Catholic School Boots Lesbian Teacher; Diocese Facing Criminal Charges

By squeaker

Check this out:

Bishop Frederick Campbell and other school officials in the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio, could face criminal charges under the city of Columbus’ anti-discrimination laws for upholding the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality by firing a lesbian gym teacher. (Source)

Why don’t you take 30 seconds of your life to write a quick email to the good bishop to thank him for his heroism: chomailbox@colsdioc.org.  We’ll see if his faithfulness costs him some jail time.

But take a look at this quote from the lawyer defending the lesbian:

“There are many things that the Catholic Church considers immoral, but why is this treated any differently than adultery, divorce or birth control?” Tootle said. Although he declined to provide evidence of the diocese applying a double standard, he said, “It does seem to be a situation where the Church picks and chooses like they are at the buffet.”

Zing! That’s exactly right, Counsellor. Funny how God is using the world to shake up the Church these days. Mind you, if every contraceptor, co-habitator and adulterer were fired from the school board, the joint could be as lonely as Noah’s Ark, minus the livestock.

This is what happens when you don’t preach the Gospel consistently.

4 thoughts on “Catholic School Boots Lesbian Teacher; Diocese Facing Criminal Charges

  1. Generally, the adulterers, cohabitors and contraceptors do not come out and announce their dissident positions. In effect, there is a “don’t ask, don’t tell” regime. But this lady evidently threw down the gauntlet by going public.

  2. First squaker quoted: `Although he declined to provide evidence of the diocese applying a double standard, he said, “It does seem to be a situation where the Church picks and chooses like they are at the buffet”‘

    Then he wrote: “Mind you, if every contraceptor, co-habitator and adulterer were fired from the school board, the joint could be as lonely as Noah’s Ark, minus the livestock.”

    The joys being able to explain away double standards. It’s OK for contraceptors, co-habitators and adulterers to be quiet yet if it comes to people who are homosexual they are to be persecuted.

    You just provided some pretty compelling evidence (assuming you are a member of the Roman Catholic church and would consider yourself to be representative of its stance) that homosexuals are PERSECUTED. You can’t have it both ways. Don’t ask, don’t tell for some but persecution for others.

    Ah well, this is great for society in general. It exposes the Catholic devout as evil bigots and drives people in general away from churches and religion (it’s not like the Protestant denominations are any better :(. Unfortunately people who aren’t heterosexual or can’t live lives the are completely shielded from the public have to suffer great indignity because of it, but, hopefully we will live in a stronger, more just society once people like you have been completely marginalized (mind you, do please refrain from killing people… though, I guess that’s a price you have to pay for freedom from religion :(.

    • I tend to agree that this instance suggests some inconsistency and hypocrisy on the part of the school for not applying Church teaching uniformly, although we don’t know for sure if there are other violators in the school. Contraceptors and co-habitators don’t wear their condoms on their sleeve. Assuming there were contraceptors and co-habitators on staff, they should be fired too, otherwise there would indeed be hypocrisy.

      However, there is no evidence of persecution here. Persecution means being unjustly punished for doing something that is virtuous. The firing of the lesbian teacher was neither unjust nor was her lesbianism virtuous. Her work contract, which she signed when she took the job, explicitly said that she must live a life in accordance with Church teaching. She showed herself to be a liar and a hypocrite by signing it while having a lesbian partner. She knowingly violated her work contract and was thus liable to being fired, just like any other insubordinate employee would be. That’s not persecution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
15 + 19 =