Lesbian Teacher at Ohio Catholic School Won't Get Her Job Back

[aemcpa]

It was an example to point out how ludicrous the statement that being gay is okay, but “gay actions” are immoral and an offense to God. Because would you honestly say that being black is okay but acting like a black person isn’t?

There is no such thing as “acting like a black person”. You are conflating two unrelated traits and treading on racism in doing so.

 

[Country_Gal]

“Acting like a black person”???

Ya know, bro, like talkin’ jive, chillin’, listenin’ ta hip-hop and feelin’ da groove. Dem white folk ain’t what’s happenin’, man. Only brothers know da groove…

 

[RandomRhino]

There is no such thing as “acting like a black person”. You are conflating two unrelated traits and treading on racism in doing so.

But, but, didn’t I say it’s fine if you’re a black person… just don’t do things that black people enjoy much more than any other race or only black people can do! Want some examples? Celebrate Kwanzaa. Talk about their African heritage. Avidly support black rights. Because it’s still wrong for Latinos, but that’s okay, they don’t do it as much as black people so it’s not that big of a deal for them to abstain from those practices.

Let me try this example. It’s fine and all that you’re attracted to Asian guys, just don’t you DARE act on that attraction because sex with Asian guys is completely immoral and an offense against God! Even if that Asian guy is completely fine with it and it’s a consensual relationship made to foster love.

But since you’re ONLY interested in Asian guys, you have a choice between celibacy and celibacy if you want to remain on God’s good list.

 

[aemcpa]

But, but, didn’t I say it’s fine if you’re a black person… just don’t do things that black people enjoy much more than any other race or only black people can do! Want some examples? Celebrate Kwanzaa. Talk about their African heritage. Avidly support black rights. Because it’s still wrong for Latinos, but that’s okay, they don’t do it as much as black people so it’s not that big of a deal for them to abstain from those practices.

Let me try this example. It’s fine and all that you’re attracted to Asian guys, just don’t you DARE act on that attraction because sex with Asian guys is completely immoral and an offense against God! Even if that Asian guy is completely fine with it and it’s a consensual relationship made to foster love.

But since you’re ONLY interested in Asian guys, you have a choice between celibacy and celibacy if you want to remain on God’s good list.

Homosexual is not a race. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

 

[RandomRhino]

Homosexual is not a race. You’re barking up the wrong tree.

It’s an ANALOGY. :doh2: Let me attempt to explain (even though I know you’ll reject everything and say “it’s not the same, homosexuals are destroying the fabric of our traditional society!”).

Let me try this example. It’s fine and all that you’re attracted to Asian guys, just don’t you DARE act on that attraction because sex with Asian guys is completely immoral and an offense against God! Even if that Asian guy is completely fine with it and it’s a consensual relationship made to foster love.

But since you’re ONLY interested in Asian guys, you have a choice between celibacy and celibacy if you want to remain on God’s good list.

Most gay people are attracted to one gender, similar to how this hypothetical (let’s call her Alice) is attracted to one single race: Asian men. It’s okay to be attracted to the same gender, says you (I assume you think it’s okay, if not we have a lot more issues to sort out). It’s okay to only be attracted to Asian men, says the hypothetical.

But dating someone of the same sex, kissing, getting married, and having sex with them is immoral, says you. But dating Asian men, kissing, getting married, and having sex with Asian men is immoral, says the hypothetical.

Since you’re not heterosexual, bisexual, pansexual, etc., you’re not able to feel an attraction to anyone other than your own sex. Since Alice’s type is not for white, Latino, black, Native American, nor Pacific Islander men, she’s not able to feel an attraction to anyone outside of that Asian men group.

Since you’re not attracted to someone who’s female, you must be celibate or face the judgment of an angry, conservative God, says you. Since you’re not attracted to someone who’s not Asian, you must be celibate or face the judgment of an angry, conservative God, says the hypothetical.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Show me scientific proof that homosexuality is malevolent and dangerous to gay people.

You can’t stop having gay sex and suddenly become straight.

First off, science can’t prove anything or anyone is malevolent because malevolent is related to causing or doing evil and science does not deal with qualitative reality. Science is not equipped to make value judgements of any sort (moral, pragmatic, aesthetic), nor can these be assessed using any scientific method.

Second, I never claimed homosexuality is malevolent, nor did I even imply that it was. My post was intended to counter an apparent claim of yours that behaviours should be tolerated for the sake of love. My question to you was whether that “rule” would include malevolent behaviours, as well. It was a philosophical point wondering if you intended the toleration to be “in principle” or merely under some conditions.

There is, by the way, strong evidence that homosexual behaviour is dangerous to gay people (men in particular) and that has been the topic of discussion on many threads. However, this is not at issue, since a behaviour being dangerous does not make it immoral, necessarily. I don’t recall making such a claim, in any case.

As to, “You can’t stop having gay sex and suddenly become straight,” neither can alcoholics stop having drinks and suddenly become “free” of alcoholism. So what? It is a complicated issue, but a strong proclivity to something doesn’t entail the object of that proclivity is morally acceptable, nor that it is anybody’s right. An alcoholic does not have a right to alcohol merely because s/he has a strong inclination towards it.

If “being gay” engenders certain rights because of a strong proclivity, then I fail to see why any behaviour based inclination shouldn’t likewise be accorded similar civil rights, risks notwithstanding.

As to your demand for evidence, show the scientific proof that being “gay” is a physiological “fact” and not an orientation that, like addiction, could have been the result of a series of choices and behaviours that led to the current state.

You can’t stop having gay sex and suddenly become straight.

Revisited:

Apparently not even if you wanted to in California and, shortly, in New Jersey; it would be illegal.

Also, apparently, it can work the other way around, where individuals who have lived 30 or 40 years with no indication of being gay, suddenly coming to an unexpected realization that they are gay. Funny, I’ve never heard of that happening with skin colour. A Caucasian man or woman waking up one morning as Asian or Aborigine? Unimaginable!

 

[JJPeachum]

I think this is one of the most misunderstood stories of the year.

Quite frankly, I think she should not have been fired. She did not speak about this relationship to any of her students, nor was she an advocate for homosexuality within the school. In fact, none of the students had any idea that she was in a relationship with another woman until she was fired. Once she had been fired, she did not contact the media, either, that was done by outraged parents and alumni of the high school.

There have been several comments so far on the thread regarding Ms. Hale’s “flaunting” of her relationship or “making it public.” Those comments are ridiculous. The partner’s first name was listed as a parenthetical in Ms. Hale’s mother’s obituary and nothing more. That is hardly “flaunting,” and indeed, had her partner’s name been “Pat” or “Chris” or “Alex” or some other gender non-specific name, the obituary would have passed without notice. Furthermore, the Diocese was informed of this by an anonymous letter from an “outraged” parent, albeit not one outraged enough to have the decency and conviction of ascribing his or her own name.

Ms. Hale served the school loyally for decades, and even when she was fired and filed a lawsuit, the purpose of the suit was not to raise hell or bleed the Diocese for discrimination money, it was to get her job back and nothing else. That the Diocese settled with her is good and appropriate.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I think this is one of the most misunderstood stories of the year.

Quite frankly, I think she should not have been fired. She did not speak about this relationship to any of her students, nor was she an advocate for homosexuality within the school. In fact, none of the students had any idea that she was in a relationship with another woman until she was fired. Once she had been fired, she did not contact the media, either, that was done by outraged parents and alumni of the high school.

There have been several comments so far on the thread regarding Ms. Hale’s “flaunting” of her relationship or “making it public.” Those comments are ridiculous. The partner’s first name was listed as a parenthetical in Ms. Hale’s mother’s obituary and nothing more. That is hardly “flaunting,” and indeed, had her partner’s name been “Pat” or “Chris” or “Alex” or some other gender non-specific name, the obituary would have passed without notice. Furthermore, the Diocese was informed of this by an anonymous letter from an “outraged” parent, albeit not one outraged enough to have the decency and conviction of ascribing his or her own name.

Ms. Hale served the school loyally for decades, and even when she was fired and filed a lawsuit, the purpose of the suit was not to raise hell or bleed the Diocese for discrimination money, it was to get her job back and nothing else. That the Diocese settled with her is good and appropriate.

These are my sentiments also. I’m saddened by the whole situation, and I think that the Church could have handled it in a more constructive manner. Nowhere do we know that she was acting sexually in her relationship!

 

[ronaldmiller]

I am utterly disgusted and morally outraged at people who are so judgmental at the parent who wrote this letter. The level of vitriol that has been levelled at this parent is all the proof needed to justify an anonymous letter.

Furthermore, while no one prior to the funeral may have known about the sinful relationship, the fact is, it was not disputed by Carla Hale afterwards and its for THAT reason why she deserved to be fired.

Don’t agree with Catholicism? Don’t work in the school. Its so simple.

 

[acacia12]

not an attack but an observation; you appear to be, as so many now are, a victim of the media and “new” value system which stresses “tolerance” for all manor of behavior, particularly in the sexual arena. as Catholics we do not “tolerate” sexual disorder. we accept that it exist and pray for such people to come to God and repent. we can not “tolerate” such a person influencing our children. as a youth i was subject to a great deal of immoral thinking and was led astray. i have since repented and fully accept what the Church teaches. i do not allow the current popular “morality” influence me any longer.

Me too

 

[Joe_5859]

I think this is one of the most misunderstood stories of the year.

Quite frankly, I think she should not have been fired. She did not speak about this relationship to any of her students, nor was she an advocate for homosexuality within the school. In fact, none of the students had any idea that she was in a relationship with another woman until she was fired. Once she had been fired, she did not contact the media, either, that was done by outraged parents and alumni of the high school.

There have been several comments so far on the thread regarding Ms. Hale’s “flaunting” of her relationship or “making it public.” Those comments are ridiculous. The partner’s first name was listed as a parenthetical in Ms. Hale’s mother’s obituary and nothing more. That is hardly “flaunting,” and indeed, had her partner’s name been “Pat” or “Chris” or “Alex” or some other gender non-specific name, the obituary would have passed without notice. Furthermore, the Diocese was informed of this by an anonymous letter from an “outraged” parent, albeit not one outraged enough to have the decency and conviction of ascribing his or her own name.

Ms. Hale served the school loyally for decades, and even when she was fired and filed a lawsuit, the purpose of the suit was not to raise hell or bleed the Diocese for discrimination money, it was to get her job back and nothing else. That the Diocese settled with her is good and appropriate.

I agree that the reports that paint the teacher as some sort of lesbian crusader are severely overblown. She didn’t seek this out. And her lawsuit wasn’t about sticking it to the Diocese or making a statement but rather simply about getting her job back. There is no need to paint her as some evil villain who is out to destroy the Church and further the gay agenda. The facts of the case do not support such thinking. Thank you for spelling out those details fairly and succinctly.

That said, the Diocese took the only action they possibly could in the situation. The teachers sign a specific contract for their employment (a contract which exists for a very good reason). The Catholic schools cannot just pick and choose how they choose to apply the requirements of the contract. If they did, the contract would be meaningless. Even if the manner in which they became aware of these things is not ideal, they cannot simply “un-know” what has been brought to their attention. They have to act on the information.

I don’t think any of us should be jumping up and down for joy over someone losing their job. But just because an action is taken that is not ideal for everyone involved doesn’t mean it’s not also the best course of action to be taken in the situation.

 

[Joe_5859]

These are my sentiments also. I’m saddened by the whole situation, and I think that the Church could have handled it in a more constructive manner. Nowhere do we know that she was acting sexually in her relationship!

Exactly how could the Church have handled it better? Ignore the information and hope it goes away?

 

[Julian_Bashir]

These are my sentiments also. I’m saddened by the whole situation, and I think that the Church could have handled it in a more constructive manner. Nowhere do we know that she was acting sexually in her relationship!

You can’t be that naive. Don;t you think she would have protested the decision o
the basis of it NOT being sexual if it hadn’t?

That is the easiest solution to the whole story, and she didn’t claim otherwise.

We can debate how to handle something, but only with reasonable opinions that don’t insult people’s intelligence, which yours clearly does.

 

[JJPeachum]

I am utterly disgusted and morally outraged at people who are so judgmental at the parent who wrote this letter. The level of vitriol that has been levelled at this parent is all the proof needed to justify an anonymous letter.

Judgmental? As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of decency. As Christians we are called to personally take a stand for our Faith and suffer the consequences, and if this parent was truly concerned about Carla Hale inflicting her lesbian agenda on the students of BWHS they would have done so openly, not cowered in ignoble anonymity. Christ did not call us to live out our Faith except when we might be exposed to vitriol.

Furthermore, while no one prior to the funeral may have known about the sinful relationship, the fact is, it was not disputed by Carla Hale afterwards and its for THAT reason why she deserved to be fired.

So she deserved to be fired for telling the truth? You confuse me here.

Don’t agree with Catholicism? Don’t work in the school. Its so simple.

So if she were in a heterosexual relationship that took place outside the bounds of marriage, should she have been fired? If she had spoke about her personal doubts regarding Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception? What if she openly expressed support for the death penalty or the Iraq War? Should any of these things resulted in her termination? They’re all part of Catholicism too.

 

[Julian_Bashir]

Judgmental? As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of decency. As Christians we are called to personally take a stand for our Faith and suffer the consequences, and if this parent was truly concerned about Carla Hale inflicting her lesbian agenda on the students of BWHS they would have done so openly, not cowered in ignoble anonymity. Christ did not call us to live out our Faith except when we might be exposed to vitriol.

So she deserved to be fired for telling the truth? You confuse me here.

So if she were in a heterosexual relationship that took place outside the bounds of marriage, should she have been fired? If she had spoke about her personal doubts regarding Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception? What if she openly expressed support for the death penalty or the Iraq War? Should any of these things resulted in her termination? They’re all part of Catholicism too.

If the person persisted in opposing by their word or actions dogmatic or doctrinal teachings of the Church (the Iraq War? Please…), then they have no place teaching in a Catholic school. That was already addressed earlier in the topic.

 

[ronaldmiller]

Judgmental? As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of decency. As Christians we are called to personally take a stand for our Faith and suffer the consequences, and if this parent was truly concerned about Carla Hale inflicting her lesbian agenda on the students of BWHS they would have done so openly, not cowered in ignoble anonymity. Christ did not call us to live out our Faith except when we might be exposed to vitriol.

Prudence is also a virtue and the fact that you judge her so negatively is reinforcing the proof that she is wise to keep her identity a secret.

So she deserved to be fired for telling the truth? You confuse me here.

No she deserved to be fired for violating her contract.

So if she were in a heterosexual relationship that took place outside the bounds of marriage, should she have been fired?

You mean being shacked up? Yes and there has been cases where a unmarried teacher who gets pregnant gets fired.

What if she openly expressed support for the death penalty or the Iraq War? Should any of these things resulted in her termination? They’re all part of Catholicism too.

A Catholic can support the Death Penalty within the confines of Catholic teaching. The Iraq War is not Catholic teaching.

 

[Joe_5859]

Judgmental? As far as I am concerned, it is a matter of decency. As Christians we are called to personally take a stand for our Faith and suffer the consequences, and if this parent was truly concerned about Carla Hale inflicting her lesbian agenda on the students of BWHS they would have done so openly, not cowered in ignoble anonymity. Christ did not call us to live out our Faith except when we might be exposed to vitriol.

So she deserved to be fired for telling the truth? You confuse me here.

So if she were in a heterosexual relationship that took place outside the bounds of marriage, should she have been fired? If she had spoke about her personal doubts regarding Transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception? What if she openly expressed support for the death penalty or the Iraq War? Should any of these things resulted in her termination? They’re all part of Catholicism too.

Yes, a teacher cohabitating in a heterosexual relationship would also be in violation of the contract and would also be fired. This has happened in several Catholic schools that I have heard of. It just doesn’t draw as many headlines.

Again, I ask, what other action could have been taken? Should the school have ignored the contract that was in place? If so, then why bother having it in the first place.

Just because a decision is the hard decision does not mean it isn’t the right one. I just don’t see what else they could have done.

 

[EdmundPaul]

given that the school was threatened by activists and needed addtional security and police patrols I am very glad the parent was allowed to remain anonymous-
by their fruits…
I also note how the parents of the 14 year old victim in the Florida Kaitlyn Hunt were publicly villified had their address posted online etc

 

[Brendan]

Yes, a teacher cohabitating in a heterosexual relationship would also be in violation of the contract and would also be fired. This has happened in several Catholic schools that I have heard of. It just doesn’t draw as many headlines.
.

I personally know of a teacher who was divorced and ‘remarried’ outside of the Church without a decree of Nulity.

That happened over the summer and his contract was not renewed for the following school year.

So yes, u are correct, it happens to heterosexuals, it just does not get the press time this issue did