Madhuri Mohindar

NEW YORK, Jul 22 2005 (IPS) — It’s a church-state conflict of a different kind, pitting one of the more militant labour unions in the United States against the Catholic Church hierarchy.

A Church Tribunal is soon to decide the “canonical validity” of union contracts signed between five parishes of the Catholic Diocese of Brownsville, Texas and the United Farm Workers union (UFW).

The three-year-old union contracts had set a major precedent as the first of their kind in the United States. In this poor, mainly Hispanic region of southern Texas, the Catholic Church has often supported poor farm workers’ rights to organise and demand justice.

The current scenario is testing the Catholic Church’s ability to apply the same principles to its own employees.

“When we signed the union contracts, we agreed for the Church to check with the Vatican whether the contract was valid or not by Church law, on the condition that we would be consistently informed about what was going on,” said Rebecca Flores, Texas state director of the UFW.

“After a long gap of not knowing anything, we were finally called to testify at the tribunal. If the ruling goes against us, there will be a big question of one of the fundamental blocks that the Catholic Church rests on – the support for unionisation and social justice over the last century,” she said.

In a clarification listed on its website, the Diocese maintains that it supports unions.

“The union is not in question,” it reads. “The Ecclesiastical Tribunal of the Diocese of Brownsville, held sessions in June 2005, to examine the canonical validity of the May 23, 2002 contract between Holy Spirit Parish in McAllen and the United Farm Workers of America. It is not determining whether a new pastor has to abide by the contract, rather its validity.”

However, the repercussions of the Tribunal judgment remain unclear. If it rules that there is no “canonical validity” to the contracts, would they become void? Could further union contracts ever be signed? Or would the unionisation of Church employees be considered a passing phase?

Requests for comment from the spokesperson for the Brownsville Diocese were not answered.

The unions sprang up after Church employees protested a change in their pension plans instituted by the Bishop of the Diocese, Raymundo Pena. The Diocese switched from a Defined Benefit Plan where the Diocese/Parish contributes to a common fund, guaranteeing a certain amount per month, to a Contribution Defined Plan, or 403(b), that enables employees to determine how their retirement account is managed.

The Diocese maintained that the new plan was initiated after requests by employees and consultation with experts. The UFW believes otherwise.

“(The) 403(b) is like 401(k), dependent on the stock market, and benefiting younger employees. It does not give employees, all female, all elderly, all working long years, the security of a good strong pension,” Flores said. “So we formed unions in five parishes to help Church employees who felt shortchanged.”

One month after the contracts were signed, a new pastor at the Holy Spirit Parish in McAllen handed termination notices to four employees, creating dismay among parishioners and employees alike.

“Bishop Pena began to undermine the contracts from day one. He would tell new priests moving into a Church to fire all the previous employees. That’s how you make workers beholden to you,” Flores said.

“We believe that every employee was going to lose their job, but only four of them were physically present that day. We got a district judge to sign a restraining order, and after much public outcry, demonstrations, and media publicity, the workers retained their jobs.”

In a letter to his parishioners, Bishop Pena explained his position. “In church law, there are two kinds of jurisdiction: ordinary and extraordinary. Ordinary jurisdiction refers to things that concern the day-to-day functioning of the parish or diocese. Extraordinary jurisdiction refers to those things that are out of the ordinary, like signing a long-term contract.”

By this logic, the union contracts were signed by individual pastors without the consultation of the bishop, therefore their validity under Church law was questionable, thus the need for a Tribunal.

The Bishop further maintained that the new pastor was acting under ordinary law, therefore it was not within his reach to countermand him. He stated that the new pastor’s desire to restructure the parish was of his own accord, and was designed after much thought and consultation, and that there was no question of firing all the employees, only the previously mentioned four.

There were also allegations that funding was withheld from parishes that signed with the union, although this was swiftly denied by the Diocese. Eventually, an agreement was reached between the Church and the UFW that protected the rights of Church workers until the resolution of the issue under Church law.

“The Church pays seven dollars an hour which is barely a living wage. It institutes a pension plan that is not beneficial to most employees. It does offer health benefits. So on two out of three issues it’s not at par,” Flores said.

“There are a lot of unions in Catholic subsidiaries, including cemeteries, schools and hospitals. Why not one for Church workers? These are mainly Hispanic women in the poorest region in the U.S. who have been working for years,” she argued.

Flores cited the example of a 64-year-old employee who worked for 30 years at Our Lady of Refuge parish (a non-union parish), and was fired by the new pastor within a year of his appointment.

On its website, the Brownsville Diocese references Pope Leo XIII who in 1891 “asserted the moral demand for state intervention in economic affairs and insisted on workers’ right to organise, considered radical views at the time.”

“I always say Jesus came to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. And it should be for the Church to lead the way,” Flores urged.