Columbus Catholic teachers must sign agreements

SF Gate ^ | June 5, 2014 | SF Gate

[Bigg Red]

+1

[txrefugee]

This is totally acceptable. Until recently, no one would have expected churches to employ those who lived in open sin. The government has no say in whom the church can employ.

[Jacquerie]

It wasn't that long ago when such formal rules weren't necessary for any teachers, public or private.

[kaehurowing]

Works for me.

[smalltownslick]

I don’t understand the problem with this. You want to work for a Catholic school, you agree to Catholic norms. What else is there to say? And if you won’t agree to them, but still want to work there, then your only reason for doing so is to challenge the status quo.

[fwdude]

I’m not a Catholic, in fact, I oppose most Catholic teaching, but kudos to them for standing for principle here!

[MikeyB806]

I don’t imagine many will be able to comply with the behavioral restrictions; but that is not the point. What this does is make sure that private behavior remains private. There have been Catholics engaging in same-sex sodomy throughout history, but since it is forbidden by the Church, they don’t tell anyone about it.

Lawrence v Texas was the case that destroyed the secular means for keeping private sexual behavior private. In that case, SCOTUS did not understand that when one legalizes so-called private behavior, it has made it public. Sodomy needs to be made illegal again: it won’t stop anyone from participating in it, but it will sure stop people from talking about it and promoting it.