Archbishop: School that fired gay teacher showed 'character'

  • Thread starter Thread starter anthony022071
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m not seeing much in the way of “character” here. It appears that she had been upfront with the school, they supported her for over seven years, and cast her aside when things got a little too hot for them.

From reading a few articles and the letter her wife wrote it appears they were both Sisters of Mercy at some point in the past? Or maybe in formation? I’m not sure of that, but they seem to have a long standing relationship the sisters. My impression is that the sisters would love to see the day when her marriage isn’t taught to be disordered, but aren’t willing to publicly say that now. It’s probably a difficult spot to them because they’re trying to balance keeping the school open with what they actually believe, but I doubt this is in any way a display of conviction, much less character.

The only one who seems to have actually put something “on the line” here is the teacher who got fired for making a public commitment to her wife.
 
I don’t know who has character, but it was certainly a mistake for a Catholic school to hire a teacher whose life contradicted Catholic teachings. That was a bad decision that had to be corrected.
 
zz912 said:
Sorry to hear the Catholic faith was upheld?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I guess I keep trying to figure out how I would have felt if it had been me. I suppose there is a point about having to live according to the teachings of the Church, but there is also that bit about meeting people where they are at now. I’m not sure that pointing at someone and declaring them unclean is the right approach to advancing the cause of faith, but what do I know? I’m on the wrong side of the fence on this one–just kinda peeking over and frowning a little.
 
Trident_H said:
I don’t know. I guess I keep trying to figure out how I would have felt if it had been me. I suppose there is a point about having to live according to the teachings of the Church, but there is also that bit about meeting people where they are at now. I’m not sure that pointing at someone and declaring them unclean is the right approach to advancing the cause of faith, but what do I know? I’m on the wrong side of the fence on this one–just kinda peeking over and frowning a little.
Click to expand...
A teacher who disagrees with Catholic teaching is put in a position of in effect saying, “well, this is what the Church believes, but I don’t agree with that.” Whether she puts it into words or not, is manifested by her life, and that’s not a fair position either for the teacher or the children.

Would the school hire a science teacher who rejects the notion that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun? (“Well, this is what science teaches, but I disagree with that.”)
 
JimG said:
A teacher who disagrees with Catholic teaching is put in a position of in effect saying, “well, this is what the Church believes, but I don’t agree with that.” Whether she puts it into words or not, is manifested by her life, and that’s not a fair position either for the teacher or the children.

Would the school hire a science teacher who rejects the notion that the Earth rotates on its axis and revolves around the Sun? (“Well, this is what science teaches, but I disagree with that.”)
Click to expand...
Well I’m not exactly in line with the Church on this topic as it’s a bit too personal so while I really understand the problem for all those who are, I’m still just a bit on the outside looking in–sort of shuffling my feet a little and sighing a lot. I mean that’s just where I’m at. Sorry about that. 😦
 
Trident_H said:
Well I’m not exactly in line with the Church on this topic as it’s a bit too personal so while I really understand the problem for all those who are, I’m still just a bit on the outside looking in–sort of shuffling my feet a little and sighing a lot. I mean that’s just where I’m at. Sorry about that. 😦
Click to expand...
I can understand your concern, especially when times are so tough for teachers (in Canada at least, I don’t know if things are different in the US).

I guess there’s another way to look at it. I understand that Catholic education can be rather expensive, and there are a lot of Catholic families who spend a considerable amount of income trying to send their children to a school that will help them raise their children in the Catholic faith. That can constitute a considerable sacrifice, and it would be very unfair to accept money from parents with the implicit promise of a Catholic education and then explicitly do the opposite.

I do wish there was another way to go about this. Perhaps she could have been shuffled to another position, one where her personal life would not have conflict with what she was supposed to teach?
 
MacBP said:
I do wish there was another way to go about this. Perhaps she could have been shuffled to another position, one where her personal life would not have conflict with what she was supposed to teach?
Click to expand...
She could be a case study for Comparative Religions and/or Heresies Throughout History classes?
 
PPeterson said:
I’m not seeing much in the way of “character” here. It appears that she had been upfront with the school, they supported her for over seven years, and cast her aside when things got a little too hot for them.

From reading a few articles and the letter her wife wrote it appears they were both Sisters of Mercy at some point in the past? Or maybe in formation? I’m not sure of that, but they seem to have a long standing relationship the sisters. My impression is that the sisters would love to see the day when her marriage isn’t taught to be disordered, but aren’t willing to publicly say that now. It’s probably a difficult spot to them because they’re trying to balance keeping the school open with what they actually believe, but I doubt this is in any way a display of conviction, much less character.

The only one who seems to have actually put something “on the line” here is the teacher who got fired for making a public commitment to her wife.
Click to expand...
She doesn’t have a wife, she can’t have one.

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that many in the school admin knew and didn’t care. But that’s speculation.
 
Trident_H said:
I don’t know. I guess I keep trying to figure out how I would have felt if it had been me. I suppose there is a point about having to live according to the teachings of the Church, but there is also that bit about meeting people where they are at now. I’m not sure that pointing at someone and declaring them unclean is the right approach to advancing the cause of faith, but what do I know? I’m on the wrong side of the fence on this one–just kinda peeking over and frowning a little.
Click to expand...
Meet people where they are and call them out of sin. Don’t encourage them to remain in sin, and definitely don’t put someone in charge of teaching the faith who refuses to come out of sin.
 
eamonnroma said:
In UK, if they dared to fire anyone for those reasons, they would be prosecuted, pay heavy fines and have to re-instate the teacher. Well done UK;:
Click to expand...
We have free exercise of religion here. The State can not force acceptance of homosexual teaching, or any doctrinal point, contrary to the tenets of religion. But then we never had a state religion.

FYI - No one is celebrating the termination from the stand point of removing the woman from her job. What is refreshing is to see the return to established Catholic identity and solid theology, in this case, in the area of religious education of kids. I would say hiring her, if in fact her relationship with other women was known, is worse than a mistake, but was a sin.
 
pnewton said:
We have free exercise of religion here. The State can not force acceptance of homosexual teaching, or any doctrinal point, contrary to the tenets of religion. But then we never had a state religion.
Click to expand...
A shadow religion is being established as we speak. The tenets of Population Control, the Sexual Revolution, secularism and liberalism are the new orthodoxy and the basis which will be used to persecute everyone but Muslims.
 
JimG said:
A Catholic school hiring a Director of Religious Education who is in a same sex marriage is a contradiction. It’s like hiring an Alchemist to teach Chemistry.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If someone hired to teach in a school that preached environmental sustainability was openly and pointedly living in a way that violated the tenets of the school by wasting water and leaving a huge carbon footprint, who would be complaining, even if the wasteful lifestyle was entirely legal?

It is possible for a private life to be found in all justice to be incompatible with a public role at a faith-based school, and this is one of those times.
 
Trident_H said:
I don’t know. I guess I keep trying to figure out how I would have felt if it had been me. I suppose there is a point about having to live according to the teachings of the Church, but there is also that bit about meeting people where they are at now. I’m not sure that pointing at someone and declaring them unclean is the right approach to advancing the cause of faith, but what do I know? I’m on the wrong side of the fence on this one–just kinda peeking over and frowning a little.
Click to expand...
No one pointed at the teacher and declared her unclean. They looked at her public actions and declared them to be incompatible with Church teachings about marriage. This is not acceptable in anyone employed by a teaching institution established to propagate the Catholic faith, but particularly inappropriate in the director of religious education.

Again: If someone were employed by an organization established to stamp out sex trafficking and it became public knowledge that they owned part of a legal brothel in Nevada, is it unjust to tell them they need to find other employment? I think not. People have a right to advocate for codes of morality that exclude actions that are legal and to establish institutions that exist in order to further that advocacy. Other people who publicly take a stance that is not only incompatible but pointedly opposed to those codes of morality or against those societal goals do not have any logical place in those organizations.
 
EasterJoy said:
No one pointed at the teacher and declared her unclean. They looked at her public actions and declared them to be incompatible with Church teachings about marriage. This is not acceptable in anyone employed by a teaching institution established to propagate the Catholic faith, but particularly inappropriate in the director of religious education.

Again: If someone were employed by an organization established to stamp out sex trafficking and it became public knowledge that they owned part of a legal brothel in Nevada, is it unjust to tell them they need to find other employment? I think not. People have a right to advocate for codes of morality that exclude actions that are legal and to establish institutions that exist in order to further that advocacy. Other people who publicly take a stance that is not only incompatible but pointedly opposed to those codes of morality or against those societal goals do not have any logical place in those organizations.
Click to expand...
I guess that makes sense. The only thing I am wondering is where someone is supposed to draw the line? I mean what if one of the teachers gets a divorce? Or is found to be lazy? Or likes to hang out at the bar? What if one of the teachers is honest about having doubts about the current pope’s authority after one of his speeches? Or what if one only goes to Mass at Christmas?

I guess I am just wondering if it is fair to think that being in a same-sex relationship is the only thing that should disqualify a person from teaching? :confused:
 
eamonnroma said:
In UK, if they dared to fire anyone for those reasons, they would be prosecuted, pay heavy fines and have to re-instate the teacher. Well done UK;:
Click to expand...
She was the director of religious education and a lesbian in a SSS marriage teaching in a Catholic school. She wasn’t fired, but the school didn’t renew her contract. parents have a right to expect that Catholic school teachers also live out their religion. She can easily get another job possibly in an Episcoplal school which approves of this life style. And good for the Archbishop to affirm this. Catholic schools don’t receive efforts federal funding in the U.S.
 
From the article:

Winters has repeatedly stated that she informed the school principal of her marriage at the time she was hired in 2007, and an agreement was made to share the news with the faculty but not the parents.

The school declined requests for comment from the Register. But Sheila King, who is handling the school’s communications, noted that the principal who hired Winters is no longer at Waldron Academy.

Meanwhile, some parents who are concerned about the school’s treatment of Winters have vowed to withhold tuition for the upcoming school year until the principal meets them to explain the decision.

The principal issued a second letter that acknowledged that the school community had been “shaken.” She has promised to meet with parents, but no date has been set thus far.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/a-catholic-mother-reflects-on-furor-over-philly-teacher-in-same-sex-marriag/#ixzz3gYMIhPo5

This is just inexcusable. And now the school has an even bigger problem on their hands because they have not been preaching the true Catholic faith for years, and now the parents think incorrectly that Church teaching is negotiable.
 
Note the subtle wording of the principal in explaining their not renewing (not “firing”) Winter’s contract: "…the principal, Nell Stetser, had issued the first of two letters to the school community on the matter. On July 3, the principal confirmed that Winters’ “annual employment contract was not renewed.”

“In the Mercy spirit, many of us accept life choices that contradict current Church teachings, but to continue as a Catholic school, Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings,” read Stetser’s letter, which cited the teaching authority of the archbishop of Philadelphia and her wide consultations with the Sisters of Mercy, theologians and canon lawyers. [bold mine]

So, they support “current” Church teachings, eh? If that doesn’t say that they hope for, and are probably working towards, the Church changing her teachings regarding sexual relations, then what does? :rolleyes:
 
Della said:
Note the subtle wording of the principal in explaining their not renewing (not “firing”) Winter’s contract: "…the principal, Nell Stetser, had issued the first of two letters to the school community on the matter. On July 3, the principal confirmed that Winters’ “annual employment contract was not renewed.”

“In the Mercy spirit, many of us accept life choices that contradict current Church teachings, but to continue as a Catholic school, Waldron Mercy must comply with those teachings,” read Stetser’s letter, which cited the teaching authority of the archbishop of Philadelphia and her wide consultations with the Sisters of Mercy, theologians and canon lawyers. [bold mine]

So, they support “current” Church teachings, eh? If that doesn’t say that they hope for, and are probably working towards, the Church changing her teachings regarding sexual relations, then what does? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
This has Chaput’s fingerprints on it. His public support is probably thanking them for their obedience.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top