Ship of Fools: Firing Catholic School Teachers who Get Gay-Married

Thread: Firing Catholic School Teachers who Get Gay-Married Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030715

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I am well aware that Catholic grade schools in the US have employment contracts that require teachers to follow the teachings of the Church, even if they themselves are not Catholic. I am also aware that judicial precedent seems to allow that. Here's my question, based on the following case:

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/12/09/catholic-high-school-fires-teacher-applied-gay-marriage-license/

Here the school did not intervene and even seemed supportive to an extent as the teacher was public (with staff at least, I don't know if he was with students) about his sexuality, introduced his partner to staff, wore rings with his partner, had a civil union with his partner and invited a school administration member to the reception (who attended), etc. It was saying that he would get married to his partner, which touched upon something that seems like a "line in the sand" issue for the Church like abortion (is there anything else?), that prompted his dismissal.

So here's my question: What if a teacher applies for a job saying that he/she is already in a same-sex marriage? I assume that he/she would not be hired. But could the teacher be hired, as long as the teacher does not enter into a new same-sex marriage, have an abortion, divorce an opposite sex spouse and then marry a new one, etc., while teaching at the school?

Could a teacher be fired for remarrying after a divorce (with no annulment) while teaching? Would a teacher who applied for a job at the school who was remarried after a divorce be any more likely to get the job than the teacher already working at the school who remarried after a divorce would be to get fired?

It really does seem like the school could fire so many of its teachers at any time for all kinds of violations of Church teaching that just about everyone makes all the time. It gives the school a scary amount of power over its teachers.

I think the policy should be clarified to say: no teacher will be hired who publicly supports abortion rights, and teachers who have an abortion will be fired. No teachers will be hired who publicly support gay marriage or who are in a gay marriage, and any teacher who enters a gay marriage will be fired. That way, the school makes clear that it really is those two issues that call for immediate action, and that the school is willing to look into the circumstances of a specific case on other areas of Church teaching. This is because this seems to be what Catholic grade school employment policy is in practice - with the exception of maybe some fancy Jesuit grade schools.

Of course, the Church would not allow such a specific employment policy to be drafted, because it opens the door to lawsuits (why show everyone your deck of cards?).

I guess the only question I'm asking here is whether there is any distinction between getting in a gay marriage while employed and being in a gay marriage when aplpying for the job.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

*tumbleweeds blow across the desert*

Posted by Gildas (# 525) on :

My grasp of US Law mainly stems from watching The Wire, so sketchy and not necessarily pertinent to the subject. I do, however, recall a thread some years ago about a woman teacher in a Catholic school who wanted to marry a divorced person and so left the Catholic Church and joined a non-denominational church with different rules. She was promptly sacked for her pains. So my impression is that if one steps out of line in the States one can lose one's job.

Are Catholic schools in the US 'Rome on the rates' or are they paid for by the Catholic Church? That would obviously make a difference.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
My grasp of US Law mainly stems from watching The Wire, so sketchy and not necessarily pertinent to the subject. I do, however, recall a thread some years ago about a woman teacher in a Catholic school who wanted to marry a divorced person and so left the Catholic Church and joined a non-denominational church with different rules. She was promptly sacked for her pains. So my impression is that if one steps out of line in the States one can lose one's job.

Are Catholic schools in the US 'Rome on the rates' or are they paid for by the Catholic Church? That would obviously make a difference.

It depends on where the school is. In some places parents can get vouchers from the government to go towards paying the tuition at the private school of their choice - which includes parochial schools. This is a relatively recent development, and the wall between public money and religious education has traditionally been relatively impenetrable here compared with other countries. (Although there have been court cases about it since very early in our country's history).

Universal public education in the US, although it had some predecents in places like Massachusetts, largely developed, among other reasons, as a way to protect non-Catholic children from being influenced by the schools founded by the Catholic immigrants who came to the country in the 19th century. Protestant and Anti-Catholic ideas were commonly taught in public schools at that time. The finanical independence of Catholic schools and their freedom to develop their own curricula were closely guarded by bishops for a long time in order to protect them from Anti-Catholic Education officials.

Catholic Universities, though, have been receiving research grants from the government for some time. I don't think any of that money goes to their theology departments - which is where the most high profile dismissals of professors for doctrinal issues have occurred.

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I guess the only question I'm asking here is whether there is any distinction between getting in a gay marriage while employed and being in a gay marriage when aplpying for the job.

It is all rather arbitrary, and the school (and diocese, if their intervention is requested) seem to be able to choose which situations to acknowledge and which to ignore. All it would take is one benefactor who takes issue with the situation, and the employee would be terminated.

The question I wonder is whether a person who is gay but chooses to remain celibate would be allowed to work in a Catholic school. That standard occurs even with the ordained and consecrated.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

The courts are not likely to step in to a situation involving private, church run schoolteachers when no state funding is involved and expectations are clear (as they are in the case of Catholicism and gay marriage). Similarly, parochial schools are highly unlikely to make moves that could easily land them in court, such as firing teachers for any and all sins (for example, a teacher who loses her temper unreasonably once in a supermarket checkout line.) Both sides, the courts and the schools, tend to walk very carefully around each other, as well they should. Which is not to say that there are not occasional idiots on both sides, and these are the rare exceptions who wind up in the news.

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

The courts would definitely step in here in NZ, as discrimination has to be related to the doctrinal role of the person before you can exclude. This means it doesn't include teachers.

However, it has been known that religious schools find other excuses to move lesbian/gay teachers on. We are aware of a college that had a lesbian and a gay teacher. One brought their long term partner to school events, the other didn't. The former was given the heave ho for "problems with class discipline," a bit of a mystery to all concerned. The word was that the principal was under pressure from the Board of Trustees and struggled mightily to sack a much loved colleague.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

A vice-principal at Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, Wash was terminated for marrying his partner.

Today, in response, a large number of students at the high school staged a protest

They were joined by protests in solidarity at several other Catholic schools. Apparently the termination was ordered by the Arch Diocese.

Posted by Arpeggi (# 17487) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
A vice-principal at Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, Wash was terminated for marrying his partner.

Today, in response, a large number of students at the high school staged a protest

They were joined by protests in solidarity at several other Catholic schools. Apparently the termination was ordered by the Arch Diocese.

quote:
"A human being must always follow the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were to deliberately act against it he would condemn himself." Catechism of the Catholic Church #1790)

For these students, the idea of firing a qualified, caring educator because of his sexual orientation is unconscionable. They are following their catechism to the letter. One student tweeted the Pontiff: “Hey big guy, we need you over here in Washington. A teacher is being fired for love.”

I hope he gets a sufficient response.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

A very clear instance of the chasm between the supposedly-moral teachings and actions of the churches, and the perception of those churches by the present younger generations.

And there is a thread already running on the death of "church" in the Western civilization, so I'll leave it there.

Oh, just for information: is "gay-married" in some way different from "married"? I thought the whole point was to make the same-sex and heterosex marriages the same. What is all the fuss about if they are different?

[ 21. December 2013, 16:21: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
A very clear instance of the chasm between the supposedly-moral teachings and actions of the churches, and the perception of those churches by the present younger generations.

And there is a thread already running on the death of "church" in the Western civilization, so I'll leave it there.

Oh, just for information: is "gay-married" in some way different from "married"? I thought the whole point was to make the same-sex and heterosex marriages the same. What is all the fuss about if they are different?

I was being tongue in cheek by saying "getting gay-married." Certainly many weddings of straight people better deserve to be called gay weddings than mine own [Smile]

Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Oh, just for information: is "gay-married" in some way different from "married"? I thought the whole point was to make the same-sex and heterosex marriages the same. What is all the fuss about if they are different?

You and I agree on this, for which, many thanks. However, if we had arrived at the happy place where marriages were literally regarded by everyone as all the same, this story wouldn't have arisen.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

In further news about the Seattle Administrator whose dismissal prompted student protests;

The administrator said that he did not resign as stated by the school; he was terminated. He also was offered a chance to stay by the president if he he would dissolve his marriage

For some reason he declined that opportunity.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

I'm confused by this concept of following the teachings of the church, even if you're not a catholic. I'd have thought that the most central teachings of the church were that you should be a catholic and that you should receive the sacraments. Maybe they mean 'follow all the teachings of the church apart from those ones that are either logically impossible or against catholic teaching for non-catholics'. However, removed from their original context, this might look like a rag-bag of miscellaneous petty rules with no real logic behind them.

Does this phrase have any real meaning applied to any non-dead-horse subject?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0