Lesbian Teacher at Ohio Catholic School Won't Get Her Job Back

It would be good if we caught and dealt with every instance of scandalous sin among our Catholic educators. Unfortunately, that doesn’t happen.

However, do we say that we should punish bank robbers because some bank robbers get away with their crimes and get to live it up on the proceeds?

Sad but true Didascalia. I notice from your other posts that you live in Ireland I do also :shamrock2:] which has been severly wouned by “sexual misconduct”. Non of those wounds were inflicted by its homosexual/lesbian members, neither were they inflicted by the layity.
I pray for healing of the Catholic church in Ireland that I some day hope to join.

I would like to point out one interesting fact: the diocese **settled **with her. She did not go to court and lose, she reached some kind of settlement with the diocese, the terms of which were not released.

Nowhere in my post did I accuse you of any of those things. :shrug:

I brought up gay marriage in connection with the teacher who was fired. I was mis-remembering the details of the case. She does not appear to have attempted marriage. My apologies.

My point still stands, though. Her relationship became publicly known. If it were a teacher who was cohabitating with someone of the opposite sex and that became public, the teacher would also be dismissed (and that has happened). If a teacher divorced and remarried (without obtaining an annulment), that teacher would also be dismissed. If a teacher utilized in vitro fertilization to become pregnant, that teacher would also be dismissed. Etc., etc., etc.

We need to look at what is and is not happening. This is not about punishing people for their sins. This is not about judging the salvation of their souls. This is about calling our teachers to not actively live a life that is in contrast with Catholic teaching. It’s really the bare minimum we should expect from those who are so actively involved in the formation of children in the Catholic faith.

Permit me to ask a question (and this is a genuine question, not an attempt to be snarky). In your estimation, is there any lifestyle choice a teacher could make that would justify firing them?

Could you explain why you believe “tolerance” to be an absolute value? It does not seem to be obviously so. A carpenter, interested in precision, must be intolerant of error and would not tolerate measurements that are off by inches or feet when building a house. The quality of craftsmanship and the safety of those living in the house would be compromised.

When it comes to moral good, please explain why we should not be like the carpenter and be intolerant of sin and evil? The moral well-being of those in our care is at stake, yet you are arguing that concern for the moral well-being of others should be outweighed by the need to be tolerant of the sins of some. Why should it? You have made no case except echoing the amoral and ill-considered cry for tolerance.

We would not tolerate drunkenness behind the wheel of a vehicle or tolerate tax evasion, why is sexual behaviour a special case where tolerance must be applied without limit?

It is not clear to me that this is true. We can be compassionate and caring towards individuals but still recognize that their choices in life can be harmful to themselves and, in particular, influence negatively children that are in proximity to these individuals.

The Church’s position is that homosexual behaviour is immoral. If someone is “struggling” with that truth, then it would be very important that these individuals come to terms with how and why they cannot abide by that truth and because this is a morally important issue, the “struggle” they are having should be resolved away from morally vulnerable children.

We can recognize that individuals with other moral struggles (pedophilia, child pornography, drug addiction, alcoholism, etc.) need to be treated compassionately, without having to concede that these individuals should be allowed to teach or unduly influence children and young adults.

Why are you not promoting the same “tolerance” for drug abusers, pedophiles or child pornographers? Is it because you don’t agree that same sex behaviour is immoral? Is it because you believe same sex orientation is beyond a person’s control? Is it because you view same sex behaviour as harmless?

This would be generally true about every behaviour that is defined as a sin by the Church. If child pornography is called a sin, there is a danger that child pornographers will leave. If theft is a sin, there is a danger that thieves will leave. John the Baptist called for all to “repent” in order to enter the Kingdom. Anyone who sins is a slave to sin. Jesus came to free us from sin. It is not a both/and proposition.

If individuals leave it is because they have made a choice to remain in sin. It does them no good to excuse their behaviour or attempt to whitewash it as “not so bad.” We are all called to be personally responsible for our thoughts, words and actions. That does not mean we go out of our way to put others down or condemn them. It does mean we identify the good, stand by it unflinchingly and not tolerate misconceptions where evil is called good.

As a teacher for thirty years, one of the lessons that I learned very quickly is that what you say is much less important than who you are when it comes to influencing young minds. The values you live are the values that you will pass on, regardless of what you “teach.” This young lady is living a specific set of values that directly oppose Church teaching. Those values will be passed on to her students in a multitude of unintended ways every day that the teacher herself will not even be aware of, but the students will pick up on. There is no escaping that.

No they aren’t. Would you, then, be supportive of a pedophile being hired so long as this person keeps his private life “outside” of school? I doubt it. The question is where to draw the line. The Church draws it at “immoral behaviour.”

This would be a judgement call that would depend upon respecting personal right to privacy. I suspect that if a person made a point of flaunting their sexual behaviour, they could be fired based upon the same principle.

Secondly, we are talking about two very different things. Same sex behaviour is intrinsically disordered, heterosexual sex is not. Each should be treated based upon its own merit (or lack of.)

You are not claiming that no one should ever lose their jobs over moral indiscretions, are you? Not for murder? Grand larceny? Fraud? No reason? Ever? My point is that each issue should be determined separately. To make this point clear: it is not a valid argument to insist that a murderer not be fired because someone else, say for shoplifting, was not. Likewise, same sex behaviour is not identical to heterosexual behaviour so consequences for each should be determined independently.


(…From last post)

Gay rights activists are not interested in mere tolerance, what they are looking for is legitimacy. They will not be happy until the Church declares categorically that same sex behaviour is not a sin. Until that hoped for goal is achieved, gay activists will continue shooting. It is naive to think otherwise.

Hi Joe, if the homosexual/lesbian in question was directly involved in gay activism that was targeting the body of the catholic church and its members then the school would certainly be justified in defending itself by dismissing such members, but this was not the case in this particular instance. A member of the school who was involved in illegal activity such as drug dealing or a member of a “questionable” organisation such as the KKK. In my own school we had a chemistry teacher who made bombs for the IRA. He was discovered and sent to prison, but re-employed by the school [which I had since left for university] on his release!
What is more harmful to society, a bomb maker or a lesbian?

While I agree in theory about what you say, I think the validity of her case depends on what her contract specifically states or implies.

it so happens that many companies/organizations have personal conduct policies in their contracts. they want their employees to be appropriate representatives of the organization when they are in the world. people have often been fired due to their conduct outside the workplace because it was not in keeping with the employers values.
should the church not have the right to do the same? we are not called to cater to the values of the times but to uphold the morality taught and given us by God. furthermore, we are not in anyone’s bedroom. we cannot say without evidence such as pregnancy whether or not someone is sexually active outside of marriage. when immoral activities become public knowledge it is a scandal and we have the obligation to remove the person is supposed to be a role model for others; especially our children.

Comparing anyone to a bomb-maker is not a fair comparison. All it does is cloud the issue by introducing the emotion through the element of physical danger – which of course we all want to avoid. The safety of children is of utmost importance.

But is their spiritual safety not also of utmost importance? We are talking about the eternal destination of their souls – heaven or hell; eternal beatitude with God or everlasting separation.

Forming children in the Catholic faith is a serious business we cannot take lightly. As Peter Plato said, teachers influence their students in all sorts of implicit ways. It is impossible not to. Teachers cannot compartmentalize their lives such that the principles by which they live do not ever reveal themselves. Human beings just don’t function that way.

Catholic teachers need to practice what is being preached for the message to be more likely to take root. Catholic education is not just about passing information on from teacher to student in a dispassionate way. The teachers are forming disciples for the Lord and their souls are at stake.

Assuming that the bomb maker has reformed and paid his debt to society and the lesbian is, like the one in the OP, unrepentantly still living out her sinful lifestyle - the lesbian is much more harmful to society.



not an attack but an observation; you appear to be, as so many now are, a victim of the media and “new” value system which stresses “tolerance” for all manor of behavior, particularly in the sexual arena. as Catholics we do not “tolerate” sexual disorder. we accept that it exist and pray for such people to come to God and repent. we can not “tolerate” such a person influencing our children. as a youth i was subject to a great deal of immoral thinking and was led astray. i have since repented and fully accept what the Church teaches. i do not allow the current popular “morality” influence me any longer.

I understand your reasoning Joe, and for the most part I agree with it whole heartedly, but this woman was not demonstrating any sort of gay behaviour in the classroom, she was in fact hiding her lesbian tendencies. When she was “outed” by someone to the school, did anyone even consider that this woman may have been abused by a man as a child, and now fears sexual contact with men?*. The school should have perhaps offered counseling. Our church does not persecute gays, but it correctly says that gay people should refrain from sexual contact because it is an offence to the body and an affront to god. My question to you is, would it be acceptable for this woman to teach if she was gay but celibate? There are gay celibates who have taken holy orders. Whether a homosexual is celibate or not, he or she is still gay! The idea that “gayness” can somehow “rub off” on the children they are teaching, is, I believe; incorrect. It is gay politics that must be watched out for, and as I said, this sort of publicity is perfect propaganda for gay activists who do promote the hedonistic gay lifestyle.

Your brother Didascalia

*Common scenario with gay women, many abused mentally or physically by fathers who failed to show love etc. Many have been raped and fear the male gender.

If she lived a celibate lifestyle as a gay woman, there would be no problem. I have no doubt that the school in question would agree with that, too. Which underscores the point: it’s not the orientation but the behavior that is problematic. We are not talking about a person who is simply struggling to live out the Church’s teaching – even one who occassionally falters. We are talking about someone who – whatever the reason may be – is living a lifestyle that is objectively in opposition to what the Catholic Church teaches. That matters.

I do understand your sympathy. To a large degree, I share it. It doesn’t exactly fill me with warm fuzzies to see things like this happen. I don’t like to see anyone lose their job. And you might be spot on about traumas she has been through. We are all of us broken in some way. Hence our need for a Savior.

Certainly, many of us are adept at hiding our faults and failings and not letting them get in the way. But once the news is out there, ignoring it just isn’t an option. As regrettable as it is, such actions are necessary.

Right. And instead of giving up the relationship she sued the Catholic school. Too many people use the Catholic Church as a scapegoat to blame for their sins.

Ms Carla Hale is a middle aged women previously married with three children who publically identified the woman she was living with as her partner-

another similar case here
I wish people would extend ‘tolerance’ to those who cannot accept the redefinition of sin
or claim that Catholics have no right to speak or act in the defence of their faith because a small number of priests committed crimininal sexual sins and some others failed to deal appropriately with their behaviour

As a progressive Christian, I feel really disappointed, marriage is important, homosexuality is harmless:


I hope the Church will let go of dogma which go against the Golden Rule.

Lothars Sohn - Lothar’s son

That is a big statement to say about someone elses salvation. You don’t know what will happen in the future, or even really where she stands now. To completely dismiss her as been unsaveable… that’s not a Catholic position. The Church ever says that someone can not possibly be saved.

She violated a contract that she signed and was justly fired for it. It is also just that she does not get her job back.

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.