Homosexual teacher outed and fired from a Catholic school

[nhylan]

Well, I haven’t read the contract. So, I don’t know what was included in it.

But since the teacher signed it, I would presume she read it. So she would have known that announcing her relationship could lead to termination.

oh yea, I agree entirely, you work for a private organization you play by their rules as far as those rules don’t trample on your legal rights.

I always find these sorts of cases really interesting from a legal perspective, seems like there could be potential for a lot of legal gray area.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m fine with the school’s actions here, but really, she does have a point: who the heck takes an obituary and does that? What kind of underhanded, mean-spirited nonsense is that?

It does seem like unfortunate timing and circumstances, to be sure, but I don’t know that it can be construed as “mean-spirited”. The parent didn’t go looking for the information. But once discovered, then what? Just pretend you don’t know?

 

[Joe_5859]

In these types of cases, I always see people bring up the point, “Well, what about people engaged in other types of sins? Shouldn’t they be fired, too?” The assumption here is that homosexual activity is the only moral standard that these institutions are enforcing. That’s simply not an accurate assumption. There are cases of teachers losing their job because of cohabitation and other issues. No group is being singled out. It just so happens that this one is a lot easier for people to notice.

It’s not uncommon for Catholic schools to have these types of contracts for their teachers. Teachers are expected to abide by Catholic teaching. If they don’t, they are in violation of their contract and are subject to termination. It’s actually pretty straightforward.

 

[Peebo]

If you applied to work for the State of Florida and omitted to inform them on your application that you had a criminal record…even a traffic record …you would be subject to instant dismissal…end of story…so why when the Catholic Church finds that someone has lied or omitted to inform the church that they are not living according to the teachings of the Catholic faith there is such an outcry…just another example of persecution of the Catholic Church these days…

 

[fix]

In these types of cases, I always see people bring up the point, “Well, what about people engaged in other types of sins? Shouldn’t they be fired, too?” The assumption here is that homosexual activity is the only moral standard that these institutions are enforcing. That’s simply not an accurate assumption. There are cases of teachers losing their job because of cohabitation and other issues. No group is being singled out. It just so happens that this one is a lot easier for people to notice.

It’s not uncommon for Catholic schools to have these types of contracts for their teachers. Teachers are expected to abide by Catholic teaching. If they don’t, they are in violation of their contract and are subject to termination. It’s actually pretty straightforward.

It is not just that it is that we are too much concerned with false fairness. We note that some sins are more grave than others. The civil law has some penalties that are harsher than others. We know that some sinful situations cause greater harm than others.

The idea is not that every single possible sin must be weeded out and and excised as if we are on a legalistic hunt. The problem is some of the current sinful public issues no longer are seen as dreadful as they truly are. That is not the fault of the Church or school that is our fault for having deadened consciences.

 

[Cider]

There is a long thread on this in the World News forum.

 

[agnes_therese]

So is Schism or Heresy considered a lesser offense than Homosexual acts? I’m just having a problem understanding why someone who’s sin is publicly outed like having a same sex partner is any different than someone who’s different sin is publicly outed? What if the non Catholic used to be Catholic? Would that person be removed?

If it were in the contract, yes.

 

[ringil]

news.yahoo.com/gay-catholic-school-teacher-ohio-fights-firing-165345910.html

We are only in the initial stages of what will be an onslaught of lawsuits brought against churches by homosexuals. This lady lied when she agreed to abide by Catholic standards, but we all know what the outcome will be.

I miss Mass sometimes, thus I don’t live by “Catholic standards”, and yet I presume I could work in any given Catholic school, if I were a teacher that is.

Missing Mass is a mortal sin, as is homosexual activity.

 

[Lucky7]

I miss Mass sometimes, thus I don’t live by “Catholic standards”, and yet I presume I could work in any given Catholic school, if I were a teacher that is.

Missing Mass is a mortal sin, as is homosexual activity.

I don’t think that would be equivalent in that missing Mass on a given Sunday is not a public sin that is repeated. For all we know, you have sinned and gone to confession. I think if someone wanted to argue “why is this an issue and not xyz”, I would think the “xyz” would be something like a teacher who is living with her boyfriend (although that is still not quite the same as being in a homosexual “marriage”).

 

[Lucky7]

Manifest and public sin is a scandal. That is terribly wrong.

Or I could have just said this. This is the difference. But again, I think one could argue that this would be true of any Catholic living with their boyfriend/girlfriend…not just homosexual ones.

 

[estesbob]

news.yahoo.com/gay-catholic-school-teacher-ohio-fights-firing-165345910.html

I don’t agree with what has happened here, I mean, what about teachers who have been divorced and re-married and have not recieved an annulment for their previous marriage? if it’s based on the above quote, wouldn’t those teachers also have to be let go? because we see that as an adulterous relationship.

Im sure there are many teachers in Catholic schools who are sinning with their lifestyle that have not also been let go.

I might need more information with this one, I mean if it were a case of her teaching the kids something contrary to our beleifs, like teaching that her lifestyle was something other than wrong, than I would understand and agree, but not with my understanding of the situation at the moment.

We don’t have the attitude of “fire all sinners from our employment” we wouldn’t have any employee’s as we are all sinners, it would be whether they are teaching their sins as something other than wrong, than you would be in justified grounds to fire them as what they are teaching would be contrary to our beliefs and whats morally right, therefore it would be right to fire her, but as it is, or what I understand of it, I think it’s wrong to have fired her.

Thank you for reading
Josh

The diocese has fired teachers who divorced and remarried without an anullment as well as a women who used in vitro fertilization and said she was going to do it again.

 

[Lucky7]

In these types of cases, I always see people bring up the point, “Well, what about people engaged in other types of sins? Shouldn’t they be fired, too?” The assumption here is that homosexual activity is the only moral standard that these institutions are enforcing. That’s simply not an accurate assumption. There are cases of teachers losing their job because of cohabitation and other issues. No group is being singled out. It just so happens that this one is a lot easier for people to notice.

It’s not uncommon for Catholic schools to have these types of contracts for their teachers. Teachers are expected to abide by Catholic teaching. If they don’t, they are in violation of their contract and are subject to termination. It’s actually pretty straightforward.

Straightforward…lol.

I would say that we don’t hear about these other cases, well, because the media is in love with the topic. It is not interested in the “other” sins.

 

[josh987654321]

The problem is that the teacher’s is a highly public sin, one which is readily visible to the people who interact with that teacher outside of the work environment. By employing that teacher, knowing that she was in a homosexual relationship, it would appear that the Church was acknowledging and giving Her okay to that lifestyle.

Well they didn’t even know about it until it was seen by a parent in an obituary. It’s not like she made it public to the kids and others she was teaching, otherwise they would have known earlier. If it was me making the decision. I would have talked to her about the letter and made her aware of the Church’s position on homosexual acts being acts of grave depravity and a mortal sin. I would than have told her to keep such a lifestyle to herself and to make sure that she teaches and practices Catholic moral values while ever at work, I don’t think she needed to be fired because of her personal life.

I meant what I listed in that paragraph, specifically, the highly public nature of that sin; and the requirement to avoid appearances of support for sinful lifestyles.

The school is a religious institution, and has the right to enforce policies related to the right practice of its religious convictions. Beyond this, the teacher violated her contract with the school when she engaged in a homosexual relationship, and as such forfeited her job of her own will. The school just didn’t learn about the contract breach until later, and took action once they discovered it. The same thing would happen for a breach of contract in any other situation; what makes this one so special?

I understand they have the right to do it, but should they have done it? As other comments have said, they have done the same thing for divorcee’s who are married, who are really living in an adulterous relationship, so it seems to be standard practice.

I think we shouldn’t encourage sin but we shouldn’t oppress the sinner either, I think this was more oppressing the sinner rather than opposing sin.

In the case of the florist, she sold flowers to homosexuals and homosexuals in a homosexual lifestyle, she didn’t refuse homosexuals service from her shop, would you say that was right/wrong? Id say it was right.

The florist was being sued for refusing service for a homosexual wedding, in which case I would be completely behind her refusing such service.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[CarolNoel]

She knew, she did it anyway. I hope she does not win.

 

[josh987654321]

Manifest and public sin is a scandal. That is terribly wrong.

If her personal lifestyle of homosexuality was spilling over into the school environment in the slightest, I would completely understand and agree with firing her, but apparently they didn’t even know until someone recognised it in an obituary.

I think it really depends on the motivator, was it because they thought it was whats best for the students or was it to make a statement on homosexualiy?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I am surprised you are asking this question.

Yea, you know me, I am very much against the acts of homosexuality and same sex marriage.

Sins do not carry the same weight. Some sins are even punishable by law like murder and divorce (in some countries).

Sexual sins carry more weight, St Paul said this. And sins related to behaviour like sexual sins can easily affect/influence others, especially young people/students.

I don’t know of anyone who isn’t guilty of a sexual sin, it’s whether they are teaching a sin as something other than a sin.

Because the lifestyle could have negative effects on the students.

Could a sinners lifestyle have negative effects on a student? arn’t we all sinners?

I judge it in the case of “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

I would hardly fire a homosexual from employment who lived a homosexual lifestyle, I wouldn’t agree with it nor would I support it and if they tried to envolve such a lifestyle in the workplace than I would fire them.

However if the work lifestyle and the personal lifestyle are separate, than I don’t see a problem.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

I think this is different from the we are all sinners stuff. This is for a couple of reasons. First, her sins became public. Second, her sin is continuing and their is no sign of repentance. Therefore, she is living in a state of mortal sin, and appears to have no intention of repentance. We do not want such a person teaching our students.

In the case of divorce/remarriage, it would be very difficult for one to find out if there was an annulment or not. Those matters are generally private and generally stay that way. If it would become public however, and there was no repentance, than I think they should be removed from their position.

I think it would be a form of negligence, if it was standard procedure to fire such people, if this is a serious matter, wouldn’t they ask these questions before employing them? wouldn’t they ask if they are in a lifestyel contrary to the church such as an adulterous relationship (divorcee’s marriage) or a homosexual union?

If any teacher in a Catholic school is involved in a mortal sin, and it becomes public, and therefore, has an influence on the children they are teaching, and they do not show repentance, they should be removed.

Finally, to leave a teacher in this type of situation in their position, would be equivalent to the Church saying that they support these activities. This would give cause to great scandal in the Church which is something that should be avoided.

They also teach that to miss mass when we could have easily been there is a sin, there are many teachers in catholic schools who don’t go to mass, they are living a lifestyle that is contrary to the church, following your thinking, wouldn’t that have a negative impact on students and therefore require those teachers to also be fired?

Like I said before, I understand if they are teaching the students something contrary to our beliefs or encouraging them to sin, but just because they are sinners in their personal life, I don’t think they should be fired, because we are all guilty of sin, where do you draw the line on what kind of sinners cannot be hired?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

The diocese has fired teachers who divorced and remarried without an anullment as well as a women who used in vitro fertilization and said she was going to do it again.

Than it is not discrimination what they have done and therefore they should not recieve any kind of legal punnishment for it, as it’s standard practice.

But as my other posts indicate, I am not sure I completely agree with their standard practice.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

She knew, she did it anyway. I hope she does not win.

I hope she does not win in the lawsuit either, I think both parties have gone about the situation the wrong way.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[JMJSHJ]

I miss Mass sometimes, thus I don’t live by “Catholic standards”, and yet I presume I could work in any given Catholic school, if I were a teacher that is.

Missing Mass is a mortal sin, as is homosexual activity.

Ridiculous comparison.

By saying that missing Mass is a mortal sin (which it would only be in certain circumstances) you are acknowledging that its objectively wrong.

In Carla Hale’s view being in a same sex relationship she denies that there is anything wrong with that. She isn’t sorry for it at all. She isn’t saying that.