Tolerance

[4588686]

We all teach by example.  A person that identifies herself as gay and lives it out gives a clear message to the children under her authority.

All those 8th graders reading the morning obits.  

[Guest Raz]

Um, clarification here. If being gay = having a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, then yes, it's not an action.

 

If being gay = living with and having sex with someone of the same sex, then yes, it's an action, a very public one at that, which says you do not respect the teachings of the Church.

 

Furthermore, the diocese did nothing to confirm that she was engaging in sexual activities with her partner. Sure, it's a pretty safe assumption, but still an assumption nonetheless. My partner (my girlfriend) and I don't have sex because we're waiting for marriage (and no, we don't live together before everyone jumps on that bandwagon). The point I'm making is that this was not dealt with in a responsible or fair way. It was as simple as "She likes a person of the same sex, she is fired."

 

I had a male roomate for a while, was that a sin?

[Guest Raz]

We all teach by example.  A person that identifies herself as gay and lives it out gives a clear message to the children under her authority.

 

I completely agree, we teach by example. What did the church teach the world through this action? They taught the world that if you are gay, you are not allowed to teach.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

In before the flamewar! :yay:

 

I spent a lot of time brooding and stewing over this last night. I'm probably going to sound a bit like a bleeding heart, but it cut deep.

 

She wasn't fired for being gay. That is no sin. She was fired for her actions.

 

Basically, they're a religious institution and have the right to set parameters for what they will and won't tolerate from their employees. If I worked at a Muslim school and refused to cover my head, they could fire me if they wanted to ... they're trying to set an example for the students and my choices wouldn't reinforce that.

 

But I grieve for Carla and Julie. I wish there were another way, an easier way, to uphold our morals.

 

I wonder if they would also fire cohabitating straight employees or those caught with porn. Whatever the circumstances, the policy should be across the board. 

 

So many people have seen this story and have been appalled. It only serves to push souls farther away from God and from the Church. I certainly don't imagine this went over well with Carla Hale.

 

I can only hope that the school offered her severance and support as she tries to find new work. And I can only hope that someday, there will be a better way to do this that won't cause so much hurt.

 

This is what confuses me. Correct me if I'm wrong (I am about 70% of the time), but doesn't the Church view gay inclinations as a disorder? If it is really a disorder, doesn't that mean that the person can't morally be fired for it? Would a Catholic school also fire those it believes have other mental/sexual disorders? 

I understand the liberal view of gayness and it seems at times that their arguments are contrary to the actual evidence. For example, the idea of a "gay gene" is losing support, even though liberals seem bring this up all the time. However, conservatives also tend to ignore the research. There is evidence for the notion that the sexual preferences of a child are determined in the womb. If this is true, then it would counter the idea that such sexual preferences are completely related to environmental and social circumstances.  I understand the intentions of both sides of the issue, but it seems like there is a weird game being played. Both groups tend to want to ignore the actual evidence presented and argue from their moral outlook. I get confused when I talk to religious Catholics about this topic because there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what gayness actually is. Is it a mental disorder? If so, can we really judge people for not wanting to treat this disorder? 

Edited April 24, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Guest Raz]

This is what confuses me. Correct me if I'm wrong (I am about 70% of the time), but doesn't the Church view gay inclinations as a disorder? If it is really a disorder, doesn't that mean that the person can't morally be fired for it? Would a Catholic school also fire those it believes have other mental/sexual disorders? 

I understand the liberal view of gayness and it seems at times that their arguments are contrary to the actual evidence. For example, the idea of a "gay gene" is losing support, even though liberals seem bring this up all the time. However, conservatives also tend to ignore the research. There is evidence for the notion that the sexual preferences of a child are determined in the womb. If this is true, then it would counter the idea that such sexual preferences are completely related to environmental and social circumstances.  I understand the intentions of both sides of the issue, but it seems like there is a weird game being played. Both groups tend to want to ignore the actual evidence presented and argue from their moral outlook. I get confused when I talk to religious Catholics about this topic because there doesn't seem to be a consensus about what gayness actually is. Is it a mental disorder? If so, can we really judge people for not wanting to treat this disorder? 

 

Very interesting points!

I don't believe there is any conclusive scientific evidence as to why some people are homosexual. There is however homosexual behavior (both sexual, and nonsexual) found in a wide variety of other animals, which certainly suggests that its nature, not nurture. Also there is the obvious evidence that gay children only come from straight couples, because... well that's how humans are made.

[MissyP89]

This is what confuses me. Correct me if I'm wrong (I am about 70% of the time), but doesn't the Church view gay inclinations as a disorder? If it is really a disorder, doesn't that mean that the person can't morally be fired for it? Would a Catholic school also fire those it believes have other mental/sexual disorders? 

 

Being gay is not a disease or a mental problem. But it is a state that a lot of the time can't be changed. You can't really "cure" being gay and the Church isn't asking anyone to force being straight. 

 

There's a difference between having a temptation or inclination to something, and making the decision to act on it.

 

To use Raz's example above, he may want to have sex with his girlfriend -- it's the way he's wired -- but they choose to be chaste.

 

That's a very simplistic explanation, but I wanted to respond quickly.

[CatherineM]

If someone was genetically predisposed to be a alcoholic, they still have a choice to not act on that inclination. If they instead choose to be an active alcoholic, it would be okay to fire them from their job driving the school bus.

[brianthephysicist]

This line of thinking would mean that any teacher who sinned in any way shape or form could be justly fired. We are not called to punish all sinners. We are called to forgive them if at all possible. If you can't find it in your heart to forgive a sinner, then that's between you and the big guy.

 

Raz, I have a question: is there a difference between someone that is honestly trying not to view pornography and masturbate but sometimes fails to do so and someone that pays subscriptions to pornographic magazines and frequently engages in masturbation but simply wants it to appear that they don't?

 

I'm not saying we can't forgive both, just asking for the whole "teach by example" if either is capable of teaching the gospel by their example.

[BG45]

In before it gets moved to Debate Table and I never read it again.

 

Though some of the reaction I've seen expressed here remind me of the disbelief expressed to the author of the gay, Catholic, and doing fine blog post.

 

Actually, the only time I get shock or disgust or disbelief, the only time I've noticed people treating me differently after I tell them, is when I tell someone who supports the gay lifestyle. Celibacy?? You must be some kind of freak.

[Guest Raz]

I'm not aruging the sinfullness of homosexuality, the Church's stance on that is pretty clear. My point is that we should be tolerant of the homosexuals just as we are tolerant of all other sinners. That, above all, is what Jesus asks of us. The diocese demonstrated a lack of compassion and lack of respect for their own teachings, and it left me disappointed.

[GeorgiiMichael]

The Church has canonical punishments for those who refuse to acknowledge their sins in hopes that they will repent and seek forgiveness. 

 

The Church is called to love sinners, but to love a sinner also includes addressing their sin and impressing upon them the necessity of giving up that sin. A man (or woman) struggling with pornography is just that, struggling. It is not something he (or she) is proud of. However, even discreetly living with a sexual partner of the same sex is an outright choice that is clearly sinful. I'm sorry this woman has lost her job, but the school has a right to have a faculty that is faithful to Church teachings.

 

The Church is not called to tolerate sin. Ever. The end. 

[Guest Raz]

If someone was genetically predisposed to be a alcoholic, they still have a choice to not act on that inclination. If they instead choose to be an active alcoholic, it would be okay to fire them from their job driving the school bus.

 

Considering drinking while driving would put people in direct danger, yes it would be more than okay for someone to be fired for doing this. This woman was not putting anyone in danger, and it had been that way for 19 years. The church could have used this situation as an example of how we as Christians can practice tolerance and understanding, instead they chose to use the situation as an example of how we should punish sinners. It is not a good message to send out to the world.

 

Also, I think your understanding of addiction and genetic predisposition must be a bit misinformed. While it's true that we all the freedom of choice, I cannot stress to you enough that it is not as easy as simply choosing not engage in whatever negative activity it might be.

 

"The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

 

Is this what we should do for the least of our brothers and sisters? Take their jobs away?

 

 

Raz, I have a question: is there a difference between someone that is honestly trying not to view pornography and masturbate but sometimes fails to do so and someone that pays subscriptions to pornographic magazines and frequently engages in masturbation but simply wants it to appear that they don't?

 

I'm not saying we can't forgive both, just asking for the whole "teach by example" if either is capable of teaching the gospel by their example.

 

Yes, there is definitely a difference between those who try not to sin and fail, and those who sin willfully. And as you said, we as humans absolutely can and should forgive both, and we should especially pray for that those who sin willfully will learn the error of their ways.

 

In terms of teach by example, this woman taught at this school for 19 years. She did not teach anything that went against Catholic doctrine. This was a teaching opportunity for the diocese of columbus, and the lesson they chose to teach was one of punishment isntead of forgiveness.

[Guest Raz]

The Church has canonical punishments for those who refuse to acknowledge their sins in hopes that they will repent and seek forgiveness. 

 

The Church is called to love sinners, but to love a sinner also includes addressing their sin and impressing upon them the necessity of giving up that sin. A man (or woman) struggling with pornography is just that, struggling. It is not something he (or she) is proud of. However, even discreetly living with a sexual partner of the same sex is an outright choice that is clearly sinful. I'm sorry this woman has lost her job, but the school has a right to have a faculty that is faithful to Church teachings.

 

The Church is not called to tolerate sin. Ever. The end. 

 

Impress upon them the necessity of giving up that sin, yes. Take away their livelihood in order to do so, no.

[4588686]

It's just the tactlessness of this whole thing. If she was marching in a pride parade then ok. She chose to work in a place that has really awful views of her and the worth of her relationship and so should know to be wary of that fact. But that the information came out because her partner's first name was listed in her mother's obituary? It's just completely heartless. And honestly, the absolute worst person involved her is that terrible, terrible mother who read this in the paper and went squealing off the the school.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If someone was genetically predisposed to be a alcoholic, they still have a choice to not act on that inclination. If they instead choose to be an active alcoholic, it would be okay to fire them from their job driving the school bus.

Yes, but I believe this analogy is a bit weak. The teacher's position does not require him or her to have sex with the students. His or her sexual preferences wouldn't make a difference. One might argue that a gay teacher would use the classroom to push a gay agenda at a Catholic school... but that's almost as silly as saying that a Muslim teacher would push a Muslim agenda at a Catholic school.