A
- Status
D
Dymphna82
Guest
She married a woman. They were right to fire her. Can’t teach children God’s law, and then have someone teaching them whose lifestyle spits on God’s law. As happy as gay marriage might make that person, and as much as we might want everyone to be happy, there are a whole lot of things that make people happy that God is not for.
If she’d married an open Pagan or Satanist, I’d say the same thing, even though I was Pagan. The children can learn about diversity elsewhere.
If she’d married an open Pagan or Satanist, I’d say the same thing, even though I was Pagan. The children can learn about diversity elsewhere.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
A Catholic may not marry an “open Pagan”?
C
Corki
Guest
First of all, the link is not to an actual news story. It is commentary.
Second, I know you are “stuck” with the title but the title is inaccuarate. She wasn’t fired for marrying. She was released from employment (the link states that she resigned). One of the reasons seems to be that she attempted an impossible and invalid marriage and that she is publically living a life contrary to the teachings of the Church.
Third, the writer is woefully ignorant of Church teaching, claiming that being divorced is doctrinally equivalent to attempting a same-sex marriage.
Fourth, the writer is woefully ignorant on Church organization, writing that he hopes Archbishop O’Malley steps in. He isn’t even in the same diocese where this happened.
In other words, is there any reason we should care what Cahir O’Doherty thinks since he can’t even get a few basic facts straight?
Second, I know you are “stuck” with the title but the title is inaccuarate. She wasn’t fired for marrying. She was released from employment (the link states that she resigned). One of the reasons seems to be that she attempted an impossible and invalid marriage and that she is publically living a life contrary to the teachings of the Church.
Third, the writer is woefully ignorant of Church teaching, claiming that being divorced is doctrinally equivalent to attempting a same-sex marriage.
Fourth, the writer is woefully ignorant on Church organization, writing that he hopes Archbishop O’Malley steps in. He isn’t even in the same diocese where this happened.
In other words, is there any reason we should care what Cahir O’Doherty thinks since he can’t even get a few basic facts straight?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Suppose I worked for let’s say a public library, but I belonged to a group which espoused censorship and book burning. And every day that I went to work at the library I wore a T shirt saying “Burn Books”, and constantly told every one who came into the library to join the “Book burning society”.
I think the library would probably fire me because I was publically demonstrating every day to every single patron that I did NOT believe in the idea of the library that I worked for, but instead was working for and upholding beliefs which contradictating the idea of public libraries. A true conflict of interest.
In the same way, a woman who publically claims to marry another woman–an action which is completely against the teachings of the Catholic Church–yet wants to work FOR the Church–is showing by her PUBLIC actions which are then ‘demonstrated’ to every one every single day–that despite working FOR the Church she is publically flouting an important teaching.
Would you go to a marriage counselor who spoke about the evils of marriage and recommended that instead of marriage people simply fornicate instead?
Would you go to a tax investor who suggested that rather than invest your money you should just spend it all and then live on the streets?
You wouldn’t, because these people are espousing ideas that are totally oppositional to the professions that they are members of.
I think the library would probably fire me because I was publically demonstrating every day to every single patron that I did NOT believe in the idea of the library that I worked for, but instead was working for and upholding beliefs which contradictating the idea of public libraries. A true conflict of interest.
In the same way, a woman who publically claims to marry another woman–an action which is completely against the teachings of the Catholic Church–yet wants to work FOR the Church–is showing by her PUBLIC actions which are then ‘demonstrated’ to every one every single day–that despite working FOR the Church she is publically flouting an important teaching.
Would you go to a marriage counselor who spoke about the evils of marriage and recommended that instead of marriage people simply fornicate instead?
Would you go to a tax investor who suggested that rather than invest your money you should just spend it all and then live on the streets?
You wouldn’t, because these people are espousing ideas that are totally oppositional to the professions that they are members of.
C
Corki
Guest
OT but…
Catholics can not marry non-Christians. That doesn’t mean it isn’t done. But it requires a dispensation from the law that prohibits it. To get the dispensation, it must be shown that the marriage will not be detrimental to the faith of the Catholic party. The further from Catholicism the other party is, the harder that is to show.
S
SwizzleStick
Guest
D
Dale_M
Guest
Yes, nor does the commentary provide a link to a news article, as required by this forum
FWIW, here is a link to a mainstream news article
masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/springfield_cathedral_high_sch.html
However, I would note that both the news article, and the commentary, are a full year old.
As for the substance of the article, I think we will see some pushback on the recent trend of Catholic diocese enforcing doctrine in their schools. Whether it is the case of a football coach divorcing and re-marrrying, or a teacher espousing atheism online, or a PE teacher in a gay marriage, these are in contradiction to Catholic teaching.
If the idea of a Catholic school actually means that it is Catholic, perhaps we should expect that Catholic teaching (even by example) should be expected from the teachers. I’m pretty sure that notion is contained in the contracts that teachers sign, at least in most diocese in the US.
T
Timothysis
Guest
It really doesn’t have anything to do with the Church. The fact is, there are stated rules and regulations that employees must acknowledge in order to work there. She was acquainted with the rules, violated them and, yet, some think that she should still be able to work there. What about you? Can you violate stated rules at your job and expect to still remain employed? Parents pay a lot of money for their children to go to a Catholic school and get a Catholic education. Why is it that some believe that one person’s “right” is enough to violate the true rights of everyone else involved? If she truly loves her “spouse” then it shouldn’t matter where she works. Why is it that whenever something involves a minority the whole of society has to bend over backwards to the breaking point to accommodate them?
J
JRKH
Guest
Bolding Mine -
I was thinking the same thing. Forget for a moment the theological issues of the matter and look at the civil contractual matter. This woman signed a contract agreeing to abide by certain rules. She chose to violate that contract and as a result she and her employer parted ways.
Now if this woman found the terms of her contract unacceptable at the time of her employment, she was free to not sign it. Since she did sign it she agreed, by her signature, to be bound by the contracts terms.
Simple contractual matter.
No one’s rights were violated by the action of the school.
Peace
James
R
Rence
Guest
Many Catholic schools have morality clauses in their contracts. If you break the rules in the morality clauses, they have the right to release you from employment. If you don’t like the contents of the morality clause, you have the right to work elsewhere. They are perfectly just in their morality clauses. And I have no unearthly clue why people get all bent out of shape about it. Teachers in Catholic schools are responsible for teaching students Catholic teachings. One can’t do that if their public life reflects an opposition to those teachings. It teaches the opposite. If you can’t do the job, you shouldn’t work there. Just like people who work in secular hospitals and pharmacies: you have to follow the rules of your contract and the law, and you have to be able to perform the job…or work elsewhere.
D
Dymphna82
Guest
^This.
Also, I know exactly how curious I was as a child. I began my occult practices when I was 8 years old, just because my dad liked to read about UFOs and the palm reading books were right next to it. Kids are curious, often overly so. You think a kid isn’t going to see a gay couple or see someone with a spouse that’s wearing pentagrams and goddess symbols, and not ask questions? I sure know I enjoyed my Pagan jewelry.
I’m not saying they should be kept in the dark about these things forever, but it puts the school on the spot, and the parents when they kids go home.
Funny enough, a few years ago, when I was a much younger Pagan, I joined a Christian club, just to learn and have dialog. I was also member of a Pagan group on that website and had a “horned god” symbol in my signature. It was removed and the Christian group compared it to selling pornography in church. I felt greatly offended because my beliefs were sacred to me and how could they compare it to pornography? But it is, now that I see better. They are very different but both endanger the soul the same way.
J
JMJSHJ
Guest
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
Blog post, not a news story and doesn’t link to a news story
- Status