Is Pregnancy Out of Wedlock Ground for Firing a Worker?

PREGNANCIES borne out of wedlock with an unmarried man do not constitute ground for terminating
employment, even where the employer is a private Catholic educational institution.
This case involved a private Catholic school and one of its female non-teaching personnel. The employee
engaged in premarital sex, got pregnant out of wedlock, and later married the father of her child. The
employer considered this as serious misconduct and terminated her employment. The school reasoned that
engaging in premarital sex and getting pregnant amounts to a disgraceful and immoral conduct, which is a
ground for termination under the 1992 Manual of Regulations for Private Schools (MPRS) Institutions. The
school also argued that the supposed scandal brought about by the employees pregnancy out of wedlock was
unacceptable for being contrary to the moral principles which the school stood for and taught its students.
Contesting the validity of her services termination, the employee filed a complaint against the school for
illegal dismissal with the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). Through her lawyer, she argued
that the school had no just cause to dismiss her since her pregnancy out of wedlock was a purely private
affair and not in any way connected with her duties. She also pointed out that she eventually married the
father of her child, even prior to her dismissal.
The schools argued that the employees act was a proper ground for termination under the MPRS. The
school further believed that pregnancy out of wedlock is scandalous per se given the work environment and
social milieu.
The lawyer of the employee, on the other hand, further argued that the employees pregnancy out of wedlock
was neither disgraceful nor immoral because the employee and the father of her child were both unmarried
and had no impediment to marry each other. The lawyer explained that, in deciding if an act was disgraceful
and/or immoral, the circumstances of each case must be considered and evaluated in light of the prevailing
norms of conduct. These norms, in turn, are determined by public and secular morality -- not religious
morality.
Thus, in contemplation of the law, disgraceful or immoral conduct specifically refers to acts which are
detrimental or dangerous to those conditions upon which depend the existence and progress of human
society, and not to those conducts prohibited by the beliefs of one religion. It was to be noted that there is no
law which prohibits consensual sexual activity between two unmarried persons, or otherwise penalizes an
unwed mother for her sexual conduct. Hence, even though it is not in accord with the doctrines of the
Catholic Church, the employees act was deemed not disgraceful or immoral within the contemplation of the
law.
The situation would be different had either the employee or the father of her child was married. That would
mean that they had an extramarital affair, which would be disgraceful and immoral under the contemplation
of the MPRS for offending the sanctity of marriage, which is a basic unit of society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------Questions:
1. In no less than 100 words, what are your thoughts on this case? Would you side with the School and
that means you believe that the dismissal of the employee was right?
2. Or would you side with the Employee and that means you believe that the dismissal was not right?

An employee cannot be fired from work simply because of pre-marital sexual relations or pregnancy out of
wedlock, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The Supreme Court held that a woman was illegally fired for engaging in premarital sex and getting
pregnant, conduct her employer considered disgraceful and immoral.
One of the things that struck me today as I was reading story after story is that academics (yes, even
untenured ones) have a great deal of privilege. If this post had been written by a high school teacher, could
she be fired? Certainly I can say more than many lay ecclesial ministers. I dont say this to flaunt any power,
but rather to pose an ecclesiological problem: how do we discuss thorny and contested moral issues as a
church community in a way that approaches truth without bullying, harassment, fear, silencing, shame, etc?
We cant have genuine listening sessions with lay people who are too vulnerable to speak (for fear of
losing their jobs, for example). So certainly there is more to say about scandal and Catholic teaching on
justice for workers but there is also an underlying ecclesial problem here that we really need to probe. Are
Catholic institutions the chess pieces of the bishops, the play things they control, or are they institutions
reflecting the mission and vision of the whole people of God?
Log in to Reply
Phil Tanny / June 19, 2013
If I understand correctly, the Pope himself recently reported that there is financial corruption and a gay
cabal in the Vatican. According to a NPR story, a number of the Vatican officials are black mailing each
other with gay sex stories, and money laundering for the mob may be involved. Im not in a position to either
verify or deny these reports.
The news stories Ive heard did not mention anything about the Pope firing any of the people he was
referring to, though I hope to be misinformed here. Its hard to imagine the Pope would make such a public
statement, and then not act on it, so Im holding out hope.
Im very sympathetic to the article above, but would have to grant that there must be instances when any
employer would have to let people go for failing to meet the standards of the organization in question. If the
organization claims to be be speaking for God himself, and positions itself as the leading moral spokesman
on Earth, then surely this complicates the question considerably.
That said, its completely inexcusable that there be one standard for lower ranking workers, and another
standard for higher ranking workers. If anything, the higher ranking workers should be held to a higher
standard, not a lower one.
To me, the core question is how one defines the Church.
If one defines the Catholic Church to be the self appointed leadership and its perspectives, then the
credibility of the Church will forever be seriously vulnerable to the human weaknesses of that small group of
people.
If on the other hand, one defines the Catholic Church to be the sum total of the beliefs and lives of over a
billion Catholics, a tapestry of rich and complex diversity, then the failings of any small group of Catholics
such as the leadership can be put in to the context of the fact that we are all flawed creatures struggling with
imperfection. In this case, the failing of individuals would fall upon the individuals involved, and not the
Church as a whole.
Log in to Reply
paccer / June 19, 2013

Of the five people you mention at the top of your post, four were K-8 teachers, and one was a high school
teacher. But your post astonishingly makes no mention at all of the ramifications for the children. Yet
that was by far and away the primary underlying reason why actions were taken against those five. Theres
no quicker or easier way of land-mining the faith of children than by leaving a scandal in place.
For example, take the case of the teacher undergoing IVF. If the story came out, what exactly should the
children be taught about IVF?
Log in to Reply
Phil Tanny / June 19, 2013
>>> Theres no quicker or easier way of land-mining the faith of children than by leaving a scandal in place.
Does this include scandals at the Church leadership level? Does the principle youve articulated apply to all
those who make their livings in the Church, or only those without power?
It seems to me that any principle or procedure that is not applied equally to all quickly becomes yet another
land mine.
It seems reasonable to debate what the standards should be, but not reasonable to have different standards for
different Church employees.
Log in to Reply
Emily Reimer-Barry / June 19, 2013
Thanks, all, for your comments. Paccer, I certainly believe that our approach should think about what is best
for the children in the schools. But that bolsters my argument: we need the best teachers in our schools, even
if the best math teacher is in a same sex partnership and the best chemistry teacher uses birth control. What
do we tell our children? We tell them that this is what it means to be a pilgrim church. We explain official
church teaching and we explain that all persons are created by God with inherent dignity. I think the situation
would be very different if the teacher in question had been accused of a wrongdoing that was more directly
pertinent to his/her job. But in these cases, I think that we should be able to tell our children that to really live
up to our mission these teachers should not have been fired, nor should teachers in similar situations.
Log in to Reply
David Cloutier / June 19, 2013
Emily Thank you so much for this post I hope it becomes one of our greatest hits on the blog, because
it raises such important issues at a very broad level. The comments already suggest that it has generated
really good discussion.
In particular, I think the post and the comments indicate the damage of maintaining apparently arbitrary
multi-standards, whether based on different issues, genders, the scandalous bishops, etc. The Church as a
whole needs to think through more systematically what it means to have ecclesial and moral obligations as a
condition of employment. At a broad level, there seems to be consensus that (a) these are appropriate, as we
have a shared mission, but (b) we do not want to go the common Evagelical route of basically having a
spelled-out statement of belief. But then how to negotiate the alternatives?
I think Emilys distinction here between we are all sinners and the question of disagreement with Church
teaching is a fruitful place to consider this problem. So we are all sinners clearly could be used to justify
continuing employment for anyone in any situation. There must be a judgment about gravity here, and we
need to have a discussion about what the appropriate standards of gravity are. The question of disagreement
with Church teaching seems different to me. This is not a matter of someone making a mistake and seeking
forgiveness and reconciliation. It is a matter of someone believing sincerely that the Churchs teaching is
wrong and it could apply not only to a whole array of sexual issues (living together, IVP, same-sex
partnerships, remarriage, etc.) but also to a host of other issues. I frankly think this case is considerably
trickier than either side tends to make it.

Lets define the sides as stringent and flexible (or I could use other language, but it is alll loaded) the
point is that I think neither side is really viable. It makes little sense, especially to children, to be taught one
thing officially but to know that the teachers themselves regard the teaching as wrong and live differently.
The obvious response here as we do with children all the time is try to conceal the complexity of the
world until a time when we think they are ready to deal with it. That is, in these issues, the proper
understanding of scandal can have some force, if it is worked out carefully. On the other hand, the
stringent side faces many problems of trying to determine which teachings and what degree of violation
will affect employment. Arbitrary, unclear, and inconsistent enforcement a vague threat hanging over
everything is exactly what fosters that awful climate of fear and even deception that Emily describes.
I have to say here that my tendency in these cases is to fall back on local communities negotiating these
matters with clarity and integrity, and with a sense that not all Catholic communities (whether schools,
dioceses, whatever) will come up with the same solution. The fact is, most young students know little to
nothing about a teachers private life, and thus it is (as Emily puts it) not directly pertinent to his/her job.
How this would apply to theology teachers or campus ministers or others with more catechical responsibility
is a different question.
Log in to Reply
paccer / June 19, 2013
Emily Reimer-Barry: We explain official church teaching and we explain that all persons are created by God
with inherent dignity.
I asked specifically about IVF, since it was given by you as an example of how the archdioceses are
mishandling these things.
So, we tell children what IVF involves, and we explain that in the more common procedures, children are
often created in larger than usual numbers, that some of them fail to survive the environment they are in,
some are culled as being genetically inferior or disabled, some are frozen indefinitely because they might be
convenient for later on (if they survive any later unfreezing) and that, after all that, any genetically superior
and thriving children are planted back in the mother to see if they might make it. And we tell the children
that the Catholic Church thinks that this is all very gravely immoral, and ought never ever be done to
children.
And then we tell them that Miss Smith is currently doing exactly the things we think are gravely immoral,
but that she will stay in the school because she is a pretty nifty French teacher.
Really?
Log in to Reply
Chris Sullivan / June 19, 2013
Thanks for this post Emily.
The way the Church sometimes mistreats her employees is a disgrace and a scandal (leading others into sin
by distancing them from the Church) and a violation of the rights of the workers concerned.
In the Al Fischer case, I fail to see anything in the civil marriage ceremony for same sex couples that violates
Catholic teaching in any way. How can promising to love each other till death do us part possibly be against
Church teaching ?
The climate of fear this all creates is a serious problem and a huge obstacle to the New Evangelisation.
God Bless
Log in to Reply
Emily Reimer-Barry / June 19, 2013
Paccer, I appreciate your question very much. It is possible that we see this question differently, or perhaps
that you see it as more black-and-white than I do. But to answer your question in a little more detail, I would
need to know how old the students are before I could develop a sufficient lesson plan. And I do not think that

outing Mrs. Smith the French teacher would be appropriate in an ethics lesson, but treating her with
respect as a co-worker would be absolutely necessary.
If were talking about a high school class, I would approach IVF through larger issues of sexuality, marriage,
and parenting. We could talk about how longing to be a parent is a good desire in itself, and how the pain and
grief of infertility is not only very difficult but very common. In the face of that grief, there are a variety of
choices couples face. The Church allows for methods of fertility that help a married heterosexual couple to
achieve pregnancy by sexual intercourse, here are the details The Church recommends adoption, and
adoption is a very loving choice. Here are the barriers to adoption for many couples Some couples choose
IVF for these reasons, and here is why the Church does not permit IVF. Depending on the level of the course
it might be appropriate to raise questions of personhood and to talk about using precise language, connecting
this issue to abortion as you do above (but I would avoid using the term children).
In short, I do think that students have a right to know the churchs official teaching and the rationale and
history behind that teaching, as well as critical perspectives of that teaching when age-appropriate and
sensitively addressed.
A larger issue I see, if we as a Church focus too much on weeding out the people who do not believe/obey
church teaching is that we will come to a point where some people will say that students who were created
through IVF should not be enrolled in Catholic schools. To me it seems ridiculous, but yet plausible. What do
you think?
Log in to Reply
Meghan Clark / June 19, 2013
I want to second Emilys point that the circumstances surrounding a particular teachers pregnancy (or any
health related matter, which is not a contagious infectious disease) is not the business of the students.
Furthermore, in teaching Church teaching one must also be very careful in how one presents church
teaching on IVF.as it is very likely that you have children in the room who either themselves or other
members of their family may have been conceived via IVF. As Emily emphasizes, we cannot lose sight of the
dignity of the persons involved.
Log in to Reply
morrowmc / June 19, 2013
Thanks for that post, Emily! It brought to mind my brother, who has a Masters in Liturgical Music but has
not sought employment in a Catholic church because he saw this unfair firing happen over and over again to
his friends and was afraid it would happen to him on account of his sexual orientation. Hes now very happy
directing a non-profit (though not making much use of that Masters degree!). Though personally I feel his
musical ability a great loss to the church, I have to say that I do admire him for standing for what he believes.
He doesnt think being actively gay is a sin, and he wont participate in a church whose official teaching is
that homosexual acts are sinful. He knows what he thinks, and he knows what the official church stance is.
And because of that hes sought employment outside the church.
Carie Charlesworths case is obviously extremely problematic. But I echo Davids comment in regard to the
difference between being a sinner and being opposed to church teaching. In some of the other cases above, it
doesnt seem that people are being fired for being sinful according to church teaching. Its more that they
dont view their acts (IVF, homosexual acts) as sinful. And while I dont think church institutions should just
up and fire people with no notice (which, as mentioned above, is very common in parish settings, at least for
my brothers friends in liturgical music), I do think that when people seek employment at a Catholic
institution especially a school they should understand that the administration wants teachers who can be
positive witnesses to the faith and the official church positions on moral matters (at this point in time the
most countercultural among these may happen to be sexual morality). If they cant abide by that, and they
dont intend to and they know it, they might seek employment elsewhere.

Many parents send their children to Catholic schools specifically to avoid the public school secularism that
teaches the opposite of the Church on all these sexual matters. They dont want their kids getting free
condoms at school or being taught that homosexuality is normative. There should be some way to be tolerant
of these parents views and sympathetic of their desire to have the premier role models (the teachers) in the
school witness the faith, including the ever-unpopular sexual morality. I personally dont buy the braindrain argument (which dates back to at least the 60s in US Catholicism), but I do think that if Catholic
schools want to sacrifice teaching ability for witnessing ability, they should be able to make that decision
(again, as David said, at the local discernment level not as some kind of official position). Parents can then
make the decision as to whether the school is suitable in terms of academic excellence or whether the parents
are willing to sacrifice academic excellence for the assurance that their children wont be confronted with
role models opposed to church teaching in both theory and practice.
Log in to Reply
EDavidson / June 19, 2013
Thank you for this post. I have enjoyed many of your other posts, but I think the problems presented by these
cases are, as David Cloutier points out, more complicated that you present them on many levels. I would first
observe, as you do, how sad it is that the emphasis on sexual morality inevitably becomes a disproportionate
practical burden to women. And so it goes
That said, to point to the problems in the Church hierarchy right now is a cheap move, as a matter of fair
reasoning: it is a problem, but of course, two wrongs dont make a right, as you will know better than I, since
you are a moral theologian. (In fact, it arguably makes it harder for laypeople to call the hierarchy to justice
and transparency, if we use their sins as a justification for our own.) Here, however, is one problem I suspect:
canon law places a binding obligation upon the Church to support until death any who are ordained. The
question of firing a powerful, problem priest is a more complex one of where does one put him? and what
measures are permissible for correction given the protections offered to the clergy by canon law. I wonder if
the way that laypeople have come to fill so many roles formerly staffed by clergy and religious (in turn,
subject to their community superior), creates new problems and tensions as regards the possibilities of
ensuring a certain conformity. It may also be the case that canon law will have to expand to include
protection for the many laypeople who staff their institutions.
This list of cases you include are different in important ways as well, I would note. In at least two cases, the
decision was made to publicly affirm and announce same-sex relationships. It seems to me that the actions of
local ordinaries are more to be expected. But leaving aside the hot button nature of the same-sex issues,
here, too, you are disingenuous by pleading how perfect must we all be? It is one thing to be imperfect, as
obviously we all are, and another thing to know a particular position, one that is particularly controversial,
held very publicly by the Church, and say I dont think so. Then, too, you have to admit that teachers may
not be ministers, but they hold remarkable authority at all levels. (This leaves aside the many legal
questions of a non-Catholic employee, what constitutes a ministerial employee, and so on a mess, to be
sure!) That said, while I am wary of putting too much weight upon will or intention, clearly the cases you list
here admit great variation on the part of the motivations of those acted against.
A last thought, following upon this point: I think a previous response asked the great question of how we
define the Church. And you have to admit, this is really difficult in these cases. What constitutes legitimate,
legally binding, forms of ecclesial community? How does employment locate a person in a community? I
dont know. Back in ye good olde days, the issue of scandal was easier to conceptualize, because penance
had a public dimension: it really was about the community. I think we are all glad that people are not cast out
from parishes when someone commits a grave sin, and publicly reconciled after, say, a year of serious
penance. But now that the moral life is adjudicated privately, internally, as a matter of sensed need, and the
expectation of confession would never be enforced even with the most pastoral and discrete intentions: does
this mean that the community, imperfect by nature as it is, has no way at all to speak as a community about
sin? I can imagine an employee spoken to, and told why the Church thinks x is gravely bad for the soul, for

society, in which case the nature of the response might determine the course of action for an institution
which should first be concerned with the well-being of souls, and then with the common good of the whole.
That is all to say, it is weak argumentatively to only say that we are all sinners how dare we judge! At the
same time, I would observe again that, in a time of rapid change in America viz. Catholic identity, these
matters are complicated. We are likely to see a lot of talk from Bishops about contracts, more legalistic
language, and all sorts of institutions rushing about to protect themselves legally through greater specificity.
But we are all to be blamed for our litigious culture.
No, I dont just want the best teacher for my students: I want the best person as Plato says, such is
always the best leader. I would not know how to go about determining the best person, from among many,
but in an academic market over-flooded with good people, and Ed. departments hardly able to find jobs for
their new B.Eds, it is not ridiculous for all levels of educational institutions to hire for mission.
Finally, many evangelical institutions, even very mainstream ones like Calvin College, have a great many
expectations of their employees, including regular attendance at Christian Reformed worship. Is this policed
by the institution? more likely by the community. Is there are lot of fudging? Are some behaviors, when kept
private and quiet, that are just not talked about? You bet. Maybe this raises the specter of dont ask, dont
tell, but in truth a little bit of gray, a little casuistry, co-existing with a strong sense of the right of a particular
community or tradition to adjudicate itself, kinda works and indeed, may work better than the Catholic
route which, when faced with the prospect of litigation argued on the basis of personal freedom, may simply
generate more complex contracts and rules and chill for employees at Catholic institutions.
Log in to Reply
Emily Reimer-Barry / June 20, 2013
David C, thanks so much for your response. I find your distinctions very helpful, and I think it would be
good to treat the multiple layers separately when possible. Another distinction that I would want to make has
to do with what I consider contested claims in moral theology as separate from core issues of the faith.
One of the problems I see in the diocesan documents I reviewed was that all authoritative teachings are
lumped together without any sense of the relative weight of different teachings, the churchs tradition of
prudential application, and/or the churchs tradition of conscience.
On your point about it not making sense to a student when the teacher does not believe what s/he is teaching,
I think this depends. I think that a good teacher can model respectful engagement with the tradition, an
understanding that learning is a process and that one needs to continually be open to learning no matter ones
age, and a deep appreciation and love for the church even when one may disagree (and I dont think it is
always wise to honestly share points of disagreement with students). Much depends not just on the material
covered but how the material is covered and how it is presented. If one ridicules the pope and dismisses
magisterial teaching as irrelevant, that is definitely a problem.
On your final point, about subsidiarity, I think this definitely has merit. But the consolidation of power with
the bishop and the way that diocesan decisions are made for everyone (for example, the Office of Schools in
the Diocese of San Diego and their mandated forms cited above) makes your suggestion unworkable at
least in the present context. But in principle I think it is appropriate for lets say a Jesuit high school to have
a different interpretation of their Catholic mission than a Brothers of the Sacred Heart high school (to use my
husbands and my own experiences as examples). I think this is what often happens at the college level too.
But the tricky part is how to defend that identity when one must negotiate contested personell issues with the
diocese.
One last thing- you say there must be a judgment of gravity so that we dont just fall back on the we are all
sinners argument and say anything goes. I quite agree. There is much work left to be done on that piece. My
only contribution so far is to say that part of what must be considered is whether the offensive action had
anything to do with the persons job, and in these cases above I do not see the connection.
Phil, I agree that part of the underlying issue we need to more fully address is the ecclesial one.

Thanks, all very fruitful discussion. And thank you to everyone who has emailed me. I know that many are
not comfortable chiming in to the comments box, especially if you find yourself in a vulnerable position like
the ones Ive described. My thoughts and prayers with you all.
Log in to Reply
paccer / June 20, 2013
Emily Reimer-Barry,
By my count you showed sensitivity to those adults considering IVF in six different ways. And to children
learning about IVF you showed sensitivity in four different ways. But to the victims you showed nothing at
all (except for: I would avoid using the term children', and perhaps raise questions of personhood).
I will stick to the preference for the poor.
Log in to Reply
bill bannon / June 20, 2013
Carie Charlesworths case is for me the most ironic. She had the relatively bigger family urged by
conservatives in the Church and was nevertheless sent into poverty by firing, by the Church perhaps because
to hire an armed security guard from an agency for the school on a temporary basis is theologically incorrect
and thus image incorrect since pacifism reigns supreme since the latter years of John Paul II. The Amish
would not protect her with a gun eitherbut theyd shelter and feed her. We do neither.
The one financial support web site I visited could be real, could be a scam ( another woman named as
beneficiary?). Her lawyers should set one up. Her children just learned to leave the Church in my view as
will other children who knew them and who slowly ruminate that the Church may not have their back if it
costs Her and if the danger to them is very real.
Log in to Reply
William Collinge / June 20, 2013
News this morning indicates that Carrie Charlesworth has been offered a job in Los Angeles:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2013/06/update-teacher-fired-over-abusive-husband-offerednew-job/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Catholic
%206.20.13%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=41845353&spUserID=NDEwMTQ5ODE0NTQS1&spJo
bID=191970493&spReportId=MTkxOTcwNDkzS0
Log in to Reply
H08590 / June 20, 2013
I have a couple of points. First, the title of this article is, How To Be Fired From Your Job at a Catholic
Institution. Yet pretty much we have been talking about Catholic Schools. What about other Catholic
institutions. What about the staff who worked in, or had privileges at our local St. Joseph Hospital. What if
we tried to fire every doctor
who requested maternity leave but was not married;
practiced birth control; or
lived with a domestic partner in a quasi-spousal relationship?
I use Doctor because that is definitely a different pay grade than an elementary school teacher, but what if
we scrutinized all the staff at the local Catholic Charities?
The bishops, with their objections are clearly claiming that our Catholic hospitals are Catholic institutions.
And if this is the case, then why doesnt this apply to Doctors:
The Church needs the service of dedicated lay persons who have a clear knowledge and proper
understanding of the teachings of the Church with a firm adherence to those teachings, and whose words and
deeds are in conformity with the Gospel. Those employed by the Church in our parishes, Catholic schools

and other institutions, as co-workers in the vineyard of the Lord, are rightly expected to be practicing
Catholics whose faith is an essential part of their daily lives, .
Does this change our discussion about the need for quality staff?
My second point pertains to Emilys comment, I know that many are not comfortable chiming in to the
comments box, especially if you find yourself in a vulnerable position like the ones Ive described. My wife
is in a vulnerable position and could not respond here or talk about these things publicly. She sometimes
feels that she is a coward most of the time because she doesnt speak up more. I want to say my wife, and
those who emailed Emily are not cowards. We do what we can do. Perhaps someday though, Catholic lay
people wont allow themselves to be bullied because they buy into the notion that truth of God =hierarchy of
church.
Log in to Reply
Stephen Ott / June 20, 2013
Emily,
Thank you for this post. Many of the respondents point out interesting and clarifying details, but I believe
one of your salient and undeniable points is that the Church picks and chooses these wedge issues usually
along very specific lines.
Would we need to terminate the Bishop with the DUI? Maybe not, but would a real leader stand up to his
diocese, admit he was wrong and ask to be let go to attend rehab if needed, to live those other moral points
that seem so rarely to be emphasized in the RC Churchs public life?
Not too long ago, a gay man was killed here in NYC. I dreamt of plastering posters with The Dignity of the
Human Person on the front of every RC Church and having Catholics rally along with others in the gay
community, not to say we suddenly have changed our moral stripes on sexual teaching, but to express what
we do believe in a true, consistent manner that comes to the aid of those who are in need. Isnt failing to do
so giving into a culture of death?
How can we act to pressure the Bishops to act more consistently in these matters?
Log in to Reply
Chris Sullivan / June 20, 2013
I think Stephen makes an important point about consistency.
I havent heard of the Church ever firing anyone who supported the death penalty, or the invasion of Iraq, or
opposed trade unions or a Just Wage, or took any actions against Church teaching in those areas.
There is an apparent hypocrisy here in the primacy given to sexual morality and the silence on other
important matters of Catholic teaching.
God Bless
Log in to Reply
Rick Rosio / August 2, 2013
Well allow me this thought I sit with Jesuit priests and brothers and discuss the role of the Catholic Church
in our lives.. How best to represent the faithful to the religious so they can understand we are all brothers and
sisters in Christ..yet their policies that are troubling at best in a compassionate and informed society has
led to great division within the body of the church. How can any institution that is charged with education of
both the mind and the spirit display such distasteful conduct with one of its beloved educators when they
now are able to legally honour their committed relationship. There are parts of our church that shine brightly
as compassion for the poor and suffering are cared for by the religious communities in cities across the
world, yet there is still this ability to overlook church doctrine that has questionable credibility in our
societies today. His Holiness said who am I to judgeyet your rendering of this decision to remove this
educator for simply being honest and respectful of his legal relationship is anything but within the
teachings of Christ and shame upon those PIOUS FOLK that sat in judgement of this man