M
marymary1975
Guest
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
Archbishop: School that fired gay teacher showed 'character'
- Status
:clapping::clapping::clapping:
P
phil19034
Guest
see my comments aboveI guess that makes sense. The only thing I am wondering is where someone is supposed to draw the line? ***It should be pretty simple. Your public life must be in line with Church teaching. If you are āliving in sin,ā you should be fired from a Catholic school. If you publicly disagree or publicly disobey the Church, you should be not work for the Church. *** I mean what if one of the teachers gets a divorce? Being divorced is not āliving in sin.ā Getting remarried without an annulment or ātrial marriageā is. Or is found to be lazy? Last time I checked, if a lazy person doesnāt do their job they typically get fired. Or likes to hang out at the bar? ***Hanging out at the bar isnāt an issue. But if itās PUBLIC KNOWLEDGED engages in random hook ups at bars, then itās not a good situation. *** What if one of the teachers is honest about having doubts about the current Popeās authority after one of his speeches? ***If a teacher has honest doubts about the current Popeās authority then that teacher should keep it to him/herself. A Catholic school teacher cannot bash the Pope; no more than an employee would be allowed to keep their job after publicly bashing their management. Furthermore, having doubts about the Popeās authority means that they do not believe in the Dogma of Papal Infallibility, which wouldnāt be good for a Catholic School teacher. ***Or what if one only goes to Mass at Christmas? If it is public knowledge that a Catholic School teacher does not attend Mass except only on Christmas (without dispensation), they are committing a Mortal Sin and their example will be bad on a child whoās parents are expecting Catholic role models. Hence, they too should be fired.
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?*** Most recently, there were two teachers at a Catholic School who were having sexual relationship with each other (outside of marriage). The female teacher got pregnant and the couple decided to move in together but told the school that they had āno plansā to get married. They were fired (rightfully so). They were not fired because they didnāt get married. They were not fired because they got pregnant. They were not fired because they sinned. They were fired because they chose to publicly defy the Church choosing to live in a state of sin without plans to resolve their situation. ***
C
commenter
Guest
You have a point, somewhat. If a teacher got drunk, maybe that can be excused, with apology. But if they defend the right to get drunk, as often as they choose, perhaps they shouldnāt be teaching there. If a teacher got divorced, that is sad, but it can happen. If she then gets remarried, that is different. If a teacher makes a careless racist remark when angry, with apology, maybe they can remain teaching. If a teacher publicly supports white supremacy, I would say not.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 popeās 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?
Given that we are imperfect humans, there is a range of actions that we should accept in our co workers, as we all are striving towards sanctity, with many slips and falls. But entering a gay marriage is not a āslip or fallā it is a public,ongoing rejection of the natural law and Scripture. The school has a responsibility to the students. It also has a responsibility to the teacher. What about that personās sanctity? For the school to look the other way would be to condone it, to harden that anti-sainthood pattern, to discourage that personās call to conversion.
T
Trident_H
Guest
Well I guess that just about ties me up in knots. Iāve got nothing else to add to thatāunless you just want to hear me stutter.
P
phil19034
Guest
why? Obviously, chat rooms and forums are not as good as in person speech, but what causes you concern?Well I guess that just about ties me up in knots. Iāve got nothing else to add to thatāunless you just want to hear me stutter.
A Catholic School teacher is a youth minister of the Faith. Behavior that we would not condone from a Catholic Deacon, should not be condoned of a Catholic School teacher.
Meaning, Catholic School teachers (and all ministers of the Faith) should be held to the same standard.
Even a Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion or an usher should not be allowed to function in their volunteer roll in a parish if they publicly defy Church teaching.
God Bless!
T
Trident_H
Guest
Hey donāt misunderstand. Itās just sometimes hard to sort out the difference between when someone is honestly following Church teaching and when they are singling a guy out. Itās my orientation that gets in the way. I canāt be really objective about this sometimes.
But I meant what I said. You appear to be right and I have nothing to say against it. Iām not going to argue just to argue. I think you made a good case. Itās not your fault Iām the way that I am. Itās not your fault Iām on the wrong side of this by default.
I donāt harbor any ill will.
Peace.
C
commenter
Guest
People shouldnāt be āsingled outā or have averse actions against them because of their orientation. That is part of who they are.
If someone publicly opposes Church teaching, by statements or actions, they should not be in a position such as teaching in a Catholic school, regardless of sexual orientation. That is what they do.
Almost all of the people I am aware of who oppose Church teaching on sexuality are heterosexual, to my knowledge. Christians who have sexual temptations - which means all of us - and struggle to do their best, may be on the road to sanctity.
P
pnewton
Guest
The problem was not here temptations but here homosexual faux marriage. No, one who is in a relationship with a same sex partner is not being singled out.
If the same teacher had a orientation to molest children, would this common temptation to sin justify keeping here on?
C
commenter
Guest
At a time when everyone is talking about addressing injustices, what about the injustice of parents and children enrolling at schools that claim to be Catholic, but really are not? What about the dishonesty of schools charging thousands of dollars in tuition for what is mostly a public school ideology driven education?
In my diocese there are many schools that were once solidly Catholic, that are now mostly secularized. True, they may start with a prayer, and they may ālook atā religion in general, no particular bias towards Catholicism or Christianity, itās all Comparative Religion. They constantly promote their āheritageā as Jesuit, Franciscan, Mercy, or something similar. But that just means they want you to enroll in 2015, because back in 1965 they were Catholic.
In 2015 what your child is actually getting is mainly Common Core at that school; with a little authentic Catholicism added on.
By the time parents figure out they have been ripped off, they have already spent thousands of dollars, and it is difficult to transfer in mid stream. If a corporation were to practice ābait and switchā, the Peace and Justice advocates would be raising their voices.
There are exceptional teachers here and there within the schools, and some school administrations are more Catholic than others; schools founded by convents seem to be the most secularized. From what I was told by a Catholic school president, the diocese sets a standard - very, very minimal standard - for academic and general Catholic identity. Schools know how low they can go, and stay an inch above it, so they keep getting listed in the diocesan directory, keep getting promoted by parishes.
What about the rights of these children, these families? Dioceses have a responsibility to raise the standard, let some schools go on as independent non sectarian schools, but let the few remaining schools be more Catholic.
In my diocese there are many schools that were once solidly Catholic, that are now mostly secularized. True, they may start with a prayer, and they may ālook atā religion in general, no particular bias towards Catholicism or Christianity, itās all Comparative Religion. They constantly promote their āheritageā as Jesuit, Franciscan, Mercy, or something similar. But that just means they want you to enroll in 2015, because back in 1965 they were Catholic.
In 2015 what your child is actually getting is mainly Common Core at that school; with a little authentic Catholicism added on.
By the time parents figure out they have been ripped off, they have already spent thousands of dollars, and it is difficult to transfer in mid stream. If a corporation were to practice ābait and switchā, the Peace and Justice advocates would be raising their voices.
There are exceptional teachers here and there within the schools, and some school administrations are more Catholic than others; schools founded by convents seem to be the most secularized. From what I was told by a Catholic school president, the diocese sets a standard - very, very minimal standard - for academic and general Catholic identity. Schools know how low they can go, and stay an inch above it, so they keep getting listed in the diocesan directory, keep getting promoted by parishes.
What about the rights of these children, these families? Dioceses have a responsibility to raise the standard, let some schools go on as independent non sectarian schools, but let the few remaining schools be more Catholic.
C
commenter
Guest
Of course the teacher should have been fired, based on her ongoing action in opposition to the Christian witness of the school.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Actually we did. Many of the colonies were Anglican, not surprisingly. Many disestablished at or near after the revolution. Interestingly many of the northern states even had state religions and kept them after the founding of the U.S. My state while disestablishing Anglicanism did have in its constitution a religious test that precluded from office atheists and required the āProtestant Faithā.
O
oneofmany
Guest
onemadmomblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/22/assemblyman-who/
From an interesting blog. Most people online support who a person can hire and fire if you are a private business and not government. I would hope they support churches as well in this.
From an interesting blog. Most people online support who a person can hire and fire if you are a private business and not government. I would hope they support churches as well in this.
- Status