own difficulties, but I think an argument could be made that "family-assisted" dating is a significant improvement over "technology-assisted" dating.
I'm inclined to agree with my fellow Americans that the policy is a bit draconian, but it's not obvious that it's wrong, especially in a swamp of corruption like the Vatican.
The usual rule in large corporations is the couple cannot be a manager on in the line of management of the other. My wife and I worked for a Fortune 500 company at the same time and we understood the rules and thought they were fair. In a company where the IOR rule is being applied, it discourages marriage and encourages cohabitation. I would think IOR would reverse the decision if only to end the negative publicity and damage to its reputation.