Catholic Teachers' Union Backs Diocese in Firing of Homosexual Teacher from Catholic School in Ohio

[fix]

I was not surprised insomuch as I am, indeed, clairvoyant. I also knew that you would send in these posts.

Uh huh

 

[JMJSHJ]

I was not surprised insomuch as I am, indeed, clairvoyant. I also knew that you would send in these posts.

Perhaps you need an exorcist as you also stated that you have conversations with St. Faustina?

 

[NeedsMercy]

Your opinion is not consistent with Catholic teaching as clearly evidenced by Mark O’Malley’s excellent post.

Could you please tell me which part of my post is not consistent? Please be specific.

So you make public snarky comments and then don’t have the guts to explain them publicly but instead say, Send me a PM. Considering that you presume to know more about Catholic teaching than the Bishop, I shouldn’t be surprised.

Oh, myyyy! I make “snarky” comments and have no “guts”? I take umbrage, JMJSHJ! That was terribly un-Christian of you! According to the rules of CAF, personal attacks are a no-no:

“Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of personal attacks, threats, and crude or sexually-explicit language.”

Personal attacks and other similar nonsense are OT and inappropriate in a public forum. If you have an axe to grind with me, send a PM.

Also, where did I say—in my one post on the topic!—that I know more than this bishop? Please be specific.

(Private and hidden for the poster; public for the rest of us. )

For the record, regarding your question to Lucky7, no: I, for one, wouldn’t know that “there’s not much you don’t know.” Given your responses here and elsewhere, there’s not much credibility to that self-evaluation.

The more important point is that in order to be taken seriously and respectfully in a discussion, it’s best to toss aside mysterious comments that on their face appear hostile to the readers, and instead engage intellectually with the debate.

All of this nonsense is OT. If you have an axe to grind also, send me a PM.

Perhaps you need an exorcist as you also stated that you have conversations with St. Faustina?

Another ad hominem. Really, JMJSHJ? Send a PM.

 

[SummitJim]

Getting back on track to the original posting, I am a member of a rather strong union which generally defends the employee. The action of the union in this story is to be commended as it shows that as a union representing employees in a Catholic environment, the Catholic values need to be upheld. I am a little surprised by their action, but it gives them a lot of cred.

 

[Elizabeth502]

All of this nonsense is OT. If you have an axe to grind also, send me a PM.

No. You don’t get this. You attack everyone publicly, but accept no public accountability for your words. If you act mysterious, provcative, insult posters publicly, refer to their serious statements in a mocking way, and call them “nonsense,” and then throw down a public gauntlet, you need to explain yourself publicly, not privately.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Getting back on track to the original posting, I am a member of a rather strong union which generally defends the employee. The action of the union in this story is to be commended as it shows that as a union representing employees in a Catholic environment, the Catholic values need to be upheld. I am a little surprised by their action, but it gives them a lot of cred.

I am more than a little surprised. As I and some others said earlier, it goes against the cynically political way unions have been proceeding in many States. I do agree that the response is more in keeping with the consistent principles supposedly represented by unions.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Could you please tell me which part of my post is not consistent? Please be specific.

Simply put, you don’t agree with the actions that the school and the Bishop have taken with Carla Hale.

You need to re-read Mark’s post that I put on my previous post which shows Catholic teaching completely justifying and substantiating what they did as moral and correct.

 

[NeedsMercy]

Simply put, you don’t agree with the actions that the school and the Bishop have taken with Carla Hale.

You need to re-read Mark’s post that I put on my previous post which shows Catholic teaching completely justifying and substantiating what they did as moral and correct.

You need to re-read my post and tell me where you found a statement saying that I don’t agree with the bishop.

 

[JMJSHJ]

You need to re-read my post and tell me where you found a statement saying that I don’t agree with the bishop.

Are these posts enough proof that you don’t agree with the Bishop?

The fact that Ms. Hale had a lesbian partner was made public not by the obit, but by someone who anonymously ratted her out to the diocese. A real class act. As Mr. Tootle noted, “neither the teacher contract nor the diocesan policy specifically bound Hale, a Methodist, to abide by church tenets or to practice Catholicism”. Legally, that says it all.

Bishop Campbell said that “morality clauses such as the one in Hale’s contract have been common in Catholic dioceses for years because of the belief that employees who represent the church or teach in a church organization should respect its moral tenets and other teachings”. I do not see any evidence that Ms. Hale did not respect the tenets of the Church. She certainly didn’t protest outside the school with a sandwich board reading something like “Catholic Church Hates Gays”. She did not advocate that homosexuality be practiced by her students. I would like to see the text of the “morals clause” that the Bishop references. You say “If you cannot obide by morality clauses then don’t work there”. Frankly, if the diocese wanted Ms. Hale to abandon her Methodist faith, renounce her lesbianism and embrace all dogma and teachings of Catholicism, they shouldn’t have hired her in the first place, or am I stating the obvious?

Finally, you note that “To be honest if there is any unmarried teacher living in a non-chaste relationship I think they should be canned regardless of their orientation.” You might want to can the straight person, too, but Catholicism believes that homosexual sex is much worse than heterosexual sex outside of marriage, i.e., a bigger sin.

In what way did Ms. Hale “teach” against the Church? If she did “teach” lesbianism to students, then yes, that **would ** be cause for dismissal since that would be disrespecting her employer. But I don’t think a woman’s first name in an obit qualifies for receiving the same penalty.

In the statement “So no, the Church does not treat etc.”, it appears that you are using your previous paragraph to prove that the Church **does ** exhibit love and compassion. I do not think that this was successfully done. I think that, in this situation, the Church does not only hate the “sin” , it also hates the “sinner”.

“Someone with a tender conscience”? Puh-leeze! You have absolutely no evidence of that. How do you know that it wasn’t a person with a grudge? You say that “children deserve better than to be exposed to this…” You can hardly say that children were “exposed” to her being gay: for almost 20 years, with the exception of a few very close co-workers, no one knew of her sexual orientation, except maybe the anonymous person with a “tender conscience”. Perhaps I shouldn’t have used the expression “ratted out”. But I could say that she was outed without anyone knowing she was in…

Oh, and by the way, will the Bishop do a hard-target search to find out the names of her friends who “enabled” Ms. Hale in her gayness? They, too, have sinned, have they not?

Quick, give me a name enclosed in parentheses in one of today’s obits. (Just messin’ with ya, man) If I gave you the impression that I can’t read an obit, you’re in for a surprise. Seriously, the mystery letter was written—allegedly—by a parent. In an article on nbc4i.com, there appeared the following:

“According to Hale’s attorney, a student at the school had asked her mother to pray for Hale because she had recently lost her mother. The student’s mother then noticed the obituary, and wrote an anonymous letter to the Catholic Diocese of Columbus. Hale was later fired a week and a half later, on Holy Thursday, March 28.”

That’s even worse than just being “anonymous”! She (if there is a “she”) is simply a coward. If she’s so Catholic, why doesn’t she stand up publicly and witness the faith?

“He said Hale violated a teacher contract and Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus policy that prohibits immoral behavior and requires employees to follow general church tenets.”

There should be a definition of “immoral behavior” in the contract. But “immoral” is so relative. What is immoral to the Diocese is not necessarily immoral to Methodists or anyone else. (I should add that the Methodists are split over this issue. There is no one teaching on the subject. But then the Methodists were split over slavery too.)

Now someone has to figure out exactly which of the Church’s tenets are “general”?

“Living with someone you are not married to” and “listing them etc.” are not ways of violating Church teaching. Oh, wait, am I to assume they are engaging in sex too?

Where exactly is the “nonsense” in my post? I **did not ** say that Ms. Hale was fired for being Methodist, etc. What I am saying is this: If the Diocese feels so strongly about its employees abiding by “the rules”, why don’t they explicitly say that in their contracts? If you don’t sign the contract, you don’t get hired.