School Administrator Fired For Supporting Gay Marriage

[BroomWagon]

The purpose of a Catholic School is to provide a Catholic education that teaches the students their academic subjects as well as their Catholic theology. Catholic theology is opposed to gay marriage. As an administrator there is a responsibility to know the faith and uphold it. Purposefully posting disagreement over a known Catholic teaching on a public venue using your name pretty much tells me he knew what might happen and was prepared to pay the price in order to speak his opposition to a Catholic teaching he did not support. Why did he want to work there is my question. By the way, earlier this week I started a thread over this same story:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=754731
In case you want to see some others point of view.

Well said, we and he choose a faith, just as much as if I choose to be a Jehovah’s Witness and go along with some of their more unique teachings, same for a Mormon. You don’t get in that line of work to go against the religion. Though there is some leeway, the same goes for if one worked for the Democrat or Republican parties for example, you are supporting the ideology or theology.

I don’t know for sure, Moroski may think he has his views and that they fall under the umbrella of social justice but I think that idea is in error but there are Catholics that are like that, your social activist types.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The purpose of a Catholic School is to provide a Catholic education that teaches the students their academic subjects as well as their Catholic theology. Catholic theology is opposed to gay marriage. As an administrator there is a responsibility to know the faith and uphold it. Purposefully posting disagreement over a known Catholic teaching on a public venue using your name pretty much tells me he knew what might happen and was prepared to pay the price in order to speak his opposition to a Catholic teaching he did not support. Why did he want to work there is my question.

These statements are objectively accurate, regarding the mission of Catholic education and the requirements of those employed within it.

You don’t have permission to be a saboteur if you work in Catholic education. You do so at risk to your job, as well you should. I have no sympathy for anyone who does so. It recently (within the last few years) happened to a colleague of mine. Gee, she was surprised when directly opposing Catholic teaching when teaching 3rd graders.

She was justly fired for her provocative and gratuitous heterodox instruction of the children (it wasn’t even a subject in the curriculum!), and justly will not be rehired anywhere in the diocese in a similar influential position again. (Her friend oddly told me the story in an effort to elicit my sympathy and my agreement with the dismissed colleague.)

Catholic schools are neither a teacher’s nor an administrator’s personal opportunity to engage in oppositional political platform building, or to induce others to do the same.

 

[mountee]

These statements are objectively accurate, regarding the mission of Catholic education and the requirements of those employed within it.

You don’t have permission to be a saboteur if you work in Catholic education. You do so at risk to your job, as well you should. I have no sympathy for anyone who does so. It recently (within the last few years) happened to a colleague of mine. Gee, she was surprised when directly opposing Catholic teaching when teaching 3rd graders.

She was justly fired for her provocative and gratuitous heterodox instruction of the children (it wasn’t even a subject in the curriculum!), and justly will not be rehired anywhere in the diocese in a similar influential position again. (Her friend oddly told me the story in an effort to elicit my sympathy and my agreement with the dismissed colleague.)

Catholic schools are neither a teacher’s nor an administrator’s personal opportunity to engage in oppositional political platform building, or to induce others to do the same.

Right on the money. Either we make up our minds not to tolerate certain affronts to the Church and Her teachings or we give credibility to those who disagree with Her teachings by our silence. One of the mot serious problems that I see existing in this situation is that Mr. Moroski represents the thinking of many of today’s Catholics, some people might label these people as cafeteria Catholics. Actually, in these last few years I have seen many of my old, Catholic friends become this type of Catholic.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One of the mot serious problems that I see existing in this situation is that Mr. Moroski represents the thinking of many of today’s Catholics

Yes. It’s an epidemic that is toxifying the body of the Church, creating scandal inside the Church and confusion outside of it.

 

[signit]

I think we need to make a distinction between private schools and government-funded schools.

One of the things which make Catholic schools distinctive are the values they teach. It is not a value-free environment. A common philosophy in many, perhaps most, Catholic school systems is that the teachers and staff of the school are role models for students. This applies the behavior of teachers and staff inside the school, and outside the school in the wider world as well. That is why employment contracts at many, if not most, Catholic schools have a clause which requires the employee to vow they will not oppose Catholic teachings in their words or behavior. The vice-principal of the Ohio school was fired because he violated his contract.

Government-funded schools, however, are required to be more value-neutral. And the teachers and staff are not required, as part of their contract, to uphold certain values or beliefs. Regardless of whether a public school teacher posts online that he favors gay marriage or if he posts online that he opposes gay marriage, it doesn’t matter.

I’m with you on that, regarding Catholic schools.

But you could say a government-funded or secular school has values as well. Not the exact values of the Catholic church, but universal values (community, nonviolence, tolerance, safety) and if I were hiring and firing I’d want to fire someone at a government-funded/secular school publicly posting strong anti-gay language (as mentioned above).

You could say someone at a Catholic school who doesn’t support Catholic values has no business promoting their values in a blog. But to be consistent, if another institution has a set of values (an anti-bullying or anti-harassment policy), someone who works there shouldn’t be posting something inconsistent with that, and their Catholic or Christian faith shouldn’t be a defense; if they publicly oppose those values they shouldn’t be there, as the person who publicly opposes Catholic values shouldn’t be at the Catholic school.

 

[mountee]

Yes. It’s an epidemic that is toxifying the body of the Church, creating scandal inside the Church and confusion outside of it.

This would make for a great thread discussion.

 

[ephesians4]

But the example I gave (the article from AFTAH) was also posted on the teacher’s Facebook wall, so was posting under his name. What he said was far more offensive than what this pro-gay teacher said, yet people were outraged when he was fired because they believed it was in opposition to his right to freedom of speech and religious freedom. This is true. I just fail to understand why it’s okay to fire someone if they state an opinion you disagree with. It makes me think that members of the religious right who complain about their religious freedom and freedom of speech being taken away don’t actually care about either of those things, but instead value ‘Christian freedom’ and the right to make comments they agree with rather than universal freedom of speech for all. It’s just hypocrisy. The “religious right” seem to be as bad as the “homo-fascists” - they just never get much of a chance to prove it.

Yeah, as has been implied, I think if you can manage not to accidentally spend years pursuing and living in a position of authority in the guidance of young kids in a religion(oops!), then going public in your own name saying that God and the church are wrong, your freedom of speech is unaffected.

It doesn’t seem like there’s a freedom issue here, if you are an executive at coca cola you don’t go public saying it tastes like urine or that Pepsi is better, unless you simply don’t want the job you pursued, any more.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Yeah, as has been implied, I think if you can manage not to accidentally spend years pursuing and living in a position of authority in the guidance of young kids in a religion(oops!), then going public in your own name saying that God and the church are wrong, your freedom of speech is unaffected.

It doesn’t seem like there’s a freedom issue here, if you are an executive at coca cola you don’t go public saying it tastes like urine or that Pepsi is better, unless you simply don’t want the job you pursued, any more.

I’m not saying it was unjust. It made perfect sense. It does, however, show that this idea of total freedom of speech doesn’t really exist. I mean, you can say what you want but there could still be negative consequences of doing so. Basically, if people react negatively to something you say, that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech, contrary to popular belief.

 

[Lucky7]

Yes. It’s an epidemic that is toxifying the body of the Church, creating scandal inside the Church and confusion outside of it.

And it’s much more than views on gay marriage. It really is a huge problem. I just don’t know how we/the Church heirarchy fixes it at this point. I know I have tried to change the views of these Catholics to no avail. In the past people left the Church and joined other denominations that better matched their views. Now, they want to stay to change things from within.

I do know they are hoping for a different kind of Pope that will help change things. I also know that they are more likely to go to another denomination if the new Pope is not what they want. My only hope is that the new Pope is even more conservative, perhaps even traditional…one that will bring aout more action on the parts of the bishops and trickle down to the priests and parishioners. I can’t stop saying it enough…it is time for action. Church militant.

 

[ephesians4]

I’m not saying it was unjust. It made perfect sense. It does, however, show that this idea of total freedom of speech doesn’t really exist. I mean, you can say what you want but there could still be negative consequences of doing so. Basically, if people react negatively to something you say, that’s not a violation of your freedom of speech, contrary to popular belief.

With respect, I think it probably doesn’t make much sense as an example of that. I’m not saying that because there aren’t examples of the limitations of free speech - there certainly are and you could make that point.

In the analogy given, you would expect to get fired for publicly stating that Pepsi>Coca Cola in your own name after personally seeking a job at Coca Cola and while taking money for it, and you’d expect people to criticise you, too - or at least think you an idiot. Anyone except a cola company should probably not be harassing or firing you for your preference.

That now over-labored analogy aside , this is more a consequence of reversing one’s own decisions/promises in life than the concept of “speaking freely”.

Put plainly, he lied at some point - either earlier on, or at whatever point he decided he stood against the teachings of the church, but did not resign. This is more a consequence of a lie, than anything else.