Eastside Catholic president resigns amid uproar over firing

Well, this isn’t good.

*The president and CEO of Eastside Catholic School has resigned amid unrelenting protests over her decision to dismiss the school’s vice principal for marrying his gay partner.

In December, Sister Mary Tracy fired Vice Principal Mark Zmuda, who also served as the school’s swim coach, saying his marriage to a man violated the Roman Catholic teachings he’d agreed to uphold when he began working at the school.

Her resignation, submitted to the Eastside board of trustees Monday and made public Tuesday, was effective immediately.

It comes just days before a planned schoolwide meeting Thursday, during which board members — who have been the target of persistent lobbying by students, alumni and parents — are expected to field parents’ questions.*
seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2022721364_sistermaryxml.html

Eastside Catholic School is affiliated with the Archdiocese of Seattle, but is independently run by a board of trustees.

Not good at all. I’m not saying the sister’s choice was not the right one for her. We don’t have that much information on the matter. But certainly this sounds like a victory for the enemies of the Church and will encourage similar efforts to bully Catholics who practice their faith.

Not surprising, but very disappointing. The enemies of the Church won’t be happy until we either have no schools or our schools support the homosexual agenda. :frowning:

The homosexual activists sue over cakes and photography services. They are a force of evil who will not rest until they have shoved their disordered sexuality down our throats. They do not want to “live in peace” as they claim but want to redefine marriage to cover a sex practice and raise their totally non-procreative and often unhealthy relationship to the level of the life giving power of a man and woman in marriage. That they bully instead of persuade shows the lack of a cogent and supportable argument. For them it’s “might makes right.” We are in for a bumpy ride.

Lisa

I do not see how Sr. Mary’s resignation would come across as a victory for the protestors. They are are taking it as a victory but I view it as a refusal to remain and defend church teaching. It has long been a tactic for some to give the Church’s teaching while criticizing it at the same time. And that is the impression that I got from Sr. Mary’s comments that were made public. Perhaps it would be better for the new CEO to be more faithful in representing the teachings of the Church. Time will tell how this will all play out.

Well, there really wasn’t any other way it could go, you said it yourself

It’s only affiliated with the Archdiocese, not under it’s direct command (and in turn would not enjoy the full range of religion-preserving legislation the Archdiocese does).

It’s a good move to preserve itself, I see no reason to object to the motivation but the school did not handle the case well and Sr. Mary’s resignation may placate some of the negative reactions I don’t know if her or one of her staff really did suggest the VP could keep his job by applying for a divorce but it seems to have been taken up and believed in as an attempt by the church to subvert the laws of the land.

I continue to watch with interest seeing how this plays out.

Oh this is ridiculous. Catholic school students had a sit in over the removal of VP that violated Catholic teaching. Fine, they can go to a secular school if they don’t like it. And now the president resigns. Too bad she didn’t choose to continue to stand up for Catholic teaching instead of quitting.

He said he believes the public outcry and pressure on the school and its board over the last month “is indicative of how strongly a lot of forward-thinking Catholics feel about this issue.”

“We’re not done with Mr. Z, the school or discussions of sexuality within the Catholic Church,” Sinser said. “We’re not closing up shop tomorrow morning.”

He means heterodox catholics. Doesn’t matter what you think dude, you don’t decide Catholic doctrine.

But they do decide how much support or funding they are willing to give the church, which is a powerful motivator in itself. Whatever happened to our public condemnations of ursury?

Catholicism may well be winning new converts in Africa and South America, but it’s not them that have the biggest input on the papal coffers.

Discontented offspring will not grow up to be generous in their donations and promotion of Church agendas. This can be observed today within the UK and Ireland, if more cases like this keeping popping up forcing teenagers to question their beliefs and take a side it will have effects on the doings of the Church at the very least on a local level in the USA.

My own workplace (a school) can feel this, I daresay if our Principal came out and said something non-supportive of gays (which she won’t, she supports them) we’d go out of business by next year.

It’s very sad that she had to resign, but it’s not a “defeat”. It would be a defeat if they reversed their decision and re-employed this man. As long as that doesn’t happen, then the school stood up for Catholic beliefs.

What’s the point of a catholic school that doesn’t uphold catholic teachings? This is one of the primary reasons that catholic schools should be for catholic students and run only by othrodox catholic teachers and administrators. If the community can’t support that so be it but giving in to evil isn’t an option. If this school ultimately makes the decision to not uphold catholic teaching they should not be allowed to call themselves a catholic school.

To keep children within a community sharing a common interest, in this case a matter of beliefs.

Not an option in some territories, all schools secular or non must allocate spaces for other religions (or in the case of secular schools there must be as great a diversity of beliefs as possible).

This is a matter of secular law relating to anti-discrimination and equal opportunities. Many of the UK’s best universities are supported by the Church of England, yet I see many Catholics willing to make use of them.

There is often more within these schools that unites them than divides them. My own school for instance takes a very supportive and positive view of homosexuality, yet the faculty and pupils have vented some of the most vitriolic and aggressive anti-abortion statements I’ve ever heard in my entire life.

One bad apple does not ruin an orchard, and I would imagine the success disseminating and gaining acceptance for most doctrines outweighs the one or two failures on other areas.

If we cut out everyone that questioned a single element of Church teaching well, the institution just wouldn’t exist. We’d be reduced to a small shack out in the middle of nowhere rather than the worlds biggest religious institution.

You’re confusing UK law with American law. This school is in the American state of Washington. UK law doesn’t apply. Private schools in the US set their own admissions standards. There is nothing stopping Catholic schools from only admitting Catholic students in America.

In reference to Eastside Catholic School:

Catholic schools in the US find themselves in a difficult legal situation. They want to enforce the clause in the employee contracts which require that the faith and morals of the Catholic Church not be contradicted. However, anti-discrimination laws in many states forbids terminating an employee for sexual orientation. The courts do not accept the Church’s distinction between homosexual orientation and homosexual conduct. This leaves the school in an awkward position of pretending to be unaware the romantic life of a gay employee.

However, when a same-sex marriage is publicly announced, the awkward position becomes untenable. The school can not pretend to be unaware. It is faced with invalidating the “faith and morals” clause in employee contracts, or with facing down the anti-discrimination law and hoping for a favorable outcome. The latter option hasn’t been meeting with success, which is why some schools are re-tooling their contracts to have teachers and administration classified as lay clergy. I don’t know if that new tactic has been tested, but it is based on “ministerial exemption” protected by the US Supreme Court ruling in Tabor v. EEOC.

I agree with you, Viewer. The school (and all Catholic schools) will have trouble protecting their Catholic identity, and the legal avenue to do so isn’t clear…

Then why bother having Catholic schools, i.e., if religious rights are trumped by every other right out there, then there’s no point to a “Catholic” education?

p.s. Shame on the vice president who knew better than to get married while still working for a Catholic school!

I think that is an important question. If the Catholic identity of a school can not be protected, why should Catholic schools exist?

The Tabor ruling does offer a possible way to preserve the integrity of Catholic teaching, while remaining within anti-discrimination laws. However, it will require some large changes in how the school operates. IANAL, but my understanding is that the ministerial exemption would require that the employee be Catholic, have completed a formal course of instruction to qualify as lay clergy, and then to actually work as lay clergy. I think the latter part would require curricula be modified so that a teacher explicitly link the Catholic faith to what is being taught in class, whether English composition or auto mechanics. This approach seems dicey, and it hasn’t been tested in the courts yet. But perhaps it can work.

Compromise in matters of morality simply cannot be done. Why do your comments on this and other threads most always suggest that capitulation should be the route taken? And size has nothing to do with it - least of all a Church which cannot renounce Christ and His teaching. There’s a reason we’re called the Church Militant and secular law does not trump the divine at least in the hearts of those faithful to their Master.

:thumbsup:

This is a spiritually discerning post!

Actually secular law does, as Stalin once retorted “How many legions does the Pope have?”. From the enlightenment onwards it’s secular ethics that decide how things are done, and quite frankly we do have to adapt to that playing field already.

We don’t have to renounce Christ’s teaching, by all means I teach my Children the official line. I also teach them to be realistic however, and for preservation and continued toleration of us we do need to pick fights more carefully rather than bulldozing in and making ourselves appear incompetent. And this case has made the school administrators look utterly incompetent on both sides of the argument.

On this thread and others I am seeking a more tactful approach for use. I teach religion within a Catholic school and I can confirm, the current one does not work, it just makes people think we’re “haters”.

But of course, if you’d rather we just fade away and the mission of the Catholic Church come to a rather quiet and slow death lets keep picking fights we can’t win. Let’s keep driving people away by giving everyone else the impression we’re less concerned about adoring God and more about picking on other minorities within society.

I do get that feeling sometimes, like we’re just nagging at people who are clearly not going to accept our point of view.

Just leave them to it and have their gay weddings :shrug: We have one rock to live on and we might as well make the experience as nice as possible.

Not good at all. I’m not saying the sister’s choice was not the right one for her. We don’t have that much information on the matter. But certainly this sounds like a victory for the enemies of the Church and will encourage similar efforts to bully Catholics who practice their faith.

Seriously?!!! If this case is true how can this not be good?

Standing up for principles of righteousness, morality and sound doctrine is always a GOOD thing. It shows devotion to the cause of cleaning out the wolves and deceivers from the sheep’s pen. Anyone whom believes otherwise is a deceiver and/or blinded by the enemy.

The principles and the church of JESUS CHRIST will never perish nor will the commandment to love which is the fulfillment of law. By loving one another we will do no harm to them. By allowing corruption and immorality amongst the family and those whom we love; we are not loving them in principle we are allowing the possible corruption of them to possibly contaminate and take root.

If we love them we will protect them from any harm that might befall them, maintain them to our best ability for freedom from the enemy and it’s roaring around us.

Expulsion and excommunication is a matter of the fundamental principles of love when the equation could possibly give rise to contagion and corruption.

Like I said; if this case is true then the action was warranted, because the guilty party was representing and portraying the principles of wickedness and immorality.

Praise be to GOD the heavenly father and his son lord JESUS CHRIST.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.