An Indianapolis Jesuit high school is standing by a teacher who the Archdiocese of Indianapolis said should not be rehired after the employee’s same-sex marriage became public. As a result, the archdiocese will prohibit Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School from calling itself “Catholic,” a decision the school plans to appeal.
According to a statement from Brian Paulson, S.J., provincial of the USA Midwest Province Jesuits, school leaders learned in the summer of 2017 that a teacher at Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School had entered a civil marriage with someone of the same gender. The marriage became known via social media, according to Father Paulson, who said the archdiocese then orally requested that the school not renew the teacher’s contract. The school decided not to honor that request, as the “teacher in question does not teach religion and is a longtime valued employee of the school.”
Father Paulson said that the school disagreed with the archdiocese and that it decided not to honor the archdiocese’s request to protect school staff and because the school considered it interference in employment matters by the archdiocese.
“I recognize this request by Archbishop Charles Thompson to be his prudential judgment of the application of canon law recognizing his responsibility for oversight of faith and morals as well as Catholic education in his archdiocese,” he said. But, he continued, “I disagree with the necessity and prudence of this decision. This is a disagreement between two church leaders of goodwill with related, but distinct responsibilities.”
[Don’t miss the latest news from the church and the world. Sign up for our daily newsletter.]
Though exact figures are unavailable, many L.G.B.T. people have been fired from jobs as teachers, church musicians and pastoral associates in recent years after their marriages were made public. Instances of a Catholic entity publicly disagreeing with church leaders over the employment status of a gay employee is rare.
Father Paulson said that the school disagreed with the archdiocese and that it decided not to honor the archdiocese’s request to protect school staff and because the school considered it interference in employment matters by the archdiocese.
The Archdiocese of Indianapolis said in a statement that teachers are “ministers” regardless of the subjects they teach and said that to be effective, “all ministers in their professional and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic Church teaching.” According to the decree from Archbishop Thompson, the school “can no longer use the name Catholic and will no longer be identified or recognized as a Catholic institution by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.” It says the decree is effective until the school “demonstrates their desire to operate in accord with the doctrine and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church.”
Despite the decree, which goes into effect June 21, the school’s leadership says it is still Catholic and that Jesuits will still be able to work at the school and celebrate sacraments there.
William Verbryke, S.J., president of the school, as well as the chair and chair-elect of its board of trustees, said in a letter that Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School is “disheartened that the Archbishop has chosen to end our formal relationship. Nevertheless, our identity as a Catholic Jesuit institution remains unchanged.”
Jesuits will still be able to work at the school and celebrate Mass there and its leaders are “prayerfully discerning how best to proceed with the process of appealing the Archdiocese’s directive.”
Father Verbryke’s letter goes on to say, “To our knowledge, the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented.” The letter calls the archdiocese’s move “a unique action among the more than 80 Jesuit secondary/pre-secondary schools which operate in dioceses throughout North America, along with the countless Catholic schools operated by other religious orders such as the Christian Brothers, Dominicans, and Xaverian Brothers.”
The decision not to follow the archdiocese’s decree was both to protect employees, the school said, as well as to avoid future “interference in the school’s operations and other governance matters.”
Jesuits will still be able to work at the school and celebrate Mass there and its leaders are “prayerfully discerning how best to proceed with the process of appealing the Archdiocese’s directive.”
The school, which posted a link to Father Verbryke’s letter on its Twitter account along with the hashtag “#BeBrave,” a reference to its school mascot, is hosting an information session for parents on June 24 in the school’s chapel. Nearly 800 students are enrolled at Brebeuf Jesuit, which was founded in 1962 and employs a faculty and staff of 132.
As a Catholic and as a human being, I have no problem saying good job to the school admin for taking this stand and God bless them for finding Christ in a difficult situation. I would be proud to send my children to this school were we in the area, I hope other feel the same
Ten Jesuits have more credibility than the entire US Conference of Bishops combined. The Bishops stand to lose in spades on this PR fiasco. If the Bishops bothered to accompany their flock and leave their chanceries they would realize they burden the flock with expectations not even they can fulfill... that is the real scandal here.
I agree. How foolish of this bishop. Does he not realize that the teacher was likely actively gay before he married civilly and was teaching at this school? It seems crazy to me that our bishops punish severely those LGBT that commit to another person rather than just sleep around with a new person every month or so. Wouldn't the alternative be far more risky as a scandal possibility?
Bishops admonishing anyone for their sexuality, right now especially, seems utterly ridiculous. Don't they know they have the least credibility in world as a sexual moral voice?
Thank you and you are so right on here. The church hierarchy needs to stay out people's beds and clean up their own mess. At least that teacher married an adult! The church needs to take care of their own sexual messes!
I like it when Church leaders stand up and do what's right, as per their given role! I am thankful for the guidance also that the Church gives me, based on Scripture, to live more morally and just, acknowledging that it was Jesus who gave us His Church, as an instrument to become holier . Indeed, the Church should be speaking as loudly and collectively as it can, especially when it come to defending the least and vulnerable e.g. abortion, euthanasia, exploitation, poverty, loss of moral integrity instances, and other perverse situations that human beings become involved. The Church (which is made up of all baptised people Sister, as you and I!) is also God's instrument of bringing about His Kingdom on Earth, and thus has every right and duty, to be involved in every aspect of human existence, after all, God made the world! Have you ever thought that the Archbishop concerned, is also aware of the sins of other Bishops and Religious in the Church in a range of the sexual messes you refer, but instead even more determined to rise up and be the Church Leader he was called by God to be! And what of the law of obedience to the Bishop, (which is not to be mistaken for blind obedience to something wrong!); what if the Archbishop is in fact trying to himself follow Church teaching, make a decision, and be scoffed and ignored at because of? Is this still right? As a religious nun yourself, do you obey any Superiors, or are you free to do as you wish? Sometimes when we follow our Church teaching, this can imply denial of self wishes, but hopefully in a end way, that will liberate us to true freedom, and commitment to God! God Bless you!
As a Catholic who's gay, although I've refrained from having sex for most of my life, many years ago I did have sex with men. (If you're interested, Sister, you might want to read my rather lengthy post). However, I regretted my acts, and received forgiveness through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. As (like many people) I continue to engage in immoral behavior/sin, I go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation each month. I'm fortunate that each month either my pastor or associate pastor, who are very compassionate and thoughtful, visit me and I receive forgiveness and consolation through the Sacraments of Reconciliation, the Eucharist, and often Anointing of the Sick.
I agree that sexual abuse of children (or any person) is not only a terrible sin but a terrible crime. A priest at my high school raped a minor boy after first getting him intoxicated. Fortunately, he was caught, and was imprisoned. Sexual abuse of children is prevalent in our nation, and is not limited to either the Catholic clergy or men who are celibate. Msgr. Owen Campion, in a recent column in Our Sunday Visitor (you may want to go to their website; I receive the paper copy each week, but also read the electronic edition each week on my kindle--I believe his column is in the latest edition) notes that sexual abuse of children is a,significant problem among Sourhern Baptist ministers. He points out that most Southern Baptist ministers are (or were before being divorced or widowed) married. There is also evidence that a significant number of married or cohabitating men sexually abuse/rape children.
Also, Sister, I'm disappointed that you in a rather crude manner admonish the bishops "to stay,out,of people's,beds..." I agree that the Church must do all possible to keep children safe from sexual abuse. Bishop Robert Barron, an auxillary bishop of Los Angeles, has written a,perceptive article about the need for our Church leaders to address this terrible problem. I myself believe that anytime there is a,credible allegation of abuse against a,priest, that the,Church must do a,thorough investigation. If the allegation is,found,to be p!ausible, then the police should,be,notified, and the civil authorities then should perform an investigation. If the,priest is found,guilty of sexual abuse/rape, he should,be imprisoned for a,lengthy period,of time, and,like former Cardinal McCarrick should,be laicized.
Finally, without meaning to make assumptions, may I respectfully ask, Sister, what you mean when you state,that the,bishops need "to stay out,of people's beds?" It's common for people who favor the violence of legal abortion to use such terms. However, it is a ultimately a,matter of biology, not theology, that a,new human being comes into existence,at fertilization. Several points in this regard. In 1963, not many years before Planned Parenthood changed its position, it published a,pamphlet, "Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness," in which it stated, " An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. " Also, in a 1970 editorial in California Medicine, the official journal of the California Medical Association, the authors (who favored legal abortion), referred to "the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception..." Also, I might add the the United Nations, in its 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, stated that the child, due to his (or her) physical and mental immaturity, should be granted "appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth..." Also, years ago I read a book, Rites of Life, by Landrum Shettles, M. D., who made a,compelling case,based on biology that a,new human being came into existence at fertilization. I think it's significant that Dr. Shettles is not a, Catholic, and favors legal contraception. Although he does oppose the use of abortive drugs. He also described himself as a,friend of tye late President of Planned Parenthood, Alan Guttmacher, M.D. Shettles notes two instances,in which Dr. Guttmacher affirms that the unborn from fertilization are human beings. I might add that although I support Humanae Vitae, (as does Pope Francis) that I favor legal contraception that isn't abortive,in nature. I would note that the late, prominent Surgeon General, Dr. C. Everett Koop, who was a United Presbyterian, was strongly opposed to the violence of legal abortion.
Dr.
Yeah, the way to reduce homosexual predation in the Cathlolic Church is to make sure our pews are full of people who have no problem with the twerking and hedonism on display at gay pride parades. In the PA grand jury report, I counted 3 separate groups of priests who were sharing victims, all of them male. All sexual abuse is heinous, but anyone who can't see the homosexual nature of the Church's crisis is just not being honest about the data. 80% of the abuse victims were male, and the percentage of male victims closely tracked the percentage of homosexual men in the clergy. The work of the Ruth Institute is very good at documenting this correlation using data from the LA Times surveys of priests.
I second Jim Babock's sentiments. How can American Bishops imagine that they still have the moral authority to judge a gay married teacher- and discard a Catholic school serving 800 children and their families- while they show infinite tolerance for transgression in their own ranks?
This is the best news I've heard all day. I'm still processing the matter of recourse the administrators have to reverse the decree. I'm also enthusiastic about the integration of those in same-sex marriages within the Catholic community and its educational institutions not only as laypersons but as employees. Taking a stand against discrimination was the right thing to do. What a great lesson to teach the children too.
Yes! Thank you! I admire the Jesuits running this school too! That’s what Jesus would do.
THE “PROGRESSIVE” RED LINE
Not even “progressive” parents would tolerate having an outspoken racist member of the KKK or someone in a polyamorous relationship (=having three or more spouses) to be teaching in their children’s high school, be it a Jesuit, Catholic, or just a public high school. Most parents would take their kids out of that school and vote with their feet. Many parents view same-sex marrige as a moral disorder, and not as an example of probity for young people. Heck, why not hire a few racist professors? It would at least make for a more diverse faculty.
THE “PROGRESSIVE” RED LINE
Not even “progressive” parents would tolerate having an outspoken racist member of the KKK or someone in a polyamorous relationship (=having three or more spouses) to be teaching in their children’s high school, be it a Jesuit, Catholic, or just a public high school. Most parents would take their kids out of that school and vote with their feet. Many parents view same-sex marrige as a moral disorder, and not as an example of probity for young people. Heck, why not hire a few racist professors? It would at least make for a more diverse faculty.
Completely agree. The school is modeling "Christ-like" behavior for the children attending the school.
The bishop? Unfortunately, recent history says he'd be more empathetic had a priest abused a child.
As a member of the Jesuit family (because my brother is one), I applaud the action of Archbishop Thompson. But I doubt the Jesuit leadership there will come to its senses.
Thank you Jesuits for providing us (and the Catholic hierarchy) w/an example of how to administer a Catholic school and demonstrate how informed conscience works. Brebeuf's pastoral approach is exactly right!
Hats of to the Jesuits! I think the archdiocese should remove the word "Catholic" from their office.
Th Bishops should consult Matthew 7. This is from their own website:
Judging Others.
1
“Stop judging,* that you may not be judged.
2
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
3
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5
You hypocrite,* remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye."
Jesus certainly loved and had compassion for all people, but certainly never justified sin or immorality! He loved the person, and forgave the sin, advising the penitent, 'sin no more!' And I cannot ever recall an event either where Jesus stood for Homosexual Marriage, believing this situation is a fairly modern development in History. Traditionally, the Catholic Church has always recognised the Sacrament of Marriage being between a man and woman - its natural inclination towards the procreation of family. So I am also wondering, why would anyone in a same sex marriage desire to work within the Catholic sector and not expect to be challenged? Bishops ultimately must also ensure the teachings of the Church are maintained, including what constitutes sound Catholic teaching or not; as well as ensure vulnerable children are not lead astray. Similarly, I recall a teacher in one of my child's Catholic schools once telling young students that she had suffered a broken marriage and was in a new relationship (defacto!) etc etc Similarly, I felt this was not appropriate in a Catholic school setting either. All employees working within the Catholic sector are asked as a condition of employment, that they should support the Catholic teaching, so perhaps this teacher in a professed homosexual marriage should simply have taken employment elsewhere. Moral boundaries seem nowadays to be continually moving, as if we must accept any type of behaviour or risk sounding judgmental etc etc. I am thus wondering whether any of the other posters here who clearly support the Jesuits concerned, have themselves any threshold where they would say 'enough is enough' - or can anyone in their view work now with the Catholic sector???
Thank you Anne Jeremy. Exactly. "Jesus certainly loved and had compassion for all people, but certainly never justified sin or immorality!" I think there is a problem in the Church today of people taking Church teaching too far and twisting it. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, rightly so, that people with same sex attraction should be "accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity." It also states, however, that they "are called to chastity". It seems like a lot of Catholics forget this last part nowadays.
Sadly James, I think many people have been unwittingly seduced by the cunning of satan, his peculiar and tricky way of mixing truth with untruth - which is why more than ever before, we need really good and faithful Archbishops and other Church leaders to help us in these turbulent and confusing times, needed to make appropriate discernment. Many here condemn this Archbishop because of the failings of other Bishops, but why should this stop this faithful Archbishop from being heard, and being the Church Leader God calls him to be? He is the one being true to his Church teachings; his faith community and to the Catholic families that attend this school! And whatever happened in this religious setting (e.g. Jesuits), that they should refuse to obey a directive given by the Archbishop himself? Here I think of, in these strange times, 'Bishop against Bishop, brother against brother'. God Bless you anyway!
Anne, undoubtedly you sin on a daily basis. Thusly, you are in no position to judge others
Yes, I certainly do sin, even with all the good intention not to offend God! But every time I do fall to sin, I don't let myself be burdened into some dodgy complacency of not wanting to get up and try again; to try and fight the good fight, for Jesus Christ, my Savior. My tendency to sin in other words, does not preclude me from attending my Mass, and especially going to Confession, needed to live more fully in Christ. But just because I sin; or you sin; or another sins, this does not mean we are justified in sitting silent when other evil occurs - thus for example, I am quite outspoken about the abortion issue, writing to Catholic politicians calling them out for when they try and push horrible Bills that want to kill babies at full term and beyond. I am also similarly outspoken on any issues where the least and vulnerable are concerned, and if this offends people, so be it. I am thus so moved by so many evils, I am prepared to face God's judgement for my own sins, because for me, the greater sin, is remaining silent on issues that I believe will greatly offend God. I also pull up my own children when they do wrong things, all the while as you say my still being a sinner, for as a mother as well as a sinner, I continue to only wanting what is best for them. Similarly, and if you are a Catholic, you will especially understand that the Archbishop concerned in this story, 'another sinner' like me, is really in an unwinnable position. If he remains silent on issues pertaining to correct Church teachings (and similar to the Bishops one might argue, who have remained silent wrongly on a range of various scandals within the Church of late!), he will be vilified for not supporting Catholic faith values, not just by his community; the broader Church, but as profoundly, by God Himself when he must invariably face Judgement as all people must do. If he thus follows his moral convictions, keeping true to his faith and vocation, and like he is, he is obviously going to fall prey to judgement by the likes of yourself Frank! Well, it must be said, that Jesus Christ, God - though a 'non-sinner' still made enemies for Truth's sake, even submitting to death, so that we all might capably know eternal life with Him! He called apostles (who were also incidentally, 'all sinners' like me to go out into the world and proclaim the true faith, and if the people did not listen, to walk away, casting the dust off their scandals. Do you think that this would have stopped them explaining the nature of sin to those they preached to, all the while themselves being prone to different sins, but yet also capable of great sacrifice and martyrdom? Please, don't confuse judging or condemning another though with attesting God's truth! Too often these days, the Biblical citation of 'Not Judging' is wrongly used to silence people who want to speak out for Jesus Christ! I am so over that misused Scriptural citation, because it can also wrongly imply, we must remain silent on evil, and this was never the intention of this passage! As baptised people, irrespective of our tendency to still sin, we are regardless all called to be His followers, to be witnesses and prophets of His truth! God also sent His son into the World obviously knowing He would not find perfection here, but irrespective did so, because He loved us, to the point of death! Call me Sinner then as you will Frank, but you will not silence me; and I will let God therefore be my Judge because of!
He condemned Pederasty, not homosexuality or false doctrine. He said that lows who lead the little ones astray would be better to have a milestone tied to their necks and be thrown into the sea. There are more than a few bishops and cardinals (Law) who should have been dealt with that way for covering up abuse.
The archdiocese is exactly right. Teachers in Catholic high schools are “ministers” regardless of the subjects they teach" and should not contradict Catholic principles in a public way. The Catholic Church has borne strong testimony in its teaching that marriage is sacramental and is meant to be between a man and a woman. For someone to teach in a Catholic institution who has publicly taken a stand contrary to this is scandalous and manifestly undermines the Church's teaching. If polygamy was legal it's clear that a polygamist would not be hired to teach in a Catholic high school.
It is not the principles they are trying to protect. It is there positional authority and dour grapes over looking badly on gay marriage.
How do you know this, Michael? Sincerely, I'm interested.
The photo in the article shows the school's name: Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. I think that says all that need be said. Were I looking for a school to send a grandchild, that name would attract me. "Archbishop Thompson Catholic High School" I'd probably not put on my list. Of course, I still consider myself a Jesuit after 30 years as an Episcopalian.
doesn't charity begin at home? we are bombarded with Church messages about being charitable to the wave of illegal migrants at the border, but when a local teacher needs some of the same charity he gets the boot. Sounds there is a hypocritical distinction between applying the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Can't the Jesuits tell Thompson to keep his long nose out of their business? Another case of 'do as I say', not 'do as I do'--hope the Js use this as a case study in religion classes at the school.
This is one of the greatest shames on the church: the bible never condemns homosexuality beyond its use as part of Babylonian ritual and that so much of our clergy is so pedantically unable to square its theology with the fact that two gay men aren't in all likelihood worshiping an idol of Ishtar in being together while wholly accepting a barren straight couple having relations together is just anger inducing. That so many so blindly accept that is even more so.
The core problem here is that the Church will not face the fact that homosexuality is not a sinful choice but a biological identity. The Church hypocritically condemns gay people who are often very decent and loving persons while tolerating, even hiding, gross sexual misconduct in its own ranks. Because of a timid Pope Pius VI, the Church has spent 50 years obsessed with the way that married people have sex while substantially ignoring the explosion of sexual immorality ("hook up culture") among unmarried people. For Archbishop Thompson to condemn Brebeuf Jesuit HS as being "not Catholic" is almost ludicrous when the basis for his decision is so contrary to the love and tolerance that Jesus taught us. Matthew 25:31-46 is usually considered for its list of six care responsibilities that we have toward others as the requirement for salvation. But it is also important to note that Jesus places this requirement of service on all of us to show toward the "least" of our neighbors. What is "least" may very well vary from person to person. For many people, the least of their neighbors are gay people, African Americans, illegal immigrants, and those who for one reason or another are deemed "losers." Nowhere in Matthew 25 does Jesus refer to membership in the Catholic Church or any other organization as a criteria for salvation. The Church is a gift to us to help us get through life spiritually intact. Sadly, the official representatives of the Church are all too often an obstacle to grace rather than facilitators.
Exactly. We need to be more actively critical of our clergy and not behave as if they are gods themselves. If for any reason that when their inevitable flaws, such as this need to put god into their own comfortable box, come to the fore having no push back upon them means such things become standing policy.
How many homosexual marriages did Jesus then attend; even take water and change into wine, that you are aware James Carney? If homosexuality is so the norm, have you ever considered what the implications of that would be, in terms of children being produced one generation after the other. If homosexuality is so good; so true in the order of things, why is it not a normal thing as any other man/woman relationship? Why does Jesus not specifically treat it on the same level as male/female marriage? Just curious how you see this issue from a biblical perspective!
Were he living in this day, assuming he was not Chaplain to the Catholics in the PLO, he would be a Rabbi on Ling Island celebrating gay weddings.
Anne, homosexuality as a separate identity is a recent thing for humanity as it's only really existed since shortly after the word itself was coined in the late 19th century and the research of Dr. Kinsey in the early 20th. As such, prior to either it was generally regarded as a non issue unless it was politically expedient to use it as a barb at an opponent. In which case the usual and very broad classifier of "sodomy" was dropped into the pot. Never mind it didn't mean just gay sex. But, any kind of sex the culture/region it was being applied to found it applicable towards. This meant virtually every kind of sexual act outside of the missionary position. That's right. Impregnating your wife using the Cleveland Steamroller method (taken from Family Guy as it's not a real thing) as your wife could be considered sodomy if you were the target of some foolish Church Militant out to make a name for themselves. Even if they were bedding every guy in town on the side themselves. Furthermore, we need to remember that marriage wasn't just about procreation in the time of Christ: it was about the men of the two families involved owning the woman's ability to reproduce. By marrying a woman you were taking that ownership away from her family's patriarch and assuming it for yours. Unless, you want to go back to first century Judea, pay the bride price and accept her dowry (this was a business deal, after all) and then die at 42 because you stubbed your toe on the rock you call a bed, your accounting of how this works just doesn't anymore.
Kinsey did fake science and misrepresented human sexuality completely.
He was polymorphously perverted and procured children for sex amongst other atrocities.
In case you have not noticed, for about 2000 years some people have been living according to a different code of practices and pseudo-science has no part to play in it.
Clearly the "norm" intended by God for mankind is marital union between one man and one woman. The biological obviousness of that point can hardly be disputed. But, then, God did not intend disease, wars, sexual misconduct, abuse of others, cruelty, and natural disasters to befall humankind before the sin of pride of Adam and Eve separated us from the type of existence that God intended for us. Now we must live in a world compromised by sin and all the evils that false pride brings. It has long been the Church teaching that the evils of disease and natural disasters, genetic failures and harmful consequences--in short, all of the bad things that happen in the natural world independent of sinful conduct--flow from the choice of world that our sin has made appropriate for us. Homosexual orientation is just another of these distortions, in my opinion, but just as we may not charitably condemn those with disease or physical and mental disabilities, we may not condemn those with a homosexual orientation that springs from genetic causes beyond the individual's control. And just as we are morally bound to help those suffering from disease and disabilities to live lives as normal as possible, so we should help gay people live their lives in accordance with God's plan of service and love as much as we are able. Instead of condemning then en masse, we should support marital unions that recognize God's intention for lifetime monogamy and support gay parents' desire to raise children. I have yet to see a single study suggesting that the children of gay parents grow up to be gay unless they also have a genetic "mistake" that prevents heterosexual desires. On the contrary, most children raised by gay parents are heterosexual for the simple reason that gay people are only about 10% or so of the population. The real problem here is that the human ministers of the Church simply cannot deal rationally with sexual issues. The struggles of conforming to the rules of celibacy against strong sexual desires leads to a tendency to condemn any sexual conduct that does not fit within the norm of one man, one woman in a sacramental marriage having sex within strict limits that favor unlimited pregnancy and minimize the value of the spiritual union that sexual congress creates. So, Anne, you and I agree about what is the norm for human sexuality but we disagree on how those who cannot adhere to that norm through no fault of their own are to be treated by the Church.
Not true. False science. Error. There is no homosexual gene.
There are two biological identities in the human race, males and females - genetic and morphological and functionally distinct.
So far, there have only been four human beings who were normal and stayed that way, our first parents blew it for themselves and all the rest of us.
The new normal is for us all to have a sin tendency which we cannot overcome through our own strength, we all have need of a Saviour.
Sins are acts, not preferences.
Acts which are voluntary are chosen, willed and personal and are subject to moral judgement.
Bravo, Father Paulson!
Were the Diocese to consistently enforce what it says is its expectation for the behavior of those working in Catholic institutions, wouldn't that require termination of the employment of any Catholic employee who lives as married with another but without benefit of the sacrament?
This does not strike me as a good-faith disagreement. This contretemps comes from the home of Vice President Mike Pence; it warrants the inference that the bishop's action is really intended for consumption on the political scene
.
“Were the diocese to consistently enforce what it says are it’s expectations” we would all have to be fired because we have all committed a mortal sin: missing mass on Sunday, using birth control, having surgery to prevent more children, having premarital sex, etc. these are all mortal sins equal to having a same sex civil marriage. There are no degrees of mortal sin. It’s all or nothing. So fire us all, archbishop.
Thank God for those Jesuits! The higher church needs to stay out of the school's business. Where is Jesus? Where is the gospel message? The Jesuits know! Thank you and thank you for being bold, brave and righteous!
Bravo, sister!
The weird part in all this is that, if this teacher had decided to stay in the closet and continue to live with his partner, probably nothing would have happened to him. His mistake, if you want to call it that, was to state with integrity his true marital status. That puts him in a better place than publicly-"celibate" priests who continue living with their "housekeepers," an appellation they use to hide their true relationships. The hypocrisy in all this stands out like a boil that begs to be lanced.
Lawrence Hansen - Truly, your logic is flawed! If a person indeed does something in secret, good or bad, how can another know? If a person's actions are further revealed to others, by his own word, or other discovery, this does not change the reality of what the person has done previously in secret. Of course nothing anyway is completely secret, if we believe that God always knows a person's truer heart and soul, which perhaps is why the gift of the Confessional is available to sincere penitents to confess what we commit, known and unknown to others, so that we are forgiven of all our sins. Ultimately, it is God we must answer for everything we do! The sheer act that the person made his martial situation more broadly known within his Catholic School Community, should not in itself be interpreted as an act of virtuous integrity, suffice the school teacher could also be serving a bolder agenda, to have tested the very commonly known fact, that if you teach in a Catholic school, you are required as a pre-requisite of your employment, to support the Catholic teachings of the Church, which most would know does not support Homosexual Marriage. Indeed, the man in question could be considered just as much, 'arrogant and bold' for publicly declaring his marital situation to the entire community as a way of taking on the system in a spirit of pride and self-justification despite his knowledge that this will likely go against the integral moral values of the institution at hand, just as a person in an adulterous affair, doing same. Of "celibate" priests you refer committing fornication in secret with the housekeeper, this would be no less a sin, than if he commits it very publicly, and the whole town knows about his shenanigans. The sin or wrong action, is distinct from any reality who knows about it! The hypocrisy for me is the fact that the teacher, who does not clearly support Catholic teaching on what constitutes Marriage, still determinedly wants to continue teaching in the Catholic Sector, offending obviously many genuine families in that school community, as well as the presiding Archbishop who is responsible for what occurs in his Diocese! Why be in a place that clearly offends and hurts people within that community? That in itself is a sin!
The point is that the hierarchy does not brook discordant messaging, especially because they are sure that their abuse problem is the gays and not their own rare asexual selves. Also, they are hitting back after embarrassing themselves trying to stop gay marriage, thinking they had a sure fire natural law argument rather than a scholasticistic one, which is essentially Catholic relativism, not universal truth. This is called hitting back. They tried it with the Sisters after they spike truth about Obamacare. They forgot that the Sisters are both patient and have more money than they do. They actually own their hospitals. The bishops property is only held in trust, although they treat it as their own.
Good job. If you want to find out how things got to this point, you need to read the book 'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90s' by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen. It is a masterpiece of propaganda.
The bishops should look around and notice that the church pews are empty. It seems that they've lost the moral high ground and have no one to blame but themselves. In the meantime, dear readers, let us not confuse marriage ( a civil union) with matrimony (a sacramental union). Perhaps we should all simply stop judging and start loving?
Perhaps we should remove the name "Christian" from the diocese. After all, it covered up for sexual abusers. So shameful that alleged orthodoxy (being a minion to some ill-founded 'teachings' on sexuality far from the core of Christianity triumphs over orthopraxis. Methinks the bishop wants an 'unblemished' record in Rome. Sad and shameful. And they wonder why people leave.
The problem with your statement Rev Dr Oechsle is that you imply that all Christians are somehow responsible for what very sadly and disturbingly, a group (large enough!) did by way of cover up for sexual abusers within the Church. The Church I belong is made up from a broad weave of family members, that's all - from sadly, 'the guilty perverts', to good priests and nuns; even Saints in the making; 'Mums and Dads'; to innocent children - BUT all united through the Sacrament of 'Christian Baptism' nevertheless! (all called for so much good, though prone to sin, some through freewill, capable also of terrible evil!! Thus what happened in the respect of the sexual abuse crisis, as you state in the Church, was completely evil and wrong, also impacting not just on innocent victims, their trusting families, but no doubt, casting the horrible shadow of implied guilt on all Religious. As easy as it might be to condemn all Religious, as one might condemn 'all men' as potential pedophiles (if you acknowledge that vast majority of sexual perversion is perpetuated by men!), this reasoning would and should not ever stand up in any proper court or inquiry & for obvious reasons e.g. presumption of innocence should be granted to all, until proven guilty!) Please, separate sin from what Jesus Christ truly envisaged for His Church! Most Church goers I believe are good, or at least try their best, and are completely disgusted at the events that have unfolded in the Church over the while. The Church and her followers (believe it or not!) are also capable of so much good in society, as often very quietly performed in the spirit of serving Jesus Christ. I sadly think this is something the Media don't always want to acknowledge, the broader Church currently in a time of great persecution, and this I think might be occurring in many Churches also, not just Catholic. This might serve I think to advance some very heinous agendas, because often, the Catholic Church, as well as other Christian Churches or Religions in general, tend to question these types of situations; being naturally inclined to pro-life ideologies etc. I remain unsure though what you mean by 'ill-foundered teachings on sexuality' held by the Catholic Church, as distinct from other Christian denominations, but would not think there would be too much acceptance from a doctrinal perspective, of homosexual relationships/Marriage. In fact these days, I sense that many of the Baptist/Evangelical groups to be just as critical of. Of the Archbishop at the centre of the story above, I suspect that if you are a protestant you might of course not understand, but in the Catholic tradition we have a hierarchical model of structure, meaning the Bishop in this instance, is held responsible for his flock in this particular diocese. His role in this story may well have come about because of complaints to his office by concerned parents whose children attend this school, and who wish to be true to their faith, for their children's sake as well. It is therefore appropriate for the Archbishop to be involved clerically speaking to ensure the integrity of the Catholic faith is upheld. His right here, should not be confused or mitigated because of the terrible sins of others entrusted in similar positions of power, but who failed. And yes, some people will leave the Catholic faith for all sorts of reasons, but many will stay, having faith in Jesus Christ. This happens in all faiths, with many people also wanting to become members as well. I choose not to leave my Church, instead fighting for what i believe in, to make a better Church. I have faith in other words, and can fortunately separate the sins of people (even within the Church) to the true Church that God foundered, and that the 'Gates of Hell shall not prevail against'. God Bless you!
Perhaps we should remove the name "Christian" from the diocese. After all, it covered up for sexual abusers. So shameful that alleged orthodoxy (being a minion to some ill-founded 'teachings' on sexuality far from the core of Christianity triumphs over orthopraxis. Methinks the bishop wants an 'unblemished' record in Rome. Sad and shameful. And they wonder why people leave.