Homosexual teacher outed and fired from a Catholic school

[quiet52]

**
Morality Clauses Common at Catholic Schools**
cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2236/Morality-Clauses-Common-at-Catholic-Schools.aspx?utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Now+THAT%e2%80%99s+a+commencement+speaker!&utm_content=Clauses

Just a summary of the situation by the Cardinal Newman Society, which actively promotes Catholic identity in Catholic schools.

…The Columbus Dispatch points out that morality clauses are commonly found in contracts for professionals such as physicians, athletes, actors, police officers, university employees, public schools, as well as religious, faith-based, and educational organizations. Some Catholic schools require that their educators take an Oath of Fidelity to the Church and her teachings at the beginning of each school year…

 

[markomalley]

From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (from back in 1992):
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

1. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. **Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. **This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
2. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
3. The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
   Seems to me like the good Bishop was doing exactly what he should do.

 

[josh987654321]

Being a protestant is not a Sin.

Yup.

Engaging in homosexual behavior is.

True.

Publicly acknowledging living in sin with no intention of stopping such actions is behavior that can not be tolerated by a Catholic institution.

Depends how you define publicly acknowledging I think.

.
fix;10745784:

Nope, her public life contradicts the fundamental aspect of Church teaching and is a scandal. Also, such behavior effects all aspects of our life.

Where do they draw the line though?

In the case that protestants have a “lesser” standard for annulments, thus a protestant could be divorced and remarried in their protestant faith, working in a Catholic school, however such annulment being unrecognised or unsatifactory with the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that be viewed as living in an adulterous realtionship?

Wouldn’t the same thing apply there too? and I guess I am wondering where they would draw the line on what kind of sinful lives people lead that are incompatible with teaching at a Catholic School.

For example, If I tell a Catholic teacher that missing mass is a sin when they could have easily been there and they still don’t go to mass on a regular occasion, would such a teacher be required to be fired?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[mdgspencer]

Carla Hales contract said she could be fired for immoral or seriously unethical behavior. This should ease your mind that simply missing mass would have been grounds for termination of a Catholic teacher at her school.

Yup.

True.

Depends how you define publicly acknowledging I think.

Where do they draw the line though?

In the case that protestants have a “lesser” standard for annulments, thus a protestant could be divorced and remarried in their protestant faith, working in a Catholic school, however such annulment being unrecognised or unsatifactory with the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that be viewed as living in an adulterous realtionship?

Wouldn’t the same thing apply there too? and I guess I am wondering where they would draw the line on what kind of sinful lives people lead that are incompatible with teaching at a Catholic School.

For example, If I tell a Catholic teacher that missing mass is a sin when they could have easily been there and they still don’t go to mass on a regular occasion, would such a teacher be required to be fired?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Joe_5859]

Yup.

True.

Depends how you define publicly acknowledging I think.

Where do they draw the line though?

In the case that protestants have a “lesser” standard for annulments, thus a protestant could be divorced and remarried in their protestant faith, working in a Catholic school, however such annulment being unrecognised or unsatifactory with the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that be viewed as living in an adulterous realtionship?

Wouldn’t the same thing apply there too? and I guess I am wondering where they would draw the line on what kind of sinful lives people lead that are incompatible with teaching at a Catholic School.

For example, If I tell a Catholic teacher that missing mass is a sin when they could have easily been there and they still don’t go to mass on a regular occasion, would such a teacher be required to be fired?

Thank you for reading
Josh

If a teacher missed Mass regularly and didn’t plan on making the effort to go every week, that could be grounds for dismissal. However, this is much more difficult to prove. There is no attendance sheet at Mass. And even if there were, a teacer could easily have gone to Mass at some other parish or could have had a justifiable reason for missing (e.g. being ill, etc.). The teacher would pretty much have to be bragging about it in order for people to be aware of it.

I’m not sure about the case of a divorced and remarried Protestant. I don’t know if Protestants can go through the Catholic annulment process if they’re not converting.

 

[fix]

Yup.

True.

Depends how you define publicly acknowledging I think.

Where do they draw the line though?

In the case that protestants have a “lesser” standard for annulments, thus a protestant could be divorced and remarried in their protestant faith, working in a Catholic school, however such annulment being unrecognised or unsatifactory with the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that be viewed as living in an adulterous realtionship?

Wouldn’t the same thing apply there too? and I guess I am wondering where they would draw the line on what kind of sinful lives people lead that are incompatible with teaching at a Catholic School.

For example, If I tell a Catholic teacher that missing mass is a sin when they could have easily been there and they still don’t go to mass on a regular occasion, would such a teacher be required to be fired?

Thank you for reading
Josh

I do not see any of this as particularly difficult. First, there is a contract which spells things out, secondly there is a principle and a bishop. I would they could make appropriate decisions. Thirdly, Not all sins are of equal gravity, nor do they all cause the same amount of scandal.

Take each case as it comes.