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.